Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK DEBATE
Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 1ST PROGRAM Gary Popkin - 28 min - Apr 17, 2007
James H. Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, debates Mark Roberts, prominent 9/11 researcher, in this first of three programs. Ronald Wieck, a well informed ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330
Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 2ND PROGRAM Gary Popkin - 29 min - Apr 17, 2007
James H. Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, debates Mark Roberts, prominent 9/11 researcher, in this second of three programs. Ronald Wieck, a well informed ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5795767092800734293
Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 3RD PROGRAM Gary Popkin - 28 min - Apr 17, 2007
James H. Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, debates Mark Roberts, prominent 9/11 researcher, in this third of three programs. Ronald Wieck, a well informed ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7639955686054850079
- Jim Fetzer's blog
- Login to post comments
Did you...
Accept money from our enemies to take part in this debate?
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Jim Fatzer: loon extraordinaire
Mischaracterizing the response you get here as being atypical and part of a "911flogger logic" is just another example of your inability to analyze and process data.
The reality is that this movement is tired of you. You do not speak anymore for this movement, and you are no longer able to even talk about 9/11 without coming off as a total loon.
You have lost your ability to think clearly, and as such you have begun to believe in anything your heart desires while at the same time are able to believe that just about anything is possible. This inability to determine the difference between what is, and what is not, has slowly eaten away at your brain and you are falling further and further off the deep end everyday. I honestly feel sorry for you.
Write this criticism off as just a facet of the movement, "those crazy 911floggers", but the reality is that anyone who has followed your path into star wars beam weapons and lazers, mazers, and plasmoids knows that you have lost it.
Your only option now is to go play with all the other people who have fallen off the deep-end in this movement (like the one you shared a stage with recently in NYC). You'll find them on 911researchers.com talking about how everything is fake, and how beam weapons are to blame instead if IED's in Iraq.
You're damn right I would...
Because any IDIOT would know that they are being set up to look like a fool on such a biased show. Then again, I guess you didn't see Les Jamieson, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas on "Hardfire" before, or know ANYTHING about the fact that Ronald Wieck spends his time bashing the 9/11 Truth Movement with lies, distortions, and bullsh_t on the internet. On top of that, I would NOT accept money from our enemies. Something you don't seem to have a problem with.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
I have bitch slapped...
Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts on several occasions. It's not about fear Jim. It's about not doing things that are detrimental to the movement to the BEST of our ability. You didn't even question Ronald when he said we "tremble" at the site of Roberts. You didn't even correct Ronald when he referred to us as the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement. We are the 9/11 Truth Movement Jim. They came up far from short, and we have you and your crazy theories to thank for it.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
FETZER: "Ohhhh Judy! Oh my oh my oh my. This is HUGE!!!"
http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3
Jon, this should be the only response to Fester from now on. Nothing more to say really. Just my 2 pesos, though.
(Thanks for this link YT!)
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
"Oh Judy!" you've been debunked Fetzer
You've got to hear this! I made that mp3 for this (thanks YT):
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8110
As for Mr. Fetzer:
Dew has been embarrassingly debunked.
Care to respond in substance or are you just going to continue to insult the real activists on this site and hide and cower away behind your computer screen from answering criticism?
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Oh oh oh Judy! This is huge!
Amazing. WTF. Now , can anyone who still believes in Fetzer + Woods being 'serious scientists' please have a listen. Please. Oh oh oh oh Arabesque, this is huge!
:S
http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3
You sound so mature every
You sound so mature every time you call this site "flogger"! What are you, in 8th grade now?
Name one online 9/11 community that still supports your work. Well, besides disinfo central which you used to prominently link to on 911scholars.
While you may have all day
While you may have all day to argue about far out theories which have absolutely no probability nor are even feasible, the rest of us are busy focusing on that which can turn on new people to the movement and bring us closer to some form of success. Meanwhile you do the exact opposite, wasting all your time with only the most absurd of theories which have either already been disproved dozens of times or which could never actually be proven. That is why your motives are questioned, because you have to know you appear to be way off your rocker every time you get onto one of these subjects.
Now you expect me to waste more of my time to debunk your nonsense? Why? It has already been done over and over and over. Instead of coming here to start shit why don't you go and find someone who hasn't already destroyed his credibility to try and make your arguments for you factoring in the numerous rebuttals including that as linked by Jon Gold above, and these as well:
9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers
Dr. Greg Jenkins Discusses the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis
Is your coming here looking to pick a fight a cry for help? Are you realizing that Wood, Reynolds, Seigel, and yourself are the laughing stock of the movement? Are you upset that the few "truthers" at 911research which actually subscribed to your theories are now turning on you since you won't advocate no plane theories? Do you feel bad that you caved in to them and started supporting tv-fakery research? Are you so worried about fitting in that you are willing to ascribe to any opinion so long as you feel like you are connected with intelligent people? Why exactly are you so closely tied to Judy Wood? You do realize she has lost her mind right? Maybe she should apply her dentistry background to the tower's destruction next, after all she is the "most qualified" to talk about the collapses right? Maybe you should shut your rambling moronic yapper long enough to see what real architects and scientists look and sound like, you'll find a good one here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079
Jim Fetzer,
Since we are "incapable of even understanding what Judy and Morgan have to say " , why don't you just leave?
I'm tired of your mouth-foaming bullcrap. You and Judy have been told a thousand times why you are wrong.
Now *please* , why dont you just f*** off.
You're right Jim...
You know what? You are right Jim... I haven't kept up on my research recently. I just had a chance to view your recent lectures as well as Judy's regarding this theory and I decided that I am going put Reynolds back into the movie and add the Directed Energy Weapon theory to my film asap...
...NOT!
Seriously though... please take some time off to clear your head. I think you have good intentions for the most part, but really think about what you are saying... "A laser beam shot down from space and brought down the Twin Towers."
Really think about that... please!
P.S. I read this somewhere and just want to find out if it is true... Was Judy really in a coma for 6 years?
My credibility is at stake?
