Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"

Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood continue to promote the magical 'dustification' of large amounts of steel in the towers even though no significant amount of steel dust was found in dust samples (see paper referenced below for details). They both promote a video clip from '911 eyewitness' which, they say, proves that the steel core spires from the North Tower turn to dust. However, multiple camera angles clearly show the spires merely falling. Either Dr. Fetzer's analytical abilities are inept or his motives are unprinicipled since he was aware of the other video perspectives in early December, 2006.

Run time is 3.5 minutes:

Paper Link:

Google video compression makes the images slightly obscure, so make sure to check out the original video links from reference #41 in the above article:




Scholars for 9/11 Truth

The members need to come together and form a new "headless" group where no single member can be so damaging. Jim is a poison pill. Better now than later.

-Justin Keogh

Show "If the Steel did not turn to dust, then **where** is it???" by CB_Brooklyn

funny stuff

I think you should probably get used to the fact that Dr Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Woods, Nico Haupt and Rick Siegel will have their "research" publicly discussed, examined, debunked and dismissed by the public.

Disinformation: By Jim Fetzer

Fifth Type of Disinformation:

by Jim Fetzer

“The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating--usually by writing--entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”


[Brian Vasquez] “So, I decided to contact Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book “Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace” and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron

Judy wrote, “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.


Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org. Thank you.

Jim [Fetzer]

Just a few months later, in December, Judy published a new paper named “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html) and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around…. Judy [Wood] wrote,

“The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

“We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.”

Does one believe in the work of a known liar?

I've got examples for all of the "5 types of disinformation"... This example posted by Jenkins is just one in a gold mine of examples.

In fact I propose that there are 6 types of disinformation. The sixth level is my own definition: theories that are unable to be tested are non-falsifiable. These theories can never be tested, therefore we can never find out if they are true. It is therefore misleading to present them as if they can explain what happened because they can never be proven.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

so where are you located?

i can always use one more talking head for my film

Who, exactly, is the straw man?

Is Judy Wood really a man, and is he/she now made of straw?

It was not me that stated that “the debris shot up into the upper atmosphere, and I am using this picture to emphasize my point”, a proclaimed “favorite picture” ripped directly from her website and highlighted in a letter publication here regarding the Judy Wood interview:

I vividly illustrate the ridiculousness of the idea that, as represented in the photograph, debris “shot up into the upper atmosphere” during the collapse. I gather from your post that you don’t agree with Judy Wood’s assertion! I am glad we have found common ground.

I never argued that there was no dust generated from the collapse. There was a lot of concrete, glass fibers, asbestos, wall board, office furniture, etc. which was pulverized, some of which was fine dust as stated by all the dust samples from a variety of sources. However, if steel was turned to dust by *any* method, there should have been massive amounts of iron in the dust. USGS sampled the dust at many locations around the WTC site. The chemical analysis reveals only a 2% iron content on average. Structural steel is composed of over 98% iron.

In the upper 110 floors of the towers, steel composed about 80% of the building by weight compared to that of concrete. If an appreciable amount of steel was dissociated, iron should have appeared in the dust in roughly the same percentage. Instead, it was only 2%, a reasonable number considering the iron content of the concrete aggregate and gypsum wall boards.

Bulk concrete and wallboard collected near ground zero obtained from Janette MacKinlay contained 3.2% and .33% by weight, respectively, so the average is in good agreement with the samples from USGS [Steven Jones, “Comparison of elemental concentrations observed in WTC dust, concrete and wallboard samples”, To be published in Journal of 9/11 Studies].

There is no direct evidence that a significant amount of steel was vaporized or “dustified”, only speculation which is left entirely unsupported.

The Lioy study, which you quote in your post, clearly shows that well over 50% of the sample was NOT fine dust but was over 53 microns in size, thus supporting the claim that the average size of particles in the dust is >53 microns. Again, I thank you for supporting my argument, and I reference this study in my paper.

The UCDavis study is very interesting. They argue that the debris temperatures of the smoldering debris piles were much hotter than expected in order to aerosolize some of the elements and molecules found in elevated quatities in the air samples. This is important, but certainly does not argue in favor of DEW’s. There are a variety of mechanisms which could explain the hot debris pile, including chemical reactions from thermate. In particular, they find large amounts of vanadium, SiO2, and lead at extreme elevated levels. They don’t argue that unreasonably massive amount of iron were found in the aerosolized particle samples, especially any appreciable fraction of the total amount of iron in the buildings. If I am misinterpreting the data, please let me know. Otherwise, I conclude that the UCDavis study definitely does not support the DEW hypothesis.

