Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest James H. Fetzer

9/11 Truth is No "Parlor Game"

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Try "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and pay special attention to the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn as the civilian lime-green firetrucks are extinguishing the modest fires that remained. That should tell you something. The official account has been thoroughly exposed as a hoax and it is not necessary to deal with every item of planted evidence to know that it was a staged event. How about the role of those enormous dumpsters, Evan? Why don't you deal with those nice "special effects"?

Nice going Jim - if evidence appears that refutes your claims, just ignore it or claim it is faked. That's what you have done in the past, so why change?

Those images and reports were part of the Moussaoui trial and from people who were at the scene... which you and others were not. The onus is on you to prove that these images and accounts are not true.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

6/8/09 10:28 AM

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 - 911aletheia | Google Groups

Page 1 of 5

http://groups.google.com/group/911aletheia/browse_thread/thread/92296d63d717edfb#

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 Options

On the occasion of Michael Morrissey's new forum dedicated to truth:

Critics like to attribute to me positions that I do not hold. While I

encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,

masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is

the more likely. Certainly, nothing in any of their posts convince me

that I am wrong about this, but then they seem to be directed against

positions that I don't hold. Judy uses words like "dustification" to

guard against presuming that what we are seeing is familiar and fits

within our existing conceptual scheme, which is a very sophisticated

move, intellectually. For the record, here is an analysis of the World

Trade Center reflecting the extent to which I have reached conclusions.

Given all the misrepresentations, this is just for the record. I have no

illusions that those attacking me are going to "clean up their acts" and

discuss my actual positions. I don't claim that I am right on all counts,

but it is extremely unlikely that I am wrong about the general situation,

which is supported by physicists, structural and mechanical engineers and

others experts. I assume that some kinds of conventional explosives were

used in the Twin Towers, but I doubt that they--even when combined with

thermite/thermate--can explain the evidence from their destruction. I'm

still open to discussion and invite reasoned arguments both pro and con.

All,

For the sake of greater completeness, I have added three further

arguments (forms of proof) as (e11d4), (e11d5), and (e11d6). Let

me also reaffirm the most important information we have about the

destruction of the World Trade Center, which is this difference:

............................WTC-1 & WTC-2.................WTC-7

.............Sequence:........Top down..................Bottom up

.............Floor motion:...Stationary.............Falling together

.............Mechanism:.....Pulverization.........Controlled Demolition

.............Time/Speed:....About 10 secs............About 6.5 secs.

.......................................(~ free fall)................(~ free fall)

.............Remnants:.......No pancakes................Pancakes

.................................(below ground level).........(5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.

Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.

If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--

as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they

too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.

6/8/09 10:28 AM

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 - 911aletheia | Google Groups

Page 2 of 5

http://groups.google.com/group/911aletheia/browse_thread/thread/92296d63d717edfb#

But the causal mechanisms involved seem to be quite distinct.

The three additional arguments I have added below contrary to

the thesis of the existence of massive pools of molten metal,

by the way, were also derived from the research of Judy Wood.

That everybody should understand that I do not accept every-

thing she proposes, I would observe that she has allied her-

self with John Hutchison recently, where I am very skeptical

about his past work and cannot recommend him. It worries me

that she associates herself with him. I therefore urge you

to consider her superb research separate and apart from his.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jfet...@d.umn.edu -----

All,

Let me respond to this by outlining why I believe that unconventional

mechanisms must have been involved in the destruction of the towers.

The possibilities fall into several broad categories, some of which

are more for the sake of completeness than they are serious options.

(h1) Natural Causes: hurricane, tornado, earthquake

~(h1) The damage was isolated to a specific area of Manhattan, as

though only buildings with "WTC" designations were targeted.

These are not the kinds of effects brought about by nature.

(h2) Aircraft & Fires: plane crashes caused fires, weakened the

steel, and led to the initiation of a pancake collapse.

~(h2) The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to even

weaken much less melt the steel. The conditions to cause

a "collapse initiation" were not present. A non-starter.

(h3) Conventional plus thermite/thermate: the buildings had been

preped for demolition and the crashes were mere distractions.