My credibility is at stake? Are you joking?
Why do you feel the need to say it was this or that without any evidence and try to totally discredit the movement? What ever happened to being rational? How do you plan on proving your DEW theory?
I am an average guy that made a video to show my family & friends that I wasn't going nuts, then you come to my screening and start this laser beam stuff.
Sorry about the quote above.. I thought I read it in the blog... I withdraw the quote attributed to you above. I apologize about that Jim. What I meant to say was you said "It's some form of directed energy weapon. Almost certainly in the class of new weapons that were developed during the star wars research program initiated by Ronald Reagan. Something in the possibly laser, maser, plasmoid category. Possibly involving anti-matter."
Was Judy really in a coma for 6 years?
dustin...
I read about that too. The story originated from one of her students at Clemson I think. Not sure how true it is, but I wouldn't doubt it.
One thing about Wood; She use to post over at DU as Janedoe I believe. But she never posted anything as bizarre as her space beam asshattery over there, though. My guess is she was building up a following to sucker others into thinking she was legit -- getting people to help pimp her and her website -- until she got the ok to unload her space beams knocking down the towers buffoonery on the 9/11 truth movement.
Then Steve Jones came along and began posting at DU too (shortly before he got mainstream coverage on bowtie boy's show). And not long after that Fester popped up with his "scholars" group - bringing in both Jones and Wood. Then Wood's student gets murdered in Minnesota -- where Fester's from -- while on vacation visiting family. Did he see or hear something he wasn't suppose too? I recall hearing a rumor that Wood's student was in contact with Jones just before he was offed Then the attacks on Jones started not long after that if I remember correctly.
And now Fester's in with all the other 9/11 loons (or persons pretending to be loons) who are pimping no planes and other such nonsense.
IMO Fester's prolly working for the feds. Might just be best to ignore him and hope he goes away.
I'm guessing the film you're talking about was 911 Revisited? It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember it being very good and I shared it with many others. I look forward to seeing your next project.
Peace,
S4
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
Hey S4, From what I have
Hey S4,
From what I have observed my take on the situation is this, right or wrong.. who really knows? Again.. this is just my take on the situation...
Fetzer decided to create st911 and invited Jones to co-chair it with him due to his credentials. Jones would add a certain credibility to the scholars. All of a sudden Fetzer began getting a lot of recognition and interviews on TV as well as radio. During this time Jones focused on research because BYU asked him not to give anymore TV interviews.
In june of last year I was approached by the same PR guys that represented Fetzer and they wanted to put together a college tour with me and Fetzer. I would show my film and Fetzer would give his lecture. Long story short, that fell through and never happened.
It was about this time that Jones got a sample of the WTC steel which he supposedly tested and it tested positive for thermite. It didn't take long for Jones to get a "cult following" and Fetzer was not getting the recognition he felt he deserved. The media appearances were becoming few and far between.
Along comes Judy Wood. Initially she was hesitant to speak out, not about DEW, but about 9/11 in general.
A few months later a local theater donated time to screen my film and the local 9/11 truth group had an idea of making it an event instead of just another screening. They asked me who I thought would come to speak and present their lecture. I said Jones and /or Fetzer would be cool. They were able to get Fetzer and flew him out here to do the event and give his lecture at the college too.
I brought my friends & family to the event to hear me speak and listen to Fetzer's lecture.. I even brought my g-ma! Anyway, that's when I first heard him introduce Judy Woods research and I was shocked. Here I am bringing my family and friends to a screening and to hear a professor give his take and he is talking about laser beams. I was like WTF is this? I was pissed.
That's when i think he realized he could get a lot of attention by promoting Judy Woods outrageous theories. Remember the phrase no publicity is bad publicity... well that obviously isn't the case here, but I feel like he thinks it's true.
Again, maybe I am naive but that is my take on the situation. Fetzer had a lot going for him, then craved attention and started this DEW stuff.
Fetzer... remember the speech you gave in Chicago? Please watch that again if you have the DVD. You were passionate to the point of crying at the podium. I believe this was a truely genuine speech.
Yeah it's 9/11 Revisited... thanks for the nice comments!
Hi dustin
Sorry to hear how you were betrayed by Fetzer. If he had any honor he'd apologize to you for what he did - and to this movement as a whole.
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
So we should ignore evidence when it proves an inside Job?
"What I have said is that conventional explosives, including thermite, thermate, and RDX, have virtually zero probability of explaining the pulverization."
So what you're saying is that because we've found evidence of thermate we should ignore it? When it proves an inside job? Now what kind of researcher would go around making ridiculous claims like that?
Yes, it is likely that thermate itself does not fully explain what happen ON ITS OWN. It could have been used in combination with advanced explosives. But thermate proves an inside job. Did you miss that point?
Who wants us to ignore thermate? The perpetrators, that's who.
The point is we have evidence we can use to get an investigation and PROVE EXACTLY what destroyed the towers. Could it have been super thermite? Who knows. You certainly don't.
The new evidence uncovered by Steven Jones is devastating. It proves that thermite was present in the dust. IN THE DUST. And sent over a football field away even into apartments during
collapse.
Now just how are your DEW theories going to explain that one away Fetzer? DEW doesn’t “Do it”.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Hey Arabesque...
Hey Arabesque... will you shoot me an email via the contact form on www.911revisited.com I have a question for you...
Thanks!
Dustin
The whole thermite introduction may have been designed too
Seems like it can be easily dismissed by saying that thermite was used during the clean up. If there's absolute proof it wasn't used during clean up let's see it. I think I read something about Jones having a GZ worker who said it wasn't, but come on, there were hundreds of people there. Who's to say that no one used it? If they didn't, they'll just make up a story that they did if Jones' themite theory gets too hot.
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
This new evidence destroys the
"cleanup hypothesis"
Unless you think they were "cleaning up with thermite" during the collapse of the Towers (i.e. controlled demolition). Because that's the only way it could have flown more than a football field away into the fourth floor of someone's apartment. Jones was given this sample by this individual and the dust samples showed trace elements of thermite as well as "iron rich spheres". This is extremely significant because it means the steel was MELTED during the collapse.