Lastly, Jim Hoffman has explicitly rejected the DEW hypothesis. The link with his statement of rejection as well as a few cursory reasons are listed:

What was the size distribution

of particles in the Davis study? What I mean is, how does it compare to Loiy's finding that over half of the particles were greater than 53 microns?

Aerosols is the key word....

The UCDavis study only looked at air-born aerosols.... basically, suck alot of air through filter paper and analyze the chemical composition of what is left behind. If memory serves, the sampling station was something 1.8 km north east of GZ. So we are talking about particles that are practically in colloidal suspension in air, so they look at the small particles. So to directly answer your question, the can not be really compared as far as 'average' particle size. However, the data is still well worth taking a closer look.

The distribution of particles sizes and other info is in ppt download here:

I am going to narrow the focus of the discussion, because there is alot of interesting things associated with the UCDavis group study. I don't fully understand all of their results which will require further time --- basically, I need their paper. I have not yet gone to the library to grab the actual publication, but instead have been relying on their webpage publication with some graphs. I do plan on checking more into it in the near future, though, and will dig the paper out of the archives. However, I do understand some pertinent results for this particular discussion.

First, go to slide #16. You will see particle distributions for 'minerals'. It is low for the very fine particles, but begins ramping up as the particle sizes increase. The graph stops at about 12 um since this is an aerosol study, and that is as large as their machine would sample. Iron and amost all the materials in concrete would be lumped into the 'minerals' graph.

Next, go to slide #22. Look at the "Fe" (iron) value in red --- above the red bar you will see 39 ng/m^3. The title of the graph says .26>Dp>.09 um, which is the range of particle samples that are graphed. That is, there is only 39 x 10^-9 grams in every m^3 of air volume of iron in the range of .26 to .09 um. This isn't much mass. There is no way this is going to sum up to be a significant percentage of the iron in the towers. I have not crunched the numbers, so I certainly welcome a post where someone does do it! I'll tell you how to do it...... or at least how i would approach the problem.

Estimate the volume of the smoke plume which would fully pass a given vertical plane over the course of a month. This isn't easy, and you are going to have big honkin' error bars, I'm sure. Multiply this volume by 39*10^-9 ng/m^3. This will give the approximate total weight of iron that has been aersolized in the range .26 to .09 um over the entire month of October.

This is not an easy problem to solve and there are alot of things to consider while doing the estimates (wind velocity maps, photograph perspective corrections, etc.), but I think it is solvable if anyone wants to take a crack at it.... I would suggest starting with a reasonable plume cross sectional area estimate, and a reasonable wind velocity estimate. From there, if you are many orders of magnitude too small to account for the mass of the WTC towers, then I would conclude that there is not a significant amount of iron in the aerosol. If the number suggests that it approaches, say, 1 or 10% of the mass of iron in the building, then i would say it is time to start making some serious estimations on the volume of the plume.... Also, you need to factor in that iron was also found outside this range of particle size in the UCDavis study, so figure this into your estimations as well....

Maybe it would be better to work the problem backwards.... assume that, say, 10% of the iron from the towers was actually in the dust plume. Then ask the question, how large would the dust plume have to be with a reasonable estimate of wind velocity. From this you can probably immediately tell if you are in the ballpark. My guess is that the volume will be something comparable or greater than the entire earth's atmopsphere!

Any wagers?

Hope this helps....


In a previous post on an earlier blog you claimed you were leaving 911Blogger - never to return.

Why are you here?

Its seems like your only loyalty is to whatever disinformation meme of the day is being intentionally foisted on this movement. You have consistently fallen on the wrong side of the fence on each and every issue of BLATENT disinformation and disruption that has arisen here. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

Furthermore, your attempts to debate the issues reveals a careless transparency for intellectual dishonesty. When push comes to shove you reveal yourself to be unconcerned with the truth - and real facts - seeking only to stir the pot with felonious and socially aberrant accusations and claims - an agent provocateur for disruption wrapped up in a feigned sense of righteous indignation designed to create the illusion that you are a real flesh and blood activist for truth. Your posts are antisocial and insulting to the intelligence of those who seek social justice for our fallen friends.