~(h3) The steel and concrete structures--estimated to weigh in at

around 500,000 tons apiece--were largely turned into huge

clouds of very fine dust. This does not appear to be the

probable outcome of conventional explosives, with or with-

out thermite/thermate. Many features of the destruction

appear to contradict this very popular theory of the case:

(e1) the buildings were destroyed below ground level;

(e2) some footage shows spires turning to fine dust;

(e3) WTC-6 has a block of mass missing from its core;

(e4) WTC-5 has many "cookie cutter" forms of damage;

(e5) WTC-4 remains half present, half completely gone;

(e6) WTC-3 has a massive gash through most of the building;

(e7) there are thousands of "toasted cars" near and far;

(e8) some are wilted and look very much like wet rags;

(e9) many have engine blocks destroyed but are otherwise

pristine;

6/8/09 10:28 AM

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 - 911aletheia | Google Groups

Page 3 of 5

http://groups.google.com/group/911aletheia/browse_thread/thread/92296d63d717edfb#

(e10) tons upon tons of paper were not destroyed thereby; and,

(e11) there appear to have been no "massive pools of molten

metal":

(e11a) around 11 million gallons of water were poured on

Ground Zero;

(e11b) if there had been massive pools of molten metal,

there should have been enormous steam explosions;

(e11c) there were no massive steam explosions, which means

either 11 million gallons of water were not poured

on Ground Zero or there were not massive pools of

molten metal, but the water was poured on the site;

(e11d) several photographs alleged to support the existence

of massive pools of molten metal are phony or faked;

(e11d1) the responders peering into the cavern of

molten metal cannot possibly be authentic;

(elld2) the photo of the grappler handling a glow-

ing piece of steel cannot be authentic;

(elld3) the stream of molten metal from the 80th

floor is suspect on several grounds:

(e11d3a) it sometime appears emanating

from one location, sometimes

from another;

(e11d3b) it appear to be a unique effect,

suggesting that it was caused by

something distinctive about that

floor owned by the Fuji Bank;

(e11d3c) if it were caused by thermite/

thermate, then presumably since

that must have been distributed

throughout the buildings, streams

of this kind should be evident in

a more or less random pattern,

but that is not the case.

(e11d4) photos of the subbasement level of WTC-1

show pools of water that are not bubbling

and workers walking with seeming impunity;

(e11d5) other photos show workers enveloped in a

kind of mist, which, were it steam, would

have scalded them and possibly killed them;

(e11d6) geothermal maps for 23 September 2002 show

a dramatic subsiding of "hot spots" in com-

parison with thermal maps for 16 September.

These reasons have convinced me that (h3) is most unlikely to be true, even

in its latest "nano-thermite" variation. I therefore believe that we have

to look elsewhere for an adequate explanation of the available evidence, in

particular, that we have to consider various kinds of high-tech weaponry.

6/8/09 10:28 AM

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 - 911aletheia | Google Groups

Page 4 of 5

http://groups.google.com/group/911aletheia/browse_thread/thread/92296d63d717edfb#

(h4) mini-nukes: 3rd or 4th generation, hydrogen bombs, etc.

~(h4) It is not apparent to me how (h4) can account for most of the same

effects that undermine (h3), from (e1) through (e11). One of the

most important contraindications of intense heat--which would have

accompanied the use of thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is the vast

quantities of paper that survived undamaged, unburned, and intact.

(h5) plasmoids: gases that appear to have advantages over thermite:

Data: too many too tiny pyroclastic fires burned for

particles in dust dust clouds some 99 days

Plasma despite

(tens of molecular constant

thousands dissociation unavoidable dousing

of degrees) with water

Thermite unknown

(thousands pulverization unaccounted unaccounted

of degrees mechanism for for

~(h5) both thermite/thermate and plasma would have produced vast pools

of molten metal, which do not appear to have been present at the

scene by (e11) above. Plus how could the paper have survived?

Whatever mechanism was involved appears to have induced molecular dis-

sociation. What was mistaken for smoke appears to have been a kind of

"misting" that was part of the residue from molecular dissociation.

That WTC-7 has already been rebuilt but the site of the Twin Towers

remains dormant suggest that it may be difficult or even impossible

to rebuild, given the residual effects of molecular dissociation.

(h6) directed energy weapons: lasers, masers, or something like them

Here I must admit that, as a philosopher, I am at the borderline of my

competence to resolve the matter. I have repeatedly explained why I

do not believe that (h1) through (h3) can be correct. Here I go a bit

further and explain why (h4) and (h5) also appear implausible to me. I

am convinced that molecular dissociation took place, but I confess that

I am not presently able to discriminate between alternative mechanisms

for bringing that about. I presume future studies will resolve this.

Any adequate explanation must account for the evidence enumerated here,

including turning these buildings into millions of cubic yards of very

fine dust, the selective destruction of the buildings and the "toasted

cars", and the survival of enormous quantities of paper! These facts,

in my view, undermine (h3) and tend to undermine (h4) and (h5). What

seems to be required are devices that could focus on parts of buildings

and selectively destroy components of vehicles without also destroying

the rest of those buildings or the other components of those vehicles.

I am indebted to Judy Wood for explaining most of the arguments that I

have made here during extended interviews and conversations we have had

in the past. I encourage everyone who wants to better understand the

evidence supporting my position to visit her web site, drjudywood.com,

and to obtain the DVD from the Madison Conference, "The Science and

Politics of 9/11", which includes a masterful presentation by her and

the commentary by a member of the audience who holds a Ph.D. in theo-

retical physics that she is now convinced that masers had to be used.

