Did he get all his spelling correct? That's the important thing. Jim, you're quite correct. The objective in here (with the team) is to scatter any focus on anything too specific. Truth is NOT the objective... The blurring of the lines between truth, lies and reality is the primary objective. (and they do it quite well, unfortunately). I found this out very early on in my attempts to discuss specifics some time ago. I continue to post here (although admittedly less frequently) in an attempt to educate those that browse by seeking truth but probably never post. Once you suggest that the "official" BS story isn't exactly on the 'up and up', you're attacked, and I suspect the pressure is applied to the mods (but that's just my opinion). Point is, just post and ignore the attacks as this is the longstanding goal....misinformation, and refocusing the spotlight ANYWHERE but where it could do damage to the "official" stance. Sad but true, that IS the goal of many here. Please continue to post Mr. Fetzer. I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, and the actual information you present for the reader to decide for themselves. Thank you Sir.
Attack, attack, attack.....how splendidly unusual.. You COULD discuss the issues raised, or you could just keep attacking. Spin baby...spin.
Call it whatever you want. I pointed out his hypocrisy. If that is an attack to you then so be it. The issues he raised were addressed during the debate I linked to. He dismisses opposing evidence flippantly calling it fabricated and calling witnesses liars. Of course being a doctor of philosophy he carefully chooses his words and states they were "mistaken" but he offers NO PROOF other than his opinion to back up his claim. HE attacks others so it is pretty disingenuous of him to complain about attacks. He cannot defend his position and resorts to talking over his opponent and changes the subject whenever he is pressed on details. Watch it for yourself and then render judgement. Don't just blindly support him because he is telling you what you want to hear. Remember . . . QUESTION EVERYTHING and accept ONLY what you can verify . . . REGARDLESS of the source. Based on what I have seen he is an arrogant blowhard who is more interested in selling books, gaining notoriety, and stroking his ego than advocating for the truth.
Can we accuse you all of working together then as well? Seems like you already are. "9/11 was an inside job" shows up every now and again to cheer you guys on. Seriously is everyone that takes one position or another on an issue "on a team" to you? Have you entertained the notion that they just share similar viewpoints and are not "working together"?
I'm sure glad you wouldn't attack anyone personally. That's supposed to be against TOS, but I know "certain" folks have more power than others. That's the reality. All I can do is point it out on occasion and hope the intelligent reader notices.
Did you watch the debate? Note his body language? Note his tactics? I'm guessing not. Watch the debate and THEN tell me if you disagree with my assessment of Mr. Fetzer. I have no more power than anyone else here. Report me if you think my assessment was a personal attack. If the mods deem it so, then I should be banned.
you have done a very poor job of reseach.they DID design it for an airliner to slam into it at its maximom speeds of 600mph and as he stated,could take hits from MULTIPLE airliners and you really need to stop listening to the paid shills here who know it was an inside job.
This is a blatant lie. The ONLY person who ever made that claim was DeMartini and he made sure everyone knew it was his OPINION, not fact. As for the actual calculations done, those have been released years ago by the guy who actually DID the calculations. Read about it here The calculations were done on a 707 going 180 mph (290 km/hr). So quit whining about other people's research as you expose the lack of research in your own posts.
911 was an inside muppet needs to stick to backslapping his teammates, because look what happens when he tries to make a "point".