Your pursuit of trojan horse logic and discordant themes is obvious. The researchers you support and defend are immoral, iniquitous, disgusting turncoats for truth.

Thousands of family members and walking victims of 9/11 with lingering wounds that will not heal are watching. The whole world in fact is watching. I think you underestimate the TRUE meaning of what DIRECTED ENERGY means. You are attempting to hold back the ocean with a broom - and risk losing yourself in the process. If it were not for the despicable, contemptible, shameful, disgraceful behavior that you represent and defend - i would actually pity you.

So. Do you have anything else you need to say here?

I welcome all serious inquiries...

I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding the collapse mechanisms associated with the Towers. However, after quantitatively thinking about directed energy weapons over the past few weeks, I am convinced that the DEW arguments don't add up. Not even close.

The evidence supporting DEW that has been presented of which I am aware is either blatantly flawed or other more plausible explanations are easily ascribed to phenomena which supposedly support the DEW notions.

I am earnest in my openness to inquiry as well as criticisms of the paper that was just published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. There may be other anomalous phenomena of which I am unaware that was not addressed in the paper, or possible flaws within the paper itself. Try to rip it apart! I encourage it....

So, I return a thank you for your post.

I would like to address one other issue from your post regarding the radius of the debris field from the Towers. It is not really that important in my analysis in the paper, but at the time of the interview was rather important to me.

Yes, you can have dust spread all over the place. However, no matter what type of distribution you choose (that is, a guassian, exponential, constant distribution) you can always define a radius of the debris field. Granted, you have to define what it is you are talking about --- usually it is, for instance, 1 or 2 standard deviation for a guassian distribution, or 1/e point for an exponential distribution, etc... However, just because dust was spread out beyond a defined radius does not mean it constituted an appreciable amount of mass from the buildings. Most of the debris was contained within a certain radius, and a *conservatively small* estimate is that most of the debris was within a radius defining an area of 6 times the footprint of the WTC towers.

In the interview, the only reason I bring up the radius of the collapse was to show, in contrast to the kingdome, that the towers did not collapse into their own footprints by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, you have to scale the debris height you would expect by how much the debris was spread out. For instance, *if* the debris was spread out over 6 times it's footprint, how high would the debris stack up (~2 stories, see my paper reference #21). This assumes that NO dust or steel was outside this radius. The more it is spread out, the less this number will be. This height is not all that large. Stated in this manner, sublevel collapses seem like a plausible way to account for the 'missing' debris. Note that I do a more thorough calculation in my paper which does not directly relate to defining radii of collapses, but at the time of the interview it was what I was thinking.

I could not make this simple point since Dr. Wood could not remember her own research and could not speak coherently about it and, in fact, she would not even admit that any debris hit the ground! Imagine my surprise.....

I hope this clarifies the point.

I voted your first comment

I voted your first comment up.

I voted you complaining about being voted down down.

I voted your suggestion that you were voted down because the Pentagon wants it down too.

Ever think that maybe some just find you highly annoying? Anytime I see anyone complain about being voted down I vote them down more.

I think most believe you are the one with the agenda here.

My answer is Yes...

I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass what anyone says on blogs...... or bars..... etc.. However, when promoting these things in a very public way as if they are well founded is an entirely different issue. This is exactly what Dr. Fetzer does, and it is measurably harmful to the Truth movement in a variety of ways. When publicly interfacing with the public at large, you put your best foot forward, NOT your bare back-side. *This* is the problem. No one has a problem with discussion, it is when highly tenious (read unfounded) ideas are promulgated as science fact, when by all measures they are science-fiction. This is akin to laying the entire 911 Truth movement across a 6 lane highway waiting for the next Bus to roll by.....

I hope you can see the difference, because it is infinitely important.

There is something you just

There is something you just don't seem to catch on. Yes "we want to know the truth about the wtc demolitions no matter how strange that truth might might turn out to be". But above all, we want a real criminal investigation to pursuit the perpetrators of the crime. Then we'll have the truth. By making those proven weird speculations in public debate on the 911 truth movement, what all of you are doing is diminish the possibility to have that new investigation.

English isn't my mother tongue, so I hope I make myself clear enough for you to GET IT!

Jones has proven to have

Jones has proven to have done valid scientific research about CD at WTC.

