Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

True to form you have not listed where the photo was obtained, where it was taken or when. Likely you think none of those matter. Forgive me if I don't agree.

However, I would bet that you could get a few reasonable answers and reject them out of hand simply because they don't agree with the predefined conclusions you've already made. So why don't you skip the games and just tell us what you THINK happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo is a frame grab from one of thousands of 911 videos on the internet.

It clearly is NOT at the WTC, but no location was given. No debris is seen...just

the effect of some powerful force.

What YOU or your employers think does not matter.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
The photo is a frame grab from one of thousands of 911 videos on the internet.

It clearly is NOT at the WTC, but no location was given. No debris is seen...just

the effect of some powerful force.

What YOU or your employers think does not matter.

Jack

Accusation of paid posting noted and reported. General nasty attitude also noted. Any proof I'm paid to post here?

What video? If no location is given how do you KNOW it is even in New York? Forgive me if I won't just take your word for it.

Do you enjoy playing games Jack? That's what you seem to be doing by avoiding the question I asked. So AGAIN, why don't you skip the games and just tell us what you THINK happened? You see, I really don't know what caused it. I'm just interested in you ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT and telling us what YOU think since it is your pic and post after all.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am reminded that you never did get back to me about the airliners that left these peculiar "vapor trails".

They were certainly persistent. So am I.

Jack

IF I saw it, I'm sure I would have replied to it. I'm not omniscient Jack, nor am I paid to post here no matter how many times you accuse me of that without evidence. As persistent as you may be, you RARELY if EVER respond to the answers I (or others) give you anyway. This is OFF TOPIC here. Perhaps you could link the actual thread you're referring to?

Edit to add: Found it and replied in the thread. It was a post with just a picture, few words and no questions. How is ANYBODY supposed to know they should reply to it?

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am reminded that you never did get back to me about the airliners that left these peculiar "vapor trails".

They were certainly persistent. So am I.

Jack

You certainly did not ask that that Matt get back to you regarding the image you posted; do you presume him psychic? The number of threads where you have failed to answer direct question put to you are quite numerous.

To me, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am reminded that you never did get back to me about the airliners that left these peculiar "vapor trails".

They were certainly persistent. So am I.

Jack

You certainly did not ask that that Matt get back to you regarding the image you posted; do you presume him psychic? The number of threads where you have failed to answer direct question put to you are quite numerous.

To me, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It was also a thread that I hadn't previously replied to before yesterday. AFAIK, I hadn't seen it before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • 6 months later...
Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

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.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

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.

I trust that with the correction of this minor error, the book will now be error-free.

If so, this endorsement by Dr. Thompson is extraordinary. Thanks.

Jack

Unfortunately most of the old 9/11 threads got mixed together. There used to be one called "Fetzer's Folly". It started with a post by Josiah Thompson in which he pointed out that one of his nemesis' books contained a photo of 7 WTC which supposedly showed it on fire on 9/11 but undamaged but actually was taken well before the attacks. What Jack thought was fire inside the building was actually a red Calder sculpture in front of it. Jack and Fetzer promised to include another "photo in the next printing, expected in the near future" a few times but three years later we've yet to see another printing of the book or the mythical new photo.

Since the book it seems will never be reprinted I'm calling their bluff, produce the supposed photo or admit you made its existence up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
Guest James H. Fetzer

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.

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

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.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

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.

I trust that with the correction of this minor error, the book will now be error-free.

If so, this endorsement by Dr. Thompson is extraordinary. Thanks.

Jack

Unfortunately most of the old 9/11 threads got mixed together. There used to be one called "Fetzer's Folly". It started with a post by Josiah Thompson in which he pointed out that one of his nemesis' books contained a photo of 7 WTC which supposedly showed it on fire on 9/11 but undamaged but actually was taken well before the attacks. What Jack thought was fire inside the building was actually a red Calder sculpture in front of it. Jack and Fetzer promised to include another "photo in the next printing, expected in the near future" a few times but three years later we've yet to see another printing of the book or the mythical new photo.

Since the book it seems will never be reprinted I'm calling their bluff, produce the supposed photo or admit you made its existence up.

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...