Never mind thermate. If the steel was melted, there are only certain situations where this can occur. These conditions are extremely difficult to reach and to this day NIST pretends that the steel "did not melt" or does not exist because it would be devastating to the official story.
As one example, explosives are capable of melting steel.
And what's more, official studies confirm that this was widespread. I think it's safe to say the "cleanup" hypothesis has been demolished.
Watch Jones' talk here:
Project for a New American Citizen: Steven Jones Lecture in Austin Texas
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7913
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Arabesque, we've known there was molten steel @ GZ for years
Even Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. admitted that he observed molten *steel* while at the site during the clean up. This information has been around for 5+ years. But the 9/11 criminals are still roaming free.
If you think Jones and his "new evidence" will somehow put them behind bars, more power to him. But I honestly don't think it will.
Please tell us your what your best case scenario is for this "new evidence"?
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
What you say about molten metal is true
But people will always debate eyewitness statements, and NIST continues to deny that there was molten metal.
I hope this leads to something, and we have to stay positive as every piece of evidence counts. The best scenario is that we have another "smoking gun". These aren't my words--this is what Jones is saying.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
fair enough
Hey check out my new sig, Arabesque :-)
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
It is reproducable data!
There is a ton of evidence:
1) 6 videos of molten steel shooting out of south tower, + many other still pictures
2) several pictures of white -to- red hot steel at ground zero weeks after the collapses
3) FEMA report Appendix C (If you have not read this short document, drop what you are doing and read it!) - outlines highly sulfidized and oxydized steel I-beam from WTC7 rubble which necessarily sustained high temperatures for 'prolonged periods of time', meaning weeks (due to the intergranulat melting)
4) Metal spherules from MacKinlay's apartment implying molten metal by their shape alone, but more imporantly the chemical composition strongly suggest thermate
5) USGS verbally verifies that these spherules were everywhere, all over ground zero
6) Another dust study (memory is failing at the moment) verifies small metalic bits in the dust samples as well
7) concentration of Al is 4x higher in the aerosl samples done by UCDavis than in the >2.5um dust samples implying that much aluminum may have been liquified into smaller molten metalic droplets from the extremely high temperatures generated from presumably thermate reactions
8) Many eyewitnesses
The damn is breaking. The evidence is nearing irrefutable on a firm scientific basis. Eyewitness accounts can be disregarded, but scientific results will be hard to refute (although I am sure they will try!), especially after the scientific community's heads are turned when the data is published in a mainstream journal ---- and pre-emptively, no, not all mainstream scientific journal's are 'controlled'.....
Thanks, so very much..
... for giving the debunks something to wet their pants over.*sarcasm*
I'm not wasting anytime debating you in detail, prat. All I know is that you've been put up as a "leader" of 911activism by debunks, and you don't seem to bother to disabuse anyone of the notion.
Well listen up, sunbeam, YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADER. YOU ARE NOT THE LEADER OF ANYTHING--except a "disinfo fest"(hee, hee--that was funny). We are each our own leaders in 911activism. You might have done some good at the beginning but the tide's turning, chum. No one with a clue wants you within a mile of 911activism.
In the unlikely event that you're a naive misguided well meaning soul--as opposed to a paid shill--pull you head out of your arse and look around at your affect on 911activism: YOU ARE NOT HELPING. And at this point the best thing you can do is retire from public life--everything you touch is tainted.
And if you're an evil git--don't make Jenny mad.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Haven't seen you for a while
What rock did you crawl out from under? I'd thought you'd surely be a "winner" by now...
You're not here because of that "thing" are you?
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
So this is NOT about that "thing"?
I'm not sure I remember Jon "bitch-slapping" Mrak or Ron, but I do remember something about Jon arguing with a bitch. ;-P
You're not saying Mark and Ron are bitches, are you? Because that would be mean...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
OMG! You ARE irony impaired!
And humor impaired..and God know's what else...
So much shite, so little time. Let's take this gem:
"Was that just to see yourself post (The internet equivalent of "just to hear yourself talk""
That pretty much sums up ALL your posts here, love!
LOL!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Hey, little drama queen...
I'm not the one who crashed this thread leaving pointless insults just for the fun of it. Sorry, resipsa--and WTF name is that anyway?--you've been caught in clearly a case of pot--kettle--blackness.
But tell you what, you can prove this isn't a drama for you--by not responding to my posts anymore. Bet you can't do it...
Don't forget I caught YOU starting trouble over here--so don't whine about it.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
YAWN. Impeachment.
YAWN.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Cheap shots by Jon, sure, but
you're wrong when you say that "no one could seriously think they had the better of the argument, no[sic] even you!"
It was obvious to anyone who watched the debate that you were totally and thoroughly out-debated, Jim. I actually felt sorry for you because you were so obviously out-classed, so obviously out of your league, and so unprepared to back up anything you said except with your "say so" - and that's not good enough in a televised debate.
Unfortunately, you also came across as petulant, disorganized, discourteous, uninformed, and with nothing but bluster to offer.
Every time the other side offered facts or evidence, you tried to change the subject, and your body language was horrible - leaning back in your chair with your arms across your chest, looking like you couldn't even sit up straight, and then continuously grabbing on to Mark's arm or shoulder, and then sputtering and stammering like a fool, and then toying with your computer as though you were going to do something with it even though you kept having to concede that you had not brought anything with you to add to the debate.
It would have been a lot better if you tried to stay on point and if you could have backed up what you said with facts or evidence, but you didn't.
I felt sorry for you, but even more sorry for the movement as a whole. You didn't do the truth movement any favors, Jim.
Still, that doesn't excuse the cheap shots here. At least you had the courage of your convictions and showed up, which is better than can be said for most. For that, you certainly deserve credit. Good on you.
Fetzer is not part of our movement
Didn't you get the memo? Oh, right--we don't give memos to trolls --my bad!