Wood, Reynolds AND Fetzer are cartoon characters promoting outlandish speculations.

The vast majority here agree, after reviewing the "evidence", that space beam is a closed case.

I won't argue nomore with you about this, even if I know pretty well that is what you'd want me to do.

Good day, Sir.

Show "I have concerns about Jones" by Ningen
Show "You have no evidence for this statement" by Ningen

You're wrong! Public

You're wrong!

Public pressure will force authorities to open an investigation. Outlandish speculation turn people off from 911 truth. Do the math.

OK, you have a point

but you are making assumptions about what the public will consider "outlandish." For many, the mere idea that the towers were demolished is "outlandish." Should that be suppressed in the interest of "truth"?

I don't have a position on DEW. I do have a strong position on the videos of "Flight 175" penetrating the South Tower, which are obviously faked. Is that "outlandish"? Why? And even if it is, it is a fact, and those who deny it and attack it turn people away from 9/11 truth.

Investigations often begin with premises that predetermine the result. So it is not fine to get just any investigation - the wrong investigation could just cement another untruth.

Personnally, I address

Personnally, I address people not aware of the truth with:

1. The holes in the official conspiracy theory
2. The cover-up (The (C)ommission, the media, etc...)
3. 911 Press for truth.
4. Pointers to GOOD web sites.

That always work. It get them curious and they make their own research. They come back to me later saying: I'm sure it was an inside job, the towers were CDed, etc... Hope you see my point.

As fas as DEW, the technology may exists in military secret, but it wasn't and couldn't be use to bring down the buildings.

As for "...videos of Flight 175 penetrating the South Tower, which are obviously faked...": BS. Planes hit the towers. Maybe not the flight we were told, but PLANES hit the towers. Take this in consideration:

1. Lost of details in video quality, resolution, etc...
2. The speed of the planes
3. The surface of the towers. A mosquito net which surface is mainly composed of window, GLASS.

Conclusion: If you want to believe in TV fakery and DEW, what can I do! :-( But when you go public with the truth, individually or in the media, you must always go with the soft approch. That something Fetzer and Slayer don't do, purposefully.

Second reply to TNF

TNF, I appreciate you engaging me on this unpopular topic.

I can accept in principle an effort to encourage prominent figures in the 9/11 truth movement to stick to more easily accepted ideas, but the problem lies in deciding what are easily accepted ideas and who decides that, in accusations of disinfo for pursuit of ideas that might be hard to accept or even wrong, but still worth considering, and in possible suppression of valid ideas for nefarious purposes.

Personally, I address people not aware of the truth with:

1. The holes in the official conspiracy theory
2. The cover-up (The (C)ommission, the media, etc...)
3. 911 Press for truth.
4. Pointers to GOOD web sites.

911 Press for Truth has a lot of good in it, but I am concerned that it reinforces the major premise of the official story - Al Qaeda hijackers - that I think has been placed in serious question by the demolition of the towers and the physics of plane crashes. "GOOD" websites is a matter of opinion, also.

It get them curious and they make their own research. They come back to me later saying: I'm sure it was an inside job, the towers were CDed, etc... Hope you see my point.

I do see your point, and I am one person that was made curious by the above and did my own research and came back convinced of controlled demolition, and further, no planes.

As fas as DEW, the technology may exists in military secret, but it wasn't and couldn't be use to bring down the buildings.

I think that once the official story of plane impact, fire, and gravity is shown false, the issue of what was used is secondary, so I could accept a consensus that people going on TV should not talk about this until more is known. What I cannot accept is suppression of research and discussion and accusations of disinfo based solely on someone pursuing this line of research. I also do not see how this DEW issue has gotten any exposure in the mainstream press that would support the level of concern expressed here.

As for "...videos of Flight 175 penetrating the South Tower, which are obviously faked...": BS. Planes hit the towers. Maybe not the flight we were told, but PLANES hit the towers.

Any plane that hit the towers would be subject to the same laws of physics, and regardless, showing that it was not Flight 175, a Boeing 767, is the key issue that gives lie to the whole hijacking fraud. Another plane could not have been used, because just like a Boeing 767, it would have exploded and left debris outside the towers. The perpetrators would not have risked leaving evidence that it was not Flight 175, and what would be the purpose of another plane anyway? There might have been a diversionary plane to leave witnesses with the impression of a plane, there might have been a missile, there might have been some kind of reinforced or very dense airplane that was essentially a missile, but regardless, the key point is that Flight 175 could not have penetrated the South Tower as shown on video, and would have left much more debris and body parts and luggage outside the South Tower.

