• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

I'll try rephrasing the question for the sixth time to Dr. Greening, and about the 3rd or 4th time this thread:

Given that fires can emit smoke of any color - black, green, purple, or beige - depending on the fuel burning; and given that the fires were emiting thick black smoke in all three of the buildings; why then would the fuel mixture change so abruptly, so completely and so consistantly so as to produce bluish white smoke from all the rubble?
 
And I will try rephrasing my question for TruthSeeker1234 for the 3rd time. In your photographic evidence, would you say that the machinery, people, and buildings in the background are lower than, at the same elevation, or higher than the people in the foreground?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'll try rephrasing the question for the sixth time to Dr. Greening, and about the 3rd or 4th time this thread:

Given that fires can emit smoke of any color - black, green, purple, or beige - depending on the fuel burning; and given that the fires were emiting thick black smoke in all three of the buildings; why then would the fuel mixture change so abruptly, so completely and so consistantly so as to produce bluish white smoke from all the rubble?
Click to expand...
Why are you waiting for Frank Greening to tell you this? Do you mean you're incapable of finding out why smoldering fires tend to produce lighter smoke than fast-burning fires?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'll try rephrasing the question for the sixth time to Dr. Greening, and about the 3rd or 4th time this thread:

Given that fires can emit smoke of any color - black, green, purple, or beige - depending on the fuel burning; and given that the fires were emiting thick black smoke in all three of the buildings; why then would the fuel mixture change so abruptly, so completely and so consistantly so as to produce bluish white smoke from all the rubble?
Click to expand...

Because the building is evaporating! duh! Geez, I thought you knew these things.
 
JamesB said:
Fetzer has some sort of disassociation from reality, in his religious fervor. One example is last summer when I heard he was speculating that a 767 tanker was crashed into the WTC, I e-mailed him, explaining that the first 767 tanker (designated a KC-767) was not built until 2005, and then only for the Italian Air Force. The US military has never purchased a single one, they were planning to but it was cancelled due to a very public bribery scandal.

I explained all this to him, and sent him several articles on the issue. This is all rather public, and not controversial at all. This isn't some secret weapons program, the 767 assembly line is only a half hour from my house, and the plant gets over 100,000 visitors per year.

Fetzer replied that this information was probably faked, and that I was an idiot if I believed the US Air Force does not have refueling tankers.

To which I replied, yes, they have refueling tankers, the 4 engine KC-135, and the 3-engine, KC-10, none of which could be easily mistaken for a 2 engine 767.

Regardless, to this day Fetzer still insists it could have been a 767 tanker.
Click to expand...


ARGGHHHH!!!! I just watched part one of the debate, and what does he argue, "that in all probability" it was a 767 tanker.

This man is hopeless.

:jaw-dropp
 
You're right, JamesB.

It seems that with this condition, there is so much short-circuiting going on that they feed upon it. Each time the brain ZIPs back to the start, they gain new (false) confirmation of their theories. Each ZIP is a validation: their brain ZIPs, therefore that tells them they are right, and they gain new strength.

It's circular reasoning; like an increasingly vicious circle or ouroboros.
 
JamesB said:
ARGGHHHH!!!! I just watched part one of the debate, and what does he argue, "that in all probability" it was a 767 tanker.

This man is hopeless.

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...



Not only that, he argues it was to produce a more spectacular explosion, despite the fact that NIST did an analysis of the UA175 fireball and calculated how much fuel it actually used up - and it was only a small part of UA175's estimated fuel load at the time of impact.

-Gumboot
 
defaultdotxbe said:
thats nowhere near hyperinflation, read up on what happened in germany after ww1 (they printed more money to pay reparations, didnt work out too well)
Click to expand...

True; if hyperinflation were in effect, we would (no exaggeration) be paying a billion dollars for a happy meal from McDonald's. I think most people would have noticed that.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'll try rephrasing the question for the sixth time to Dr. Greening, and about the 3rd or 4th time this thread:

Given that fires can emit smoke of any color - black, green, purple, or beige - depending on the fuel burning; and given that the fires were emiting thick black smoke in all three of the buildings; why then would the fuel mixture change so abruptly, so completely and so consistantly so as to produce bluish white smoke from all the rubble?
Click to expand...