So, do you and ref work out of the same office? Do you get dental?
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
The only one creating drama is YOU
Unless you'd like to explain a constructive reason for your combing through this massive thread and posting rubbish that echos most of what we've already said, except trying to make us look un-credable at the same time.
Sunbeam, YOUR drama is beyond my meager talents.
The irony will no doubt be lost on you--irony is usually lost on eegits....
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Stop whining and leave our site...
you sad little troll.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
*SNORE*
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
That's interesting, Jon.
I'm not aware of these bitch-slappings. I'm sure you won't have any trouble pointing them out to us, right? You wouldn't be fibbing about that on your own website, where your fans are, would you?
So prove it.
The last I remember, you said you didn't believe my account of what Kevin Barrett said to me. I offered to send you his emails. You refused. Not so concerned with the truth, are you?
Since you believe that you do speak for the "truth" movement, how about debating me? You're not afraid to, are you?
My prediction about Jon's response to both of my challenges here: "I'm not gonna waste time with you. The time for debate is over. It's time for action!"
Yawn.
The thread's cold, our Mark--as you well know...
...as well as long and tedious. The likelyhood of your post even being SEEN at this point is low--and not helped by the fact you've waited until the post frequency has died down.
But tell you what, since you seem so interested in "fibbing", maybe you want to take a look at this:
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/04/nico-haupt-is-lying-bitch.html
Seems your mates JamesB and Brainster aren't living quite up to your alledged standards...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Jim,You said you do think
Jim,
You said you do think planes hit the WTC, but then go on to promote Morgan Reynolds.
The WTC: In this interview you said, "It's some form of directed energy weapon. Almost certainly in the class of new weapons that were developed during the star wars research program initiated by Ronald Reagan. Something in the possibly laser, maser, plasmoid category. Possibly involving anti-matter."
This is not a matter of "attacking" you Jim. If you remember we were all behind you when you made sense. Now it seems like you, Judy & Morgan are trying to hurt the movement. If you can't see that maybe you should take a couple weeks off and look at your original lectures, then look at the current lectures and interviews.
*cough* bullsh_t...
"No one on flogger or anywhere else, for that matter, has shown that I am wrong about any of this!"
And yet... you still continue to promote this. Hmmmm...
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
I sure do...
Steven Jones showed that you are wrong about all of this!
Thank you Prof. Jones.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Simple Questions, Jim
Have you or Judy Wood attempted to write or publish any type of response to the valid and persuasive criticisms of the space beam hypothesis that have been posted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies?
If not, why not? Do you feel the space beam hypothesis is immune to criticism?
By the way, I would love to come on your radio show (if it still exists) and debate Judy Wood about the space beam hypothesis. Just name the time and I'll be there.
You did not answer my simple
You did not answer my simple questions, Jim, so I'll ask again:
Have you or Judy attempted to write a response/rebuttal to the valid and persuasive scientific criticisms that are posted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies?
If not, why not?
I would be relying primarily on these Journal of 9/11 Studies critcisms during the interview. If Judy has no substantive rebuttal prepared ahead of time, it will be extremely difficult for her to win the debate.
You have not answered the
You have not answered the question asked, Jim. Sorry. The question once again is:
Have you or Judy Wood attempted to write a rebuttal to the scientific criticisms on Journal of 9/11 Studies?
It's a pretty simple yes or no question.
For the record
Just so you have absolutely no basis for ignoring my question:
I have an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering, and a J.D. I am, therefore, fully capable of analytical reasoning, writing, debating, and able to understand scientific principles.
The hypothesis I already
The hypothesis I already demolished is embodied in Judy Wood's paper entitled "Star Wars Beam Weapon". How can you incessantly ask what I take to be Judy Wood's hypothesis/position? It is her in her paper. The whole thing. And it has been completely destroyed time and time again, and she has no substantive rebuttal.
The toasted cars by FDR drive, the damage to the bathtub, the enormous amount of energy required, the deceptive "snowball" picture, it has all been explained without resorting to beam weapons, and Judy has no substantive response at all.
Ehem...
"The Star Wars Beam Weapons"
By Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
last updated, December 15, 2006
Available at the website janedoe0911.tripod.com
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
You're insane...
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
To correct the record...
Webster Tarpley no longer thinks that space beams destroyed the towers. I have recently spoken with him.
Jim Hoffman has publicly declared the same on his website some time ago.
Your appeal to 'authority' is not well-founded either in content or logic.
My 2 questions to Jim:
1) What is the reflectivity of steel in the frequency range which can penetrate dust?
2) How much power can be generated from a chemical laser and how does that compare to the amount of power needed to vaporize the tower?
For those philosophers who may strugglie for an answer, check out the paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Ene...
"It's a web site, stupid" - yeah, one that YOU touted during
the debates on Hardfire, Jim.
You even said that Judy Wood was the most qualified person on the planet to discuss the topic of space beam weapons and "dustification", and encouraged people to go and read that stupid website, Jim.
So, you shouldn't really wonder why you get a rough ride here. Just like in the debates, you are all over the map and can't seem to remain consistent about anything that you say.
As I make my way through this thread, I realize why it is that people within the truth movement do not take you seriously and why the vast majority of the population therefore ignores the truth movement when there are people like you and Judy and Reynolds and Barrett running around spouting nonsense all the time without stopping to THINK and without stopping to make sure that you have a coherent message to deliver before spewing crap all over the internet.
Yes, yes, yes, Jim's a git--we've already said that
You do realize you're contradicting yourself here:
"I realize why it is that people within the truth movement do not take you seriously and why the vast majority of the population therefore ignores the truth movement"
At least this cannot be an example of cause/effect--if people would ignore 911activism because we accept Fetzer, then, by your logic, since we reject Fetzer, 911activism must be growing.
Bonehead.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Oh, name calling to add to the dramaqueen posts - excellent.
So far tonight, Jenny, your posts have consisted of, let's see...
Drama queen antics - check.
Factual errors - check.
Outright distortions - check.