Take this in consideration:

1. Lost of details in video quality, resolution, etc..

My conclusions are based on the kinetic energy models, not the appearance of the planes in the videos. I don't look much at the Naudet video, but apply the same logic and say that Flight 11 could not have penetrated the North Tower, either.

2. The speed of the planes

The speed is an artefact of the faked videos, but that speed is accounted for in the kinetic energy models I used. The South Tower was flying at 500 mph when it hit the plane - so what?

3. The surface of the towers. A mosquito net which surface is mainly composed of window, GLASS.

Here, you are misinformed. The surface was a mesh of hollow steel box columns, about 9 mm thick and 356 mm on each side, configured as modules of columns about 1 meter apart. The external columns could sustain hurricane force winds as lateral loads, and bore 40% of the buildings weight when there was no wind. The columns were backed by floors, and depending on where it hit, the plane's fuselage would have interacted with one or two floors.

Conclusion: If you want to believe in TV fakery and DEW, what can I do!

TV Fakery and DEW are completely separate issues.

I don't "believe" TV Fakery, I have proved it, at least to myself. I'm still waiting for serious rebuttal.

You don't need to do anything, but I like the way you address it - with respect and rational argument, and without accusations.

But when you go public with the truth, individually or in the media, you must always go with the soft approach.

I can accept this as a valid position, though I will not be told what to say to people. I have had several interesting conversations with people about my views on the planes, and am not at all convinced that this is inherently hard to believe, outrageous, or discrediting. In fact, my experience has been that it is easy to explain and that people are willing to consider it.

If I were actually in a position to go on television, though, I would consider carefully what I talked about, particularly if I knew I was not going to be given the time and visual aids to explain my position.

That something Fetzer and Slayer don't do, purposefully.

Given that Shayler was with MI-6, I would not be surprised if he is doing this purposefully, especially since he mixes in universally discredited concepts like holograms.

I'm not convinced that Fetzer is trying to discredit. I don't like how he doesn't let his guests speak, but I agree with him that research and discussion should be open. He has not had much influence on my views about 9/11.

Good post....

A agree with you! I am glad you are digging into the data. We are all trying to get at the truth.

As you state, the Lioy study makes no quantitative statements about the Iron content by weight in their study, therefore I do not reference it when addressing this issue. A relevant quote from their paper:

In addition to the elements quantified by ICP/MS analyses, the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials. Similar observations were found for silicon, which is consistent with the glass fragments and fiberglass found in each sample. FTIR functional group analysis detected a signal that is indicative of calcium sulfate dihydrate, a component of gypsum board, and calcium carbonate, which is extensively used as filler for many materials. Other SEM analyses found signals of trace elements, which are indicative of fiberglass and other nonorganic fibers, especially asbestos fiber.

Would ~2% represent a 'large signal'? I have no idea. However, they also say that they had 'large' signals from calcium and silicon. Cross referencing with USGS, we see that ~11% for calcium and ~11% for silicon. BTW, the statistical spread in the iron content found from the different samples by USGS was from ~1% to ~4% where the average is about 2%, so the variance from sample to sample was quite a bit. So here we see that, at least in one sample by USGS, the iron content was as large as 4%. However, consider that the bulk concrete and wallboard probably have large variances in iron content as well. After all, they just dig this material out of the ground, and presumably the concrete and wallboard were from a variety of sources. It is difficult to test the true variance of the WTC towers concrete and wallboard since the 9/11 criminals destroyed almost all the material from GZ. Based upon the USGS samples, it seems reasonable that even 'large signals' of iron (up to around 4%) for some measurements done by the Lioy group are within the error of the variance in iron content sampled by USGS. The Lioy group samples only 3 locations which is statistically much smaller than that of USGS (12 locations), so the *average* is statistically better given by the USGS data. That said, I would doubly trust the average of USGS over Lioy et al. statistically speaking (Square root of 12/3).

BTW, the directly measured USGS average iron content is in excellent agreement with bulk concrete and wallboard (this is not published yet, so I am sad to say you will have to take me at my word until publication: [Steven Jones, “Comparison of elemental concentrations observed in WTC dust, concrete and wallboard samples”, To be published in Journal of 9/11 Studies]).

