Fetzer accuses Chief Nigro (and other FDNY commanders) of being “in on it”

[Len Colby]

In 2010 a college student named Sean Hughes wrote a paper about 9/11 conspiracy theories for a class called "International Terrorism". As part of his research he contacted Fetzer and they exchanged a few e-mails. Last January Sean, was uses the screen name “Brass” on the JREF forum contacted Fetzer again. In one of the e-mails he asked Fetzer:

“If Building Seven was a controlled demolition, then why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro make the decision at 3:30 PM to halt operations and make a collapse zone around the tower TWO FULL HOURS before the building collapsed? Was he in on it?”

Fetzer replied:

“Well, you'd better ask yourself, why would anyone create a barrier if there was no reason to believe the building would collapse? In case you haven't noticed, it was not hit by any plane and had no jet fuel based fires. There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature. Unless he knew it was coming down (because he was in on it), what other plausible explanation could there be for his behavior?”

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229324

Since it is well documented that (acting) Chief Nigro did call for a collapse zone Fetzer is accusing him of being “in on it.” Fetzer has a problem comprehending the logical implications of his claims but since other commanders of the FDNY also called for the area around 7 WTC.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

[Peter McKenna]

In 2010 a college student named Sean Hughes wrote a paper about 9/11 conspiracy theories for a class called "International Terrorism". As part of his research he contacted Fetzer and they exchanged a few e-mails. Last January Sean, was uses the screen name “Brass” on the JREF forum contacted Fetzer again. In one of the e-mails he asked Fetzer:

“If Building Seven was a controlled demolition, then why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro make the decision at 3:30 PM to halt operations and make a collapse zone around the tower TWO FULL HOURS before the building collapsed? Was he in on it?”

Fetzer replied:

“Well, you'd better ask yourself, why would anyone create a barrier if there was no reason to believe the building would collapse? In case you haven't noticed, it was not hit by any plane and had no jet fuel based fires. There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature. Unless he knew it was coming down (because he was in on it), what other plausible explanation could there be for his behavior?”

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229324

Since it is well documented that (acting) Chief Nigro did call for a collapse zone Fetzer is accusing him of being “in on it.” Fetzer has a problem comprehending the logical implications of his claims but since other commanders of the FDNY also called for the area around 7 WTC.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

The JREF blog linked "My Conversations with Jim Fetzer" are hilarious. That student merely offered some contrary evidence and opinion so Fetzer simultaneously insulted him and demanded he read through his tank farm of contrived nonsense. I had somehow thought Fetzer may have absorbed some common sense and actually deferred to real science and engineering with respect to the WTC events. Sadly no, he's pedantically serving up the same old hypocritical BS. Critical thinking indeed. Some things never change.

[Bill Sherwood]

There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature.

In this universe, however, diesel behaves pretty much the exact opposite to that. It is explosive (though hard to ignite) and burns quite hot.

[Len Colby]

The JREF blog linked "My Conversations with Jim Fetzer" are hilarious. That student merely offered some contrary evidence and opinion so Fetzer simultaneously insulted him and demanded he read through his tank farm of contrived nonsense. I had somehow thought Fetzer may have absorbed some common sense and actually deferred to real science and engineering with respect to the WTC events. Sadly no, he's pedantically serving up the same old hypocritical BS. Critical thinking indeed. Some things never change.

I agree most of their exchange is comedy gold with Fetzer insisting on adherence to the facts and critical thinking but practicing the exact opposite of what he was preaching. Most of it was funny but the accusation against Nigro vilely offensive and based on (to use one of the Dr.'s favorite phrases) "massive ignorance". Because there are numerous witness accounts that:

- The 7 WTC had heavy fires on many floors and was heavily damaged - with all the damage and the most of the serious fires on the south side of the building (of which there are very few post 1 WTC collapse images).

- It was due to the damage and fires as well observed instability that it was decided to abandon the building and eventually even evacuate the surrounding area.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

This reminds me of another low point in Feter et. al.'s 9/11 "research". In 2007 Fetzer published a book which included a “photo study” by Jack White which purported to show “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level”. But in July 2008 Josiah “Tink” Thompson pointed out it in fact was a photo of 7 WTC taken well before 9/11 and the supposed fire turned out to be an Alexander Calder sculpture in front of the building. Fetzer and White at first refused to admit error but White eventually halfheartedly admitted he made “a minor mistake” but claimed “There are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location” and said he had found “a different photo showing a small fire on the ninth floor.” Corrections and the new photo were to be published “in the next printing, expected in the near future.” But AFAIK almost 4 years later the book, The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America, has not been reprinted and neither Fetzer nor White have made any of these supposed photos public.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5594&view=findpost&p=148982 see posts through 695.

As I said back then I don’t think such photos exist, and once again I’m calling Fetzer’s and White’s bluffs and challenge them to publicly post or publish the photo(s) or admit they were ‘fibbing’.

[Len Colby]

There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature.

In this universe, however, diesel behaves pretty much the exact opposite to that. It is explosive (though hard to ignite) and burns quite hot.

NIST determined most of the diesel did not ignite and was not a factor in the collapse. The FDNY did not know that at the time of course but IIRC no one from the fire department cited the fuel supply as a reason to evacuate the area.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Len Colby