Name calling antics - check.
Facts - nil.
Substance - nil.
Evidence - nil.
As for the most recent post, to which I am responding, there is no contradiction in my post at all. Think it through and try reading for comprehension in the future. If you don't understand the meaning - which it appears you did not in this case - you might consider simply asking politely for clarification instead of spouting off nonsense and mounting a faux attack, which only makes you look foolish.
I realize that you are on a roll tonight, just trying to write quick, brainless, responses to my posts because, apparently, you perceive me as the "enemy" or something, but really, you would do yourself more good and the truth movement more good if you paused long enough to comprehend what you are reading before spouting off more and more unsubstantiated nonsense.
You're still here?
Just trying to keep up with you, love. All anyone has to do is look at the times of your posts to know you were posting shite BEFORE I came along.
Have fun with that...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Why don't you guys each
Why don't you guys each start your own blog where you can go back and forth talking crap to eachother? I'll bet you would rival this thread's size in about an hour ;-)
Seriously though.. I have no clue what either of you are talking about.
later!
D
I have no idea what "jenny" is on about either.
I can only guess at what possessed her to start ranting at me for no apparent reason and at what possessed her to post all manner of ludicrous, ill informed, nonsensical posts in response to my couple of posts here that had nothing to do with her. But my guesses will probably sound sexist if I post them, so I'll keep them to myself - for now.
BS, Jenny, as usual.
I have no idea why you latched on to me tonight and no idea why you have been posting your inane crap in my general direction tonight - I can only guess that the subjects of your previous stalkings have taken the night off and that you latched on to me in their absence.
Whatever the reason, please read my posts and try - at least PRETEND to try - to actually address the points raised in those posts instead of avoiding the subject, evading the questions, and moving the goalposts.
You really are not fooling anyone with more than two arcing brain cells here. You have not responded in any meaningful fashion to any point whatsoever. All you have done is fling your own poo around for no apparent reason but self-amusement like a monkey in a cage. Not at all impressive, "jenny".
Also, Judy Wood's position
Also, Judy Wood's position is pretty clear on her website/paper entitled "Star Wars Beam Weapon" or something like that. At least three of the scientific criticisms on Journal of 9/11 Studies are directly specifically at her paper. Are you contending that her position is not consistent with her web-based paper?
Judy's position is her
Judy's position is her paper, which I have read in detail and completely destroyed, only to have Greg Jenkins come along and beat the dead horse into oblivion.
This exchange has become tiresome. You and Judy clearly have no response to any of the criticisms that have been raised. I wish you the best of luck in your disruption/disinformation campaign.
I'll give you all the credit in the world, Jim. You are good. It's going to take the best we've got to get the truth out because we get it from both sides: the OCT shills on the one hand and you, Judy and Morgan discrediting all of us with utter lunacy on the other. And I'm not calling you all lunatics, it's your work product that is lunacy. You and Morgan are obviously quite intelligent people, which is why your motivations are quite clear. Deflect and ignore any legitimate criticisms of these ridiculous hypotheses, and keep spreading them to the masses.
RFC to NIST is her latest scribbling
She just filed an RFC with NIST which is a good catalog of her gross misconceptions and misinterpretations.
Suprise, surprise.... the same misconceptions that are enummerated on her web site appear in the paper as well, and she has neither addressed nor redressed the gross misinterpretations which have repeatedly been pointed out to her.
Yeah, Jim, I haven't visited
Yeah, Jim, I haven't visited her site. *sarcasm*
You really have no trouble lying through your teeth do you?
Her website actually gave me a pretty good laugh the first time through. Then I saw that some people were actually taking it seriously and I decided to tear it apart, which I did. I sent my critique to you and Judy, and recieved silence in response despite several follow up inquiries.
Sent... Although I don't
Sent...
Although I don't expect a substantive response.
Also, I've given you no
Also, I've given you no reason to impugn my integrity. Promoting the obviously ridiculous hypothesis that space beams brought down the twin towers gives me every reason to impugn your integrity. You are obviously a very intelligent person, and you can't possibly believe DEW were involved. Morgan Reynolds is obviously an intelligent person as well. I had lunch with him and spoke with him for about an hour. There is no way he seriously believes holograms or anything other than airplanes hit the towers.
The question of why these two intelligent people are going around promoting ridiculous ideas is an interesting one.
Speaking of making an obvious point
It is obvious that YOU have repeatedly "simply taken rumor and speculation for truth without investigating" for yourself. This was made abundantly clear in the Hardfire debates, as you were repeatedly forced to retreat when asked whether you had contacted witnesses, when asked whether you had contacted people with knowledge about points you tried to make (when it was clear that your points were bogus), and when asked to back up the bald assertions that you made, and you could only respond with answers like "that's not my job" or try to change the subject yet again.
That was really, really bad. And yet here you are acting all indignant and accusing others of not having investigated when you yourself have done nothing but regurgitate crap by the likes of Judy Wood and others with zero credibility.
Yes, we've all said this..
So why do you care again?
Bet you're regretting all that free time your fellow debunks gave me recently ...otherwise I might have missed you. ;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
What are you on about now?
I am concerned about you, "Jenny" because your posts here lead me to believe that you are somewhat paranoid and somewhat delusional.
Was there some reason for you to jump at my post to Jim Fetzer in that last post? Based on your posts, you appear to despise the man and you seem to have nothing good to say about him, but when I posted a legitimate question to him on a point, you felt the need to jump on me - not the substance of my post, of course, as you seem to be incapable of offering anything of substance.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "Bet you're regretting all that free time your fellow debunks gave me recently..otherwise I might have missed you ;-)"
Is this supposed to mean something to me, or to others? Like I said, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate.
Do you have anything at all to say of substance in response to my posts? Or are you simply trolling for responses that are as meaningless and mindless as all of your prior posts in this thread?
What's with the deflection
What's with the deflection tactics, Jim? We're talking about Judy Wood and the space beam hypothesis here, not Steve Jones. Please answer my questions above.
