Len Colby Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) BACKGROUND: “Truthers” frequently point to the collapse of 7 WTC as one of the most obvious ‘smoking guns’ of 9/11, they love to point out it was not struck by a plane, claims fires in it were weak and describe its collapse as mysterious or inexplicable. “Debunkers” counter this point to numerous witness reports from first responders of heavy fires on multiple floors, serious structural damage and signs the building was unstable after the WTC towers collapsed, this led the FDNY pull its personnel out of the building and later establish a collapse perimeter around it. Many truthers however challenge these witness accounts saying there is little photographic evidence to support it. The problem is that all the damage and most of the fires were on the south side and because the rubble pile was so dangerous there are very few images of that side the building taken after 1 WTC collapsed and the south façade is obscured by smoke and in some cases blocked by other buildings. Note that in this photo the south side is not visible but chunks are missing from the Southwest corner Though the view is blocked by 6 WTC, the Verizon building and lots of smoke we can see damage to the south façade in this photo http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg Here we see heavy flame on the south side of the building’s eastern façade. See these pages for more images and info http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html FETZER’S AND WHITE’S DUBIOUS CLAIMS: In 2007 Fetzer published The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America, it included a photo section by Jack White. One of the photos had the following caption, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” On July 4, 2008 Josiah “Tink” Thompson pointed out: “…the photo of the undamaged WTC-7 was taken months, if not years, before the attack. Why? Because the south face of the building was shredded with debris from the collapse of the North Tower at 10:29 that morning. What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11.” Fetzer initially refused to admit error but Jack eventually did so half-heartedly: The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change. In a later post Jack called his blunder a “minor error” and claimed “I just sent Dr. Fetzer a different photo showing a small fire on the ninth floor. It will replace the other photo in the next printing, expected in the near future.” Fetzer concurred, “Jack has found a replacement photograph that we will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5594&view=findpost&p=148982 But apparently the book was never reprinted and neither Jack nor Fetzer nor anyone else has released any of these supposed photos which I don’t think exist. So once again I challenge Fetzer or Jack to post or publish any of the the supposed photos. I realize that Mr. White is 85 and has not posted here or at the Deep Phertalizer Forum since last June so suspect he might have some problems with his health, if that is the case the challenge only applies to Fetzer. Since he claimed to have received the photo 3 ½ years ago and it seems the book will never be reprinted he has no excuse for not making it public now. Edited February 9, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 FWIW "truthers" accusing the FDNY of complicity dates back to at least 2004. http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html Unfortunately only 1 person besides me has voted in the poll, come on folks register your views, vote early and vote often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Well, I have no idea why this is coming out of the blue. A discussion about the fake photograph you are touting was published here, http://911blogger.com/node/7426, but some of the links no longer work. I will get back on this bye and bye. I know this is one of your harassing posts. I have no idea why you replied on the wrong thread. This came up because your absurd accusation that FDNY Acting Chief Nigro was “in on it” because he predicted the collapse of 7 WTC reminded me that you’ve yet to release the supposed photo showing the building’s south façade undamaged after the collapse of the North Tower. Over three years ago you claim you got it from Jack, today you told me (in an e-mail) you think it will appear in a new book of yours; so if this photo really exists and you have a copy why not post it on the Net? As for the idiotic study you posted a link to, it proves absolutely nothing. Why should anyone be surprised that the holes in the SW corner of 7 WTC are less prominent a much lower resolution taken from a different angle? So do you think the NYPD is "in on it" as well? Edited February 11, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Fetzer it seems like no one believes you, why not prove your doubters wrong and post the photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Colby's on another of his patented harassment missions. The fakey of the NYPD photo has long been known and has been widely documented: http://911blogger.com/node/8511 Fetzer it seems like no one believes you, why not prove your doubters wrong and post the photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Regarding WTC-7, watch "This is an orange" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 On the Twin Towers, see "The Towers of Dust" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 "9/11: False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Colby's on another of his patented harassment missions. The fakey of the NYPD photo has long been known and has been widely documented: http://911blogger.com/node/8511 Fetzer it seems like no one believes you, why not prove your doubters wrong and post the photo? I rarely agree with you Fetzer but a while ago you said that someone trying to change the subject is a sign