Even Sir Karl Popper has adopted modesty in comparison with the work

6/8/09 10:28 AM

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 - 911aletheia | Google Groups

Page 5 of 5

http://groups.google.com/group/911aletheia/browse_thread/thread/92296d63d717edfb#

of physicists, chemists, and others who unpack the laws of nature by

means of their research. I can only say that, based upon my review

of the evidence I have presented here, I am convinced that whatever

happened to the WTC, it cannot be adequately explained on the basis

of conventional explosives with or without thermite/thermate. The

latest appeals to nano-thermite, moreover, do not appear promising

to account for the effects that I have enumerated above in the form

of (e1) through (e11). But I am willing to consider alternatives.

Jim

ADDENDUM:

Elaborating on (e11d1), (e11d2), and (e11d3): The photo of workers

peering into the glowing cavern would imply that the temperature there

was around 3,000*F! Would you even place your face of the spout of a

teapot when it starts to whistle? And that's only a bit above 212*F.

The point about the grappler is that the hydraulics do not work at tem-

peratures far, far below the temperatures transmitted by glowing steel.

They are quite modest, around 350*F, as I recall. But you can check

out Judy's site for the exact figures. You really should visit there.

The point about the stream of molten metal from the 80th floor is that,

if it really was caused by thermite or thermate and thermite or thermate

or nano-thermite was the principal cause of the destruction of the towers,

then we should have these streams flowing all over the place at random.

I have explained several of these points before and I have now added

three additional arguments for which we have photographic evidence. I

would like to think that somewhere out there in this "brain trust" that

represents Truth & Justice there are at least a few who would acknowledge

the force of the evidence I have presented and not just explain it away.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and pay special attention to the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn as the civilian lime-green firetrucks are extinguishing the modest fires that remained.

Wrong again Jim, and a slight correction. The lime green fire trucks are the standard colour for aviation fire trucks. most often referred to as Oshkosh (from the truck brand name). They are not always green, but most are.

Now, the "unblemished lawn?

9-11+Attack+%281%29.jpg

6a00d8341c0ac653ef011570de65ca970c-600wi.jpg

Note the vehicle tracks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............................WTC-1 & WTC-2.................WTC-7

.............Sequence:........Top down..................Bottom up

.............Floor motion:...Stationary.............Falling together

.............Mechanism:.....Pulverization.........Controlled Demolition

.............Time/Speed:....About 10 secs............About 6.5 secs.

.......................................(~ free fall)................(~ free fall)

BS claim that has repeatedly show to be false on this forum and elsewhere the towers took over 15 seconds to come down. If you start timing the collapse of 7 WTC when the mechanical penthouses start to fall (indicating the central core had failed the collapse took over 10 sec (about 12 IIRC)

The steel and concrete structures--estimated to weigh in at

around 500,000 tons apiece--were largely turned into huge

clouds of very fine dust

BS even your former ally Steve Jones who unlike you actually examined samples said much of the concrete was broken down into pebble size pieces, there is no evidence any but a minuscule part of the steel or other metal in the towers was turned into anything resembling dust. The must have been some small fragments but it was mostly into large pieces that often weighed several tons

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert Parry, advances the indefensible theory that the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was affected by the shooters interest in 9/11 truth.

You have yet to justify this claim in light of the facts that:

1] Loughner was known to be very interested in the claims of the '"truth" movement' and according a close friend Zeitgeigt had a major affect on his mindset

2] Local truthers accused of being a "war criminal" and an accessory after the fact to mass murder.

So why was Perry's suggestion "indefensible"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

There were 125 casualties at the Pentagon separate from any alleged passengers. (The casualty list is

archived on the Scholars home page and can be found here: http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=72 )

So we know that there were bodies. But we also know that no commercial carrier hit the building, so we

also know that none of them came from Flight 77. For those unfamiliar with the evidence, here are links:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

From Wikipedia with links:

Army troops from Fort Belvoir were the first teams to survey the interior of the crash site and noted the presence of human remains.[73] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Urban Search and Rescue teams, including Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue assisted the search for remains, working through the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS).[73][74] Kevin Rimrodt, a Navy photographer surveying the Navy Command Center after the attacks, remarked that "there were so many bodies, I'd almost step on them. So I'd have to really take care to look backwards as I'm backing up in the dark, looking with a flashlight, making sure I'm not stepping on somebody".[75] Debris from the Pentagon were taken to the Pentagon's north parking lot for more detailed search for remains and evidence.[76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Remains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Yes, the "unblemished" lawn! The alleged crash has already taken place. But there is no massive pile of

debris from a 100-ton airliner. No wings, not tail, no bodies, no seats, no fuselage. Not even the engines,

which are practically indestructible, were recovered. This photograph is one of the strongest proofs that no

Boeing 757 hit the building. Even though the 767s that purportedly hit the Twin Towers carved their images

in that massive steel-and-concrete structure, the 757 did not even create the outline of its shape on the far

softer facade of the Pentagon, which is made of limestone. Thanks for posting this, Evan! Very well done!