You know who I am, Jim. And
You know who I am, Jim. And if you had me on the program, I would essentially go down the scientifc critiques of the space beam hypothesis point by point to see if Judy can join together more than one coherent thought when she is challenged with this information. Again, any scientist that reads the critiques knows they are valid and credible, and Judy had better read through them in detail beforehand so she can attempt to come up with some semblance of a substantive rebuttal.
Are you serious Jim?
Are you serious Jim? You are acting like a little kid.
Have I ever said that I know what happened to the WTC? Let me help you out.. the answer is no, I haven't. I have a lot of questions surrounding the events, but I am not about to say this or that definitely happened... because the truth is none of us know exactly what happened. I think we can all agree that it doesn't look like all 3 buildings spontaneously collapsed from fire.
You speculate with unscientifical claims that even the originator of your directed energy theory cannot back up with numbers and facts. This is rediculous.
On a different note...
In the interview you mentioned that on Judy's website there are videos that show different camera angles of the South Tower impact and you say some do not show the plane. The fact is that I have these original broadcasts and the plane has been edited out in her version.
Watch both clips and pay attention to where the plane is in the unedited stock footage. Then watch the clip on her site and look where the plane is suppose to be. You can see the plane for a split second in the upper right corner (about a half inch in @ -9:20). The plane appears, then was clearly edited out.
Here is the original stock footage from WNBC-TV of the South Tower impact:
(download high resolution avi here)
Below is the edited footage that Judy Wood has posted on her website entitled "911 Octopus 8: Media Perps Unmasked"
Compare the two WNBC-TV clips.
See anything different? Here's a hint... the real WNBC clip does show a plane hit the south tower.
I will say it again... speaking for myself... I do not want to "trash" you or Judy, but you guys have a platform to voice real serious questions... you know like you used to do? But you chose not to, and you try to push outrageous claims.
Jim,The problem that I have
Jim,
The problem that I have is that it seems you, Judy & Reynolds are trying to divide the movement intentionally and using any way possible to do it.
I am not even saying that you, Judy or Reynolds are wrong with your theories. Do I think they are right? No, but I don't care what you think. That is up to you. What I am saying is that you are using your platform and connections to push these theories, which in my opinion, is wrong.
That's where my problem lies. Don't expect for us to sit back and not say anything when one of our former leading voices has flipped on us and is now trying to push, in my opinion and others, outrageous theories that make the movement look bad as a whole and have no scientific basis.
I haven't seen any rebuttal from Jim or Judy
Every time I see an exchange on this and either You Jim or Your colleague Judy are asked for specifics on these DEWs, the response is always evasive tactics and never a direct answer. SO, Jim can you rebutt what the journal of 9/11 studies has picked apart? The ball is in your court to answer instead of getting defensive toward Seve B, we can understand what you explain; Which is what were waiting for.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
Indeed.
There is only so much lunacy that the movement can sustain.
At a certain point, it becomes too crazy for the rest of the world to believe.
oops
oops
oops again! darn it!
oops again!
darn it!
whats the point?
whats the point?
They don't make MK-Ultra like they used to...
This is more staged than professional wrestling...
At least the undertaker versus hulk hogan looked a little realistic...
Nothing worst than FAKE science...
Best wishes
why not just have Ronny Wick
why not just have Ronny Wick debate Mark the tour guide instead? it would serve the same purpose. fucking cowards, all of you.
Fetzer, Roberts, Wieck
Larry, meet Curly and Moe.
I watched 4 minutes of the last video. I knew the discussion was a horrendous waste of time when Ronnie began the discussion of WTC7 by asking "why". That's a classic distraction. As if anyone knows exactly why those buildings were demolished. We could speculate all day about why, but the fact is WTC7 was demolished.
I also enjoyed Mark Roberts' response, when he says "lots" of documents were recovered from WTC7, then adds, actually "few" documents were recovered. It's your attention to detail that makes you so convincing, Mark.
I can't wait for the State Department to debunk Fetzer's new book, a true sign that you have arrived as an agent of the state.
I watched...
Until Ronny said we "tremble" at the site of Roberts. Roberts who I've b-slapped a few times on blogger.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Mr. Wieck is correct, in
Mr. Wieck is correct, in part. Mr. Roberts does indeed provoke a physical reaction in truthers, although Mr. Wieck's implication that we tremble in fear is incorrect.
We shudder in revulsion.
Exactly...
And the funny thing is, at least to me (because I've been harassed by "debunkers" for being overweight) is that Mark is getting to be a fatty.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, you have, Jon. Evidence required, thanks.
Please provide evidence of you allegedly "bitchslapping" Mark.
After all, you wouldn't expect anyone here to just take your word for it without evidence, right?
So what are you waiting for?
Go on, then, and volunteer for a debate with him. His contact information is not exactly hard to find. In fact, he makes it easily available. Go on over to the JREF conspiracy sub-forum and look him up. Pretty simple, really.
I'm sure you can manage that simple little piece of easily obtainable information.
And I look forward to your future debate with him, which, of course, will be easily arranged once you contact him since he has no qualms at all about debating any and all members of the "truth" movement.
Please update here when you have made those arrangements. It will be interesting.
.
Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis
Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis
I have been quiet on this topic for too long.
Alright Jim,
I have been quiet on this topic for too long. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now it's really pissing me off. I used to respect you, which is why you were flown in to speak at a screening of 9/11 Revisited on Nov 12, 2006.
The theater was packed and I brought my friends & family with me to show them your lecture because I thought they all could benefit from hearing it. Instead of sticking to facts, as you used to in your original lecture whic is in my film, you chose this event to introduce your crackpot unscientifical theories and you started rattling of this shit about energy beams and that nutcase Judy Woods research.
I don't mean to be rude, but what the fuck man? Was that your plan? Get people to listen to things that make sense using real science, then bring in your outrageous claims to throw everyone off. I have news for you.. the movement is bigger than you and this will not stop us. Please do everyone a favor and retire.