they know they are losing the argument. The question here is the photo which over three years ago Jack said he’d found and you said you’d received and which you told me just yesterday you “believe it appears” in a book you’re “working on”? So if you really have had such a photo for 3 ½ years and haven’t lost it why not post it? The new 911blogger post doesn’t any more than the other the two photos were taken from different angle so it is not surprising that the corner damage looks different. Also the lower floors of 7 WTC in the NJ (Zafar) photo (link below)are blocked by the World Financial Center. The ‘comparison’ photo is very low resolution but it appears to me that a corner of one of the WFC buildings was used rather than 7 WTC. Also the NYPD photo could have been taken later, watch the clip below the NJ photo, one of the news reports in it mentioned that debris was falling from the building,it also shows that already during the early afternoon of 9/11 the FDNY said they expected the building to collapse. Zafar photo: http://imageshack.us.../figd01bq4.jpg/ I don’t know why the guy was babbling about the Steve Spak photo (below) it shows a part of 7 WTC not visible in either of the other photos. It does show there to be significant damage to the lower floors of the building’s south façade matching the accounts of several fire fighters. So what’s the theory now? Besides PNAC, the CIA, State Department, Mossad, Pentagon, NORAD, Port Authority, Silverstein, FEMA, NIST, ASCE etc. etc. the NYPD aviation unit and numerous FDNY chiefs and Steve Spak were all in on it? Sean Hughes wrote, ‘"Have you seen 'This is an Orange.'" - Fetzer response to everything.’ You’re such a cliché! Did you really teach critical thinking? Based on the ‘logic’ of that video salamanders must be lizards because they closely resemble each other but of course it ignores the significant differences such as the lack of noise and vibrations of demolition charges and the collapse of 7’s central core several seconds before that of the north façade. But I have digressed, to be quite blunt I don’t believe <Deleted by Moderator> the photo exists. I believe you will respond with excuses and further attempts to change the subject but will never produce the photo. - Go ahead prove me wrong! EDIT - Found working link for the Zafar photo Please do not question the honesty of another forum member. Edited February 13, 2012 by Evan Burton Removed accusation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 UPDATE - Working photo link added above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Cahalan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) UPDATE - Working photo link added above. Len you are so obviously out of bullets that you ought to feel flattered when someone of Jim's stature even acknowledges your posts. Hint: he's just toying with you for amusement. I think that even Gary Mack writes better B/S than that stuff Len. Here's what these tools do: scan through the myriad of elements in a 9/11 argument and find one "T" that wasn't crossed. "See? They don't cross their T's! Just look at them! Conclusively proving that 9/11 researchers are all crazy" What you need to do Len is to find a forum composed of gullible people. A place that might just give you the benefit of a doubt. Like Gary Mack does at his farce of a Dallas museum. <Deleted by Moderator> Lee, please do not accuse someone of being paid to make an opinion, to post here, etc, unless you have concrete evidence. of it. Thank you. When one decides to sell his soul out? At least get some real money for it... Edited February 13, 2012 by Evan Burton Removed accusation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Lee, please do not accuse someone of being paid to make an opinion, to post here, etc, unless you have concrete evidence. of it. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 UPDATE - Working photo link added above. Len you are so obviously out of bullets that you ought to feel flattered when someone of Jim's stature even acknowledges your posts. Hint: he's just toying with you for amusement. I think that even Gary Mack writes better B/S than that stuff Len. Here's what these tools do: scan through the myriad of elements in a 9/11 argument and find one "T" that wasn't crossed. "See? They don't cross their T's! Just look at them! Conclusively proving that 9/11 researchers are all crazy" What you need to do Len is to find a forum composed of gullible people. A place that might just give you the benefit of a doubt. Like Gary Mack does at his farce of a Dallas museum. <Deleted by Moderator> Lee, please do not accuse someone of being paid to make an opinion, to post here, etc, unless you have concrete evidence. of it. Thank you. When one decides to sell his soul out? At least get some real money for it... Hate to break it to ya Lee but outside of some CT circles Fetzer is not considered to be of elevated ‘stature’, he is a retired professor from a lowly ranked university. I said ‘some CT circles’ because many JFK researchers and truthers reject his analysis and methods. Fetzer, making a false claim –saying he has a photograph that doesn’t exist is not a minor discrepancy (failing to cross a ‘t’)- it impugns his credibility. As I spelled out above I believe he received a photo that he though showed what he’d claimed and thus was being truthful when he said he would publish it, but I presume he eventually figured out that Jack had blundered once again. But he is not forthright enough to admit they’d made the same mistake twice. Nor did I ever indicate “that 9/11 researchers are all crazy" but YOUR histrionics suggests you’re a dozen Bavarian crèmes short of a baker’s dozen. As for the various 9/11 CTs I’ve yet to see one that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ http://www.debunking911.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now