One last comment. Even if you say that ~5% of the steel from the towers in the upper 110 floors were vaporized by a DEW to explain the 'large' signal from Lioy (~5% + maximum of ~4% from concrete/wallboard = ~9%) , even though we have no idea what exactly that means, it would still be a very large amount of power: ~2000 earths worth of power to vaporize the steel in *both* towers divided by ~2 (steel was very approximately about half the weight of the building) times 5% ~ 50 earths worth of power. This is insanely large. In fact, it is *impossibly* large by almost any definition of the word. It is *much* more likely that any variance in iron content from the dust samples is from the variance associated with the concrete and wallboard.....

Please keep posting if you want to bounce off any other ideas even if you don't hear from me right away. My time is limited over this next week or so, but I will answer your questions to the best of my abilities (with the caveate that they are reasonable, which your last 2 posts certainly were).

I hope this helps

I didn't say

you couldn't post here.

I'm just curious why you declared that you would not, after what appeared to be a series of disruptions in which the community actively opposed your posts.

But - i would point out that YOU have written about 911Blogger on 911Researchers.com in extremely unflattering ways. This is a fact.

There you wrote:

"911Blogger is an insult to the 911 victims"

"Highlighting Directed Energy Weapons may save the world from war"

as well as various ad hominum attacks against me.

So let us not pretend that I should have no reason to express my opinions on this matter.

"911Blogger is an insult to

"911Blogger is an insult to the 911 victims"

Sounds like "defending myself" to me.. NOT.

I've seen your behavior here, you are not Mr. Innocent in these feuds. You antagonize when you want, and you play the victim when you need.

Who would go to another site and publicly trash this site just because others disagree with them? Maybe an apology is in order? Maybe others should go to other sites and bash you? You know, to "defend themselves"..

Honest research versus Dishonest research

I believe that all researchers have a right to question the official story of 9/11 and present their theories for what happened.

What I disagree with is the promotion of deliberately misleading arguments. Although I can’t prove intent, I can prove that certain arguments are misleading.

I can also prove that Judy Wood has distorted the research of Steven Jones.

Although it is remotely possible that that someone could promote illogical arguments and misleading arguments and easily debunked evidence and distort the work of other 9/11 researchers and personally attack other 9/11 researchers and be right after all…. about their theories.

I would suggest the likelihood of this being the case approximates the odds of three buildings collapsing due to fire on the same day.

Kevin Ryan calculated these odds as 1 in a trillion.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I've publicly examined and discussed

Reynold's work on no plane hitting the South Tower, and concluded he is correct. I welcome criticism.


DEW ideas are the target

I am attacking the DEW speculative notion that they were used to bring down the towers. If Jim Fetzer wants to promote these ideas, then I can use his own words to confront his ideas. I am more than willing to discuss any of the topics Jim raises. It is no fault of my own nor of the moderators that his own words and presentation make him look foolish.


"lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous."

It appears that you lack the ability to tell the difference between exposing false arguments and attacking individuals.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

CB, your methodology is a joke

Read this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed...

As described in the paper, most of the debris from the buildings collapsed within the sublevels.

Trying to “count” the debris from photographs is an inherently reckless approach to the problem. Photographs offer no way to directly view all the individual steel beams in debris piles or debris occupying sublevel collapses. For instance, any attempt to “count” the beams or “wall sections” in the debris pile of WTC 7 will fall short of accounting for the total mass of the building for the simple reason that the debris is located in a pile and all photographs only show the surface. That does not mean that the rubble pile does not contain the mass of the building. Even if the debris were spread out somewhat, the same problem applies when attempting to “count” the debris.


Take a look at the debris piles from building 7 and try to show me all the core columns. Or count all of the outside wall sections. Or show me all the electrical wiring, or large slabs of concrete, or office furniture, or maybe a doorknob. If you can do all that, then I will show you where all the core columns are in the debris field for the WTC towers.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/b7_2.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/WTC7_Pile_02.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/b7pile1.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/wtc_064.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/wtc_063.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/WTC7_Pile_02.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/wtc_060.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/tom18.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/tom17.jpg http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/tom16.jpg

No DEW destroyed Building 7, right? Where could all of these things have gone? You can't see these things, so it must not be there! In Judy Wood's pre-adolescent vernacular, it all went 'poof', right?