Does anyone wonder why I wasn't at the 9/11 Accountability conference in Phoenix? I was invited to go and be on the film panel, but then I learned that you (Fetzer) were going to be there pushing this "austin powers" laser beam theory and debating Steven Jones about it. I refuse to be associated with anyone like that.
Thanks Jim - for showing your true colors. Rest assured you will be deleted from an upcoming version of my film.
Dustin
Hey curly...
Don't worry about it. I still luv ya.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
HAHA I still love you too
HAHA I still love you too bro!
The sad thing is...
Everything Fetzer has touched is now tainted. A lot of good people's good work now has a big blemish on it if Fetzer was in any way involved with it.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
It is very sad...
It is very sad...
Changing minds about Fetzer
Despite the roundly negative response we see here toward Fetzer, he still has a lot of fans, and continues to find people who will give him the opportunity to spread his muck.
Let's spread the word about him. The majority of 9/11 truthers don't support James Fetzer, and with good reason. And while we are at it, let's keep in mind that Fetzer has a network of those who share his views and support him. Wood, Seigle, and Haupt all working closely with him, and all share his focus on obscure hypotheses, unessential to the case for complicity.
I wouldn't wish for them to be silent, as this is America and all. But I also wouldn't want to promote their work, or indicate that they are significant players in the movement. And given that they have spent a lot of time and money trying to promote their sci-fi speculation as truth movement resource, I consider it important that we counter their intention to be an excepted voice of the movement.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
Well...
One way to do it would be to reject anything from Fetzer anymore.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
So simple, yet...
I can think of a few people who really need to hear that recommendation from you.
http://www.nyc911truth.org/2007/04/jim-fetzer-at-blue-loft-final-event-i...
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
"Lone Nut" versus conspiracy hypothesis
Normally, I would be inclined to ignore these people as just "lone nuts". But when these "lone nuts" start to pretend they somehow represent the 9/11 truth movement, attack other legitimate researchers, misrepresent other legitmate research, and somehow manage to appear in the most Main Stream Media Interviews and Documentary Hit Pieces...
That's when you can't ignore the "lone nut". Not when he's shouting through a megaphone in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to smear the truth movement.
"Lone nut"? This is a conspiracy.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
That's the tipoff with Fetzer
He appears in every mainstream hit piece (whether it's CBS' website or BBC television). That doesn't have to mean he's a "made" man, but the alternative is just as bad: his appeal to corporate media is that he and his ideas are laughable and make a mockery of the movement.
They've...
Got a mind of their own. I'm staying out of NY politics. I tried to help, and I got ignored by everyone but Luke. I don't know who to trust in that town to be quite honest with you. I mean, there are the obvious people causing a ruckus, and then there are the individuals you think have been working so hard for so many years, but you find out from other people things, and then you say, "I give up."
That's where I'm at with NYC at the moment.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Well said.
Wow, do I ever know exactly what you are talking about. Delver made the interesting point yesterday that there are now three groups in NYC, including our own, and none of the three get along with the other two. People have even started putting their 9/11 stickers over ours!?! From the outside it must look silly. But this division represent distinct differences in strategy. In many ways the diversity of approach could be a positive thing, as we may connect with different demographic groups.
But there is a lot of history between all of these people, all of whom I have worked with at one point or another, and our differences in strategy have always been apparent. We left NY911Truth to start TruthMove. Luke recently left the group to start NYC911Truth. Now hopefully we will all just do what we do best and not let our differences get in the way.
The sad part about this to me is that there really is little mutual growth happening between people who still have a lot to learn from one another. But man...have I tried. We would like to avoid all the mess as well, but being on the scene here, we feel some responsibility to address the actions of our peers. While we welcome critique, others are not so welcoming.
Just gotta keep on pushing to do it the best we can.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
Oops
Oops
Play this short clip
for anyone who still harbors illusions about either Fetzer or Wood being anything remotely resembling serious researchers:
Ohhhhh Judy!!!
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
good recommendation
The Student Scholars need to take the hint too.
DEW can't "Do it"
What's with the straw-man arguments? I thought you were supposed to be a professor of "logic"! That "thermite can't cut it" argument has been clearly debunked in the Journal of 9/11 studies:
"“Thermite Hypothesis” versus “Controlled Demolition Hypothesis”: a response to “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” "
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ArabesqueReplyToWoodAndReynol...
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Obvious mainstream setup
Can it get any more obvious than this? The debate was set up specifically to make the movement look bad. The host says he thinks we are evil and that Mark Roberts is a hero. Couldn't bare to watch much of it as its all so painfully familiar. They were no doubt thrilled to get Fetzer, as his claims are easy to refute.
Its all muddy to me. Fetzer and Roberts are kind of two sides of the same coin to me. The distraction mill. The creators of controversy. Fetzer pitches and Mark is at bat. Its almost poetic at times.
Of course, then this is not really a debate after all. Just two people working toward the same outcome; the movement looking divided, distracted, and irrational.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
address it directly - the public does 'get it'
Its surprising how much the public can absorb and process once they are exposed to the way that disinformation works and has worked historically. That's the antidote to the public seeing us as simply "divided." Greg Jenkin's video of Judy Wood went a long way in spreading a simple understanding of the situation, for those who took the time to watch it.
That's why I always reference the articles that talk openly about disinformation. Greg's video speaks for itself, but putting misinformation and disinformation out front is very helpful.
The real public perception should be that the Truth Movement gets it from both sides, not just one, and there's a reason for that.
I recommend people add these links in when they can -
Disinformation
Infiltration, Misinformation, Disruption
http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
Information Warfare:
Trojan Horses
http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html
Perception & Propaganda: Misinformation
http://stj911.org/perception/misinformation.html
Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250
History "No Planes on 9/11" hoaxes
traps to distract and discredit the 9/11 truth movement
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Disinfo Fest.
Disinfo Fest.
Fetzer
is currently pulling a solid "1.0" rating on 24 votes to this blog. This is unprecedented in 911blogger history.