As is usual when a truther posts a shotgun blast brain dump, the conversation has wandered into dozens of separate tangents without any consensus achieved on any original point. As a result, I think it's a good idea to return to the start and refresh the memories of those who would rather wander around topics then address them directly. I'd like to begin with a disclaimer. Since Jim did simply listed off 20 unsourced references I'll not bother to source my own unless a specific point is directly contested. The building's structural systems did absorb the impacts of both aircraft quite well. In fact, the damage only caused a 20% shift in load from damaged systems to undamaged systems. This was well within design tolerance for the building as evidenced by the duration that the building remained standing after the impacts took place. If the absorption of the impact was the only factor involved, the buildings would most likely have remained standing. Of course, as Jim notes in point 2, the impacts initiated a fire and this fire continued to cause damage to the structural system well after the impacts. 1. Jet fuel was simply the source of ignition for other combustible materials within the building. It was an office filled with textiles, plastics, wood, paper, combustible chemicals et cetera. The fires did not extinguish simply because the Jet A fuel had been consumed. 2. Steel cannot be both stone cold, and acting as a heat sink at the same time. The point is contradictory. Either the steel was conducting heat, or it was cold. It can't be both. The columns did not buckle because they had melted. The columns buckled because they reached their elastic limit and that takes place long before the steel becomes a liquid. The elasticity of steel is reduced as it is heated and the fires within the building have been shown to be more then hot enough to compromise key sections of the structural system. This is completely false. The steel was certified to ASTM E119. This does not mean the steel can be heated to 2000 degrees for three or four hours without any significant effect. What it means is that complete assemblies (including fireproofing insulation applied to the steel) can be exposed to 2000 degrees and only heat by 250 degrees per hour. That means a completely insulated and intact structural system should only heat to 500 degrees after 2 hours. As we know with the building, the systems were not intact. They had been damaged by the aircraft impacts. Fireproofing was knocked off exposing steel directly to the fire, and the systems themselves were dislocated allowing for a greater degree of heating. Thermal expansion and contraction of the floor systems caused the support columns to be dislocated from their stable vertical positions. This along with heating induced buckling in those columns which initiated collapse. This process was not abrupt, it took the entire time from initial impact to the initiation of collapse to occur. The buckling itself was abrupt simply because once a column has reached its elastic limit it provides zero support. It doesn't provide partial load capacity. It provides none. No steel within the building "turned to dust" It was very much intact. We can be sure of this because steel is pyrophoric. This means that it combusts at room temperature. We see this happen every time we create a spark with flint on steel or grind it with a grinder. The only thing that prevents steel from catching fire on its own is a passivation layer of oxidation. This layer prevents iron within the steel from coming in contact with oxygen in the atmosphere. If steel within the building had turned to dust, it would have allowed the iron within the steel to come into contact with oxygen in the atmosphere and it would have burned. The effect of that much steel burning would have been like looking at the sun. This is an awkwardly constructed point. I'm not sure what the point is in fact. Rodriguez reported hearing noises that caused someone's skin to fill with water from the sprinkler system? What is this, the sci-fi channel? If Rodriquez heard noises that resembled explosions they could have come from many sources. What they didn't come from was demolition explosions. Demolition explosions are much louder then any sound recorded that day. If Rodriquez had been in the vicinity of an actual demolition charge large enough to damage the support structure of the WTC at minimum he would have suffered hearing loss. In all likelyhood he would have been killed by the overpressure. We also would have found remains from those explosions in the rubble. Demolition charges would have left unmistakable remains in the rubble. There was no need to test for residue because actual visible parts of the charges are left intact after explosions. If they were in the building, they would have been found. How did Craig Furlong calibrate Rodriquez's testimony to within 17 seconds? How did he calibrate the perception of reverberations to the actual impacts? The buildings oscillated for minutes due to the absorption of the impact. Did Rodriquez have on a super watch or something? FEMA suggested the possibility of a pancake collapse but did not perform any testing to verify this suggestion. NIST did do testing and ruled out the pancake collapse model. In a pancake collapse the floor systems separate from the columns and fall first. This did not happen within the towers. In fact, the intact connections of the floor systems dislocated the columns and caused them to buckle. The height of the towers is a relatively short distance to experience the acceleration of gravity. A difference of 1 second during that distance represents a very significant difference in acceleration. Beyond that, truthers never seem to be able to calculate how long they think it should have taken to collapse. They simply assert that it was too fast. If it was too fast, exactly how long should it have taken, Jim?