Try "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and pay special attention to the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn as the civilian lime-green firetrucks are extinguishing the modest fires that remained.

Wrong again Jim, and a slight correction. The lime green fire trucks are the standard colour for aviation fire trucks. most often referred to as Oshkosh (from the truck brand name). They are not always green, but most are.

Now, the "unblemished lawn?

9-11+Attack+%281%29.jpg

6a00d8341c0ac653ef011570de65ca970c-600wi.jpg

Note the vehicle tracks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the "unblemished" lawn! The alleged crash has already taken place. But there is no massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner. No wings, not tail, no bodies, no seats, no fuselage. Not even the engines, which are practically indestructible, were recovered.

I'm curious as to what extent the lawn should be "blemished", and in what manner. As far as I'm aware, the plane allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, not the lawn itself.

Watch from 3:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the "unblemished" lawn! The alleged crash has already taken place. But there is no massive pile of

debris from a 100-ton airliner. No wings, not tail, no bodies, no seats, no fuselage. Not even the engines,

which are practically indestructible, were recovered. This photograph is one of the strongest proofs that no

Boeing 757 hit the building. Even though the 767s that purportedly hit the Twin Towers carved their images

in that massive steel-and-concrete structure, the 757 did not even create the outline of its shape on the far

softer facade of the Pentagon, which is made of limestone. Thanks for posting this, Evan! Very well done!

Try "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and pay special attention to the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn as the civilian lime-green firetrucks are extinguishing the modest fires that remained.

Wrong again Jim, and a slight correction. The lime green fire trucks are the standard colour for aviation fire trucks. most often referred to as Oshkosh (from the truck brand name). They are not always green, but most are.

Now, the "unblemished lawn?

9-11+Attack+%281%29.jpg

6a00d8341c0ac653ef011570de65ca970c-600wi.jpg

Note the vehicle tracks

No plane debris? Are you serious?

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg

http://911review.org/Wiki/pentagon-rotor.JPG

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgsnwT8VpQmXO3nF6B2sadQGcQY7jHjH4FqMCf0B_0p2uGabga&t=1

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2004/12/305620.gif

http://fredyz.free.fr/911/debris/rottami.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTthap7-B04GgNzSFY9R7cSA0MCFmcG3o4CrPYf3dLNWr7o_0vk9g&t=1

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/debris.jpg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/debris3.jpeg

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris3_engine2.jpg

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris1_wheel.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/punchout_rv.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/mdw_eng01.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/skin_firetruck.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg

and literally hundreds more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prof. Fetzer,

How again, do we know no commercial plane hit the Pentagon, and that none of the bodies came from Flight 77?

BK

Because the crash scene doesn’t conform to Fetzer and the no planer’s non-expert opinion on what the crash scene should have looked like. Bizarrely they expect the bulk of the wreckage to have been deposited outside the Pentagon. His logic is blatantly circular, in a previous post he implied that the photos or wreckage were faked or “taken elsewhere” and wrote:

“Since there was no plane, there were no passengers, either… no plane hit the Pentagon and therefore, if any bodies were found there, they cannot have been "passengers" but they can very well be planted bodies”

Presumably that applies to any found wreckage but he also complains that there was “no bodies” or wreckage

So his logic goes ‘there were no bodies or wreckage therefore there was no plane, there was no plane therefore there were no bodies or wreckage therefore…’

Fetzer wrote:

Even though the 767s that purportedly hit the Twin Towers carved their images in that massive steel-and-concrete structure, the 757 did not even create the outline of its shape on the far softer facade of the Pentagon, which is made of limestone

It's amazing the number of fallacies he crammed into one sentence.

1) The 767’s were twice as massive (heavy) as flight 77 thus crashed with about twice the force of the WTC planes.

2) Describing the façade as being “made of limestone” was quite deceptive, the wall had just been made blastproof, the limestone was laid over reinforced concrete. By the same token the WTC columns were clad with thin aluminum.

3) The Pentagon’s impact hole did have the rough dimensions of a 757

holemeasure.jpg

His and Hartwell and other “no planers” denying that the passengers on the planes died reminds me of Holocaust denial.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, you should get your facts right. No engines?

planeparts-1.jpg

pentagon-engine3.jpg

That part above is from the engine:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...