It's taken you a long time Jim, but you've earned this.
Dear DR. Fetzer
Hello, i would suggest you focus more on the fact that the fires and planes could not explain the rapid symetrical collapses then trying to explain what exactly happened.
Prove what didnt happen, thats all we need to do, figuring out exactly what type of explosive is playing right into thier hands.
Its is true that tarpley and hoffmann have brought up Directed energy weapon possibility, but they dont focus mainly upon it over and over they just breifly mentioned it, not made it the core argument like you have.
Makes me wonder when one of our registered trolls...
...will come by to give it a "10". Mind, it'll take 4 votes of "10" to get it above "2"...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Roberts and Wieck will promote and invite Fetzer
to any 9/11 discussions because they know how foolish He makes the truth movement look. I don't care for you Jim since this is all your gonna do is promote DEW's by reason that all theories have to be explored. Why are you so stuck on this one?Added to this is that when Professor woo woo Wood talks about this, she makes no sense of clarity about the science.
Something I read recently put out there by Greening is ammonium perchlorate (Which is rocket fuel) powder, if it was possibly containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.), was prepared and mixed with a binding agent (polysulfide?) and one or more of the five spray-on fire resistive (thermal insulation) materials used in WTC 1 & 2. These materials are identified in NIST NCSTAR 1-6A as: (1) Blaze-shield Type D, (2) Blaze-shield Type DC/F, (3) Blaze-shield Type II, (4) Monokote MK-5, and (5) Vermiculite aggregate plaster.
In order to determine where and when these material could be applied to surfaces in the Twin Towers you need to consider the history of the “passive fire protection” practices employed by the New York Port Authority during and after the construction of the towers, starting in 1970 and ending in 2001.
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1. In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
How much thermal protection was used? A reasonable estimate would be a thickness of 2 cm over an effective area of 2500 m2 or 50 m3 per floor. If you assume the material had a density of 400 kg/m3 there would have been 20 tonnes of thermal protection per floor.
If ammonium perchlorate-impregnated insulation was pre-planted on the upper floors of the Twin Towers and was subsequently subjected to hard impact, a violent detonation would have occurred which would have greatly intensified the energy release compared to a simple fuel-air deflagration. What is more important, however, is that the protracted fires that followed the aircraft impacts would have been more damaging than expected if the upper floors of the towers were primed with ammonium perchlorate - a potent oxidizing agent that would have been activated as the surface temperatures in affected areas reached 250-300 °C.
Have you ever considered something like this? The emission readings taken from the rubble pile suggest this very thing.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
How about volunteering, then, Mike Anti-Neo-Con
to debate Mark yourself?
You seem to have some pretty good answers and some good advice for Fetzer, so how about just jumping into the breach yourself ?
What do you say?
What I'm talking about, resipsa, is something much more
than the kind of technology Fetzer and Wood keep promoting. And something that NIST hasn't considered because their conclusions are its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless, assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are speculation.It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel seems done without careful consideration.It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. The chlorination is the thing here that interests Me the most, the measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been based on known sources of chlorine in the WTC concrete dust. Which the NIST did not spend a great deal of time doing in their report
By the way, this type of analysis to be determined can only be done by Physics and Chemical Majors, which I am not, nor is Mark Roberts, who is an English Major. So, in summary;
#1 This high count of chlorination is what I want to know about, but I am not qualified to determine the ultimate answer, only that the readings of acid gasses in the air from the rubble pile were taken by the New York State Department of Health were shown to have measured 33.9 mg/m3 of HCl as well as 2.24 mg/m3 of HNO2 and 12.28 mg/m3 of HNO3. The presence of these acid gases in the air above the WTC rubble pile is consistent with the emission of Cl2, HCl, N2O, NO, and H2O.
Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene.
#2 Fetzer and Woods never go about explaining in detail about their fantasy weapon all I ever got from them has been evasive types of tactics; going in circles on the debate, changing the topic when a direct answer will do, and when the conversation got directed back to where I wanted the direct answer to My question, they then became evasive, defensive and did not give any particulate details of any kind.
Which ultimately led to the usual tactic of; "What are your qualifications?" Look, I don't need any to understand anything, I can grasp details to pick up on things, just give Me some details, the truth, the ultimate truth is what I want.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
While you're being wonderfully reasonable...
...I would like to share a message from a wise and wonderful source--"please don't feed the roll-tay esipsa-ray".
This is probably for the best. And if anyone asks who told me that, I'll be THRILLED to tell them. ;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
It's fine Jen, If He's from JREF, then this should be known
to Mark Roberts. All He has to do is ask some scholars on that site, they will give him this info. Resipsa thinks his idol Mark has all the answers, well Mark has NIST reports he can use, but the NIST is not totally clear cut in all matters. Like I say, Mark is not able to do the chemistry analysis on this, nor am I.
At this juncture a debate with Mark Roberts would lead to a "Twoofer vs. Debunker" position. For Me, It must go beyond that; These high levels of chlorination have My curiosity peaked.
And thank you for being My ise-way and onderfull-way ource-say. I do so appreciate it. :-D
If I change letters around in his name it comes up as...a pisser
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
3 little suckers...all in a row
Fetzer has gone mad with red herrings. His points just aren't on point. Time to give the mic to people who deserve it. We have well spoken individuals who speak of the important facts when the opportunity comes. People don't need to hear about video problems. They need to hear some facts. Everyone better not give credit to anyone who is wasting 9/11 truth's time. It's getting to the point where we just shouldn't comment on the schills. Don't even respond to them. They don't deserve it.
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
Another entry in BANNING FEST 2007!
My, my, B.J. Edwards--isn't that quite a load of SOCKS you've got there?
Well, here's me putting money down that you--or your SOCKS-- will again be a winner!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
I want to see Jim Hoffman,
I want to see Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan in that debate, not some stupid wacko.
Hoffman would wipe the ass of Roberts on the ground. Stupid hardfire, always get the weakest links.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Help me on 9/11 debates on:
www.shoutwire.com