Again, the buildings did not turn to dust from the top down. One would think that Dr Wood would recognize how silly her theory is given the fundamental properties of steel which she should be entirely familiar with. She must have overlooked the pyrophoric nature of steel due to being so distracted with fantasies of space based hurricane powered zero point energy beam weapons. Building 7 damaged every adjacent building as it collapsed. Some of those buildings were so heavily damaged they had to be condemned and subjected to millions of dollars worth of repair. Building 7 most certainly could not have caused such damage if it actually did fall into its own footprint. Clearly this claim is false. Also false are the silly notions that Silverstein (A) asked firefighters to demolish his building and (B) somehow profited from the collapse. WTC 7 and the towers experienced different modes of collapse, not different modes of demolition. As I pointed out before, there was no pancake collapse of the WTC towers. WTC7 collapsed when a central column failed, allowing the HVAC penthouse to fall through the center of the building. This initiated the collapse of the outer columns, which is witnessed well after the interior collapse took place. Neither building's rubble pile was reduced to below ground level. This claim is false. This entire point is a complete fabrication. No one has shown that anything other then a 757 impacted the pentagon. Wreckage was found, passenger's remains were found, wreckage and artifacts found were all consistent with a 757. The CCDs used in the Pentagon cameras did not scan fast enough to capture an object traveling at the rate of the aircraft at the distance of the aircraft. The aircraft moved over 7 feet in the time it took the CCD to scan from one edge of its surface to the other. In fact, a CCD with the type of capability required wasn't even on the market until 2008. The system itself was also not designed to record incoming aircraft. It was designed to monitor vehicles and pedestrians. By the way, the aircraft was easily visible to many witnesses who identified the aircraft as a 757. Ground effect does not make it impossible to crash an aircraft. It's only an increased efficiency of the wing within a wingspan of distance from the ground. This increase in lift can easily be overcome with an increase in downward momentum. Moreover, suicide pilots don't give a crap about safety thresholds. Nila explained to you that it was impossible to pilot safely at those speeds, but the pilots on that day didn't care if it was possible for the plane to break apart before they hit their target. If the plane flew over the building how did the FDR end up in the rubble? Are you suggesting it was planted there? Are you suggesting that the person who planted it there went through the trouble of planting it but forgot to correctly modify the data on the FDR? It's astonishing how convoluted truther theories are. The government has never maintained that flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft. It crashed into a reclaimed strip mine. In an effort to discover the truth you should probably investigate the difference between the two. Beyond that, heavy equipment, and a large team of thousands was employed to recover debris and remains. More than 95% of the aircraft was recovered, remains were recovered for every one of the passengers. All of the debris was consistent with the crash of flight 93. As I said before the hijackers were not concerned with safe flight. None of them "turned up alive" The FBI acknowledged no such thing, and no one ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Please explain how it's respectful to assert that passengers on aircraft didn't even exist?
Yet Mr H has no problem, posting a link to the Edinburgh Report which completely ignores the impact and structrual damage, and claims the fires were enough to bring down the buildings in the actual time frame in which the towers collapsed. Yup, all over the place
So what evidence do you have to refute the Edinburgh study? Just your "expertise" in structural engineering and fire dynamics?
I shoot down you guys pathetic arguments and you all show you have done no research is what happens.funny that you would listen to a proven liar as well.lol.
This is a blatant lie as has been repeatedly shown. Such dishonesty should be noted by anyone actually thinking truthers are actually interested either discovering the truth or in telling the truth. How about explaining claiming the towers were designed for multiple plane hits above 600 mph? I've posted Robertson's original calculations as explained by Robertson himself repeatedly to you and the rest of the truthers, yet you still insist on lying about it. Why? Do you think if you repeat a lie long enough that people might start to believe you when every time you repeat it someone is there to prove you are lying? Real life doesn't work that way.
Mt H constantly proves he slept through junior high school science classes beside never doing any research on this case in the fact that the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years was violated that day.He only proves he is extremely ignorant when it comes to the construction of high rise buildings as well in that a plane hitting the tower MIGHT take out a column or two but not the entire columns, not to mention any architect will tell you that the steel columns when you go lower,they get stronger and thicker. they sure pay him well for getting his rear end handed to him on a platter everyday.the dude would never come back to constantly get embarrased all the time for free.thats a given. funny no matter how many newbies come on here and point out the obvious that he has done no research into this or the other octa's here,they keep coming back earning their paycheck from their employers.lol.
The only thing getting shot on a regular basis is your foot muppet. Are you really this delusional or are you just trolling? For your sake, I hope it's the latter. As a reminder, your most recent claim in this thread was completely untrue.