WTH? Did the Crayola crayon factory burn down? :jaw-dropp

Take your computer and monitor out in the back yard and set it alight.

Do the same with some evergreen branches. Heck set the whole garage on fire if you have to. Get back to us with the colors of the smoke.


**Disclamier: I am not responsible for any damages.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Would you like to see a video of a laser weapon taking out a target?
Click to expand...

I see it daily on Star Trek reruns!

spaceweapon.jpg
 
aggle-rithm said:
True; if hyperinflation were in effect, we would (no exaggeration) be paying a billion dollars for a happy meal from McDonald's. I think most people would have noticed that.
Click to expand...

When I was in Bosnia I bought a Serb 50 billion dinar note. Now that is hyperinflation.
 
Things that can change the color of a computer image, or contents within it.

1. Monitor contrast.
2. Monitor brightness
3. Monitor color temp
4. Monitor hue adjustment
5. Distance or angle from Monitor
6. Type of capturing device that took original images vary between images.
7. Weather conditions on day of photo/video
8. amount of sunlight in photos
9. amount of exposure wrt camera

For smoke:

10. Material(s) burning
11. Amount of Oxygen present
12. Concentration of smoke
13. Light penetration through smoke

I am sure there are more variables

TAM:)
 
An experiment. (I suggest that you don't actually do this)

Take a metal tray, about half a metre or two feet across, and pour some aviation fuel (or deisel) into it and light it. Ok you can't do this with a match, where I used to work we would put some heptane on the surface of the fuel oil, but you could use petrol. This is best done in the middle of a field (perhaps I should have said that sooner). When you have succeded in igniting the fuel oil it will burn strongly, giving off clouds of black smoke. The point of this is that a fire with free access for oxygen can give off copious quantities of black smoke.

Now to address smoke colour further.

Question - What is smoke?
Simple Answer - Particulate matter (soot).

Now, if we have a fire burning under a rubble pile the smoke has to percolate up through said rubble pile. It does not seem unreasonable to me that in the process of percolating through the rubble that quite a bit of that soot will be deposited on/in the rubble.

Just a thought on that lack of black smoke.

Dave
 
Alt+F4 said:
I see it daily on Star Trek reruns!
Click to expand...
But those are phasers, not lasers! :D

T.A.M. said:
Things that can change the color of a computer image, or contents within it.

1. Monitor contrast.
2. Monitor brightness
3. Monitor color temp
4. Monitor hue adjustment
5. Distance or angle from Monitor
Click to expand...
Anyone who's worked in colour correcting images for the publishing/printing industry will definitely attest to the above mentioned items on your list. And even with all the most exquisite calibration of the monitor, the colour seen onscreen will still be slightly different from that of a printed result due to the entirely different colour models at work (RGB on monitors and CMYK for colour printers and presses).
 
T.A.M. said:
Things that can change the color of a computer image, or contents within it.

1. Monitor contrast.
2. Monitor brightness
3. Monitor color temp
4. Monitor hue adjustment
5. Distance or angle from Monitor
Click to expand...

Next you'll be telling me that you can't do a spectral-analysis on video taped evidence (Hmmm, we really need a talk to the hand smilie)
 
Well, since TS1234 has made it quite clear that he will not or cannot address the questions regarding steel estimates from photgraphic analysis, I would have to agree that chipmunk stew was right.

chipmunk stew said:
4) ZIP! -> Assumption -> Assumption -> Assumption -> Assumption -> He*ZIP!*ct -> Assumption -> etc.
Click to expand...


Since it appears that you cannot argue with people like this on a fact/evidence basis, all that is left is to argue from an assumption basis.

"I'll see your two assumptions and raise you one working hypothesis!"
 
PhantomWolf said:
Next you'll be telling me that you can't do a spectral-analysis on video taped evidence (Hmmm, we really need a talk to the hand smilie)
Click to expand...

Well maybe if you put your hand on your thrown out hip, wag your finger at me, than throw up your hand, I'll "Feel" your "talk to the hand" right through cyberspace...lol You know what you can do...spectral analyze my...

TAM;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom