Well, I'd expect it, but it won't be from me. I save my 'negatives' for troublemakers or the inexcusably deluded, not the reflective.

Fetzer makes a couple of excellent points--the bedrock"bath tub" construction, the energy deficit. But it's bad science to leap from energy deficit to "energy weapons".

Using Occam's razor, the simpest explanation for the energy deficit would be a mechanizm that caused simultaneous structural failure-- and at this point the best model is CD.

Having said that, there are many features of the collapse of WTC 1&2 that are not consistant with CD--the upward explosions, the pools of moltel metal, among others. There is definately something more going on, but I think it can still be explained in terms of a non-standard CD. WTC 7, on the other hand, was a classic CD, straight from the book.

I do wonder what Fetzer is hoping to accomplish. As a person who's interested in tesla coils and high frequency hobbies, I know better than to confuse people with the very strange that technology has to offer when they're having a hard enough time with the basics. Fetzer's not very savvy or he'd understand presenting these possibilituiies in this context, without documentation to back them up, is a liability to the truth movement.

for damn certain is that a plane of some sort in combination with what was clearly a low heat short duration fire DID NOT in anyway cause those buildings to collapse at near freefall speed.

THAT hypothesis is impossible and doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it.

Even IF it is possible for any energy beam, particle beam or whatever beam to have done or "helped" this to happen, unless there is a way to Scientifically prove it then it is best to leave it in the fringe.

We KNOW that explosives were used because many loud explosions were heard, felt, and recorded on seismographs.
The CD hypothesis fits ALL of what we know happened, answers most all of the questions concerning collapse & why or how 1150 bodies vaporized and 1700+ others were blown into 20,000+ tiny little fragments, many of which were found on buildings "Across the street several hundred feet away".
So whether or not any beams of any kind were used in "conjunction" with explosives is really moot and does nothing but taint the provable evidence unless there is a way to scientifically prove such a hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_effect

Yep. And given all that I wonder what he"s trying to accomplish.

Wood and Reynolds are clowns. The way they back up their "theories" with selected lo-res photos is just the beginning. Nobody likes being taken for a fool, which is what these attempts are, IMO. It was very disappointing to find out that Fetzer, with whom I had previously corresponded and whom I believed perhaps wishfully to be an honest person, came out in support of this obvious nonsense.

Let me say what I believe brought down the towers. I believe that it was a combination of high power explosives like RDX combined with thermite/thermate based cutter charges used to cut certain columns. The exact method is not as important as the obvious intent, which was to create the illusion that the planes' impacts and resulting fires were the sole cause of collapse. This was entirely premeditated. If you watch 9/11 Mysteries, you'll see a shill on the streets of NYC explaining to a reporter what he witnessed. He says "then the towers collapsed, obviously due to structural failure since the fires were so intense". Huh? How did this doofus wearing a Harley Davidson tshirt and matching cap come to that incorrect conclusion so quickly, and with such similarity to the government's eventual BS?

That's why it's not entirely accurate to call the towers, as opposed to Building 7, an actual controlled demolition (as so many shills like to point out) the truth is that it WAS controlled, but not for the purpose of avoiding damage to surrounding buildings as in the case of WTC 7. It was controlled in order to create an illusion of the responsibility of the planes for the collapse. Since that illusion did not represent anything that could actually happen, it was not even necessary to have it be accurate--just to SEEM like what happened. Assuming no one started to question elements like the molten steel, pulverized concrete, speed of collapse, and explosive projection of the debris.

There is no need to bring space beams into this, but it seems to fit the shills' MO. Take some weird looking pictures and create a myth around them, hoping to fool enough people to give the movement a bad name. First it was "melting planes", i.e. how did the plane go so smoothly into the south tower. They use pseudo scientific reasoning claiming that the plane was frail compared to the building. Then they discredit their own "hypothesis" by showing that a bird can embed itself into the edge of a planes wing on impact. By their own logic, the bird which is not as strong as a plane wing would not pierce the wing like the plane pierced the building, but in their photos that's what they show. A bird making a hole in a wing. Just as a plane made a hole in a building because of it's shape, mass, and speed.

Fast forward to space beams and now we have a picture of one of the smaller WTC buildings with a big round hole in the middle. OOOOOO it's round! Just like a "space beam!" Who hasn't seen Real Genius, after all? The movie where Val Kilmer is a student tricked into working on a space based laser for the government. Always use movie-logic, since that's what most Americans use to model reality--that and TV. So what other explanation for the round hole? Well, truth bad boy Eric Hufschmid has one, but of course he's a holocaust denying moon landing hoaxing buffoon right? Well, not exactly but that's not the point anyway. His book Painful Questions includes the idea that the hole was blown out of that particular building in order to allow for pressure to escape during the tower collapse so that it wouldn't cause the bathtub to blow itslef apart, since the tumbling hot gassy debris would find a conduit through which to escape. Of course the bathtub was still damaged, but remarkably it did not fail and flood the area.

So yeah, anyone as allegedly smart as Fetzer should know better than he seems to.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

I'd love to setup such a site. I believe that my past comments with regards to 9/11 Blogger have been proven valid. Even Scholars for 911 Truth has been a wasteland of unsupportable "ideas". 9/11 Truth needs to become a formal organization unto itself that promotes reasoned questions and concerns about 9/11. This free for all is a nice idea and has its place, but again I say that it has the power to become much more. Who owns the www.911blogger.com domain? Perhaps we can transform 911Blogger.com into a more formal blog and have a link to the open blog (call it 911OpenForum.com). But something needs to be done so that new research ideas and disinformation is at least 1 additional click removed from research with established evidence.

To clarify, I'm not calling for censorship. But I am calling for a delineation between mature ideas such as CD and less matured ideas such as StarWars beams and No-Planes. How can one tell the difference? Who makes the choices? Well, I believe that people like Real Truther have shown their ability to be open, yet intelligent. Theories like CD explain/account for what is seen. StarWars and No-Plane theories do not account for what is seen - at least not yet. That does not mean that someday there might not be more supportive evidence for these theories. But at this point they are not supported by a reasonable body of evidence.

Comments?

I think what we're dancing around here is--is it possible to present a united front in a forum that is open or not? I think not, because there will always be disinfo. Question is, will 911blogger change, or will new fora, and new formats rise up around it to fill the need for a diverse movement that includes not just a diversity of views on each forum but more importantly a diversity of views that are nonetheless focused on one particular paradigm or another.

Let's not forget--this is not civil society--we do not have rights when it comes to the free marketplace of ideas. It is, as it should be, cutthroat. This includes times when, like the authors of the declaration of independence, a group finds it necessary to break away and do its own thing.

None of this should be considered a value judgement on this site--just a frank observation of reality. Surely there are limits to what can be tolerated on any forum. We do not, for example, ever want to tolerate calls for violence (I hope). The question the becomes one of judgement. Who is to judge what constitutes convincing and sound arguments and what might well be deliberate disinformation? And can any forum that does not allow for that distinction to be made remain relevant for long?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force