CBS PULLS “HATCHET JOB” ON SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
Madison, WI (PRWEB) February 1, 2007 – Members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan organization of students, experts and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, have some bones to pick with CBS NEWS for an article entitled, “Dangerous World Fuels Conspiracy Theories” (30 January 2007). According to James H. Fetzer, the society’s founder, “It is chock full of false assertions, even including misidentification of Steven Jones, my former co-chair, as the society’s founder.”
“That is rather rich,” Fetzer said. “Steve and I have had a parting of the ways over differences in our attitude and approach toward the science and the politics of 9/11 research. But if he had been ‘the founder’, he should have been conducting a ‘house cleaning’, not abandoning ship.” The split between them, Fetzer added, has had a beneficial effect. “A cult-like atmosphere had developed around him, which I considered to be bad for scientific research on 9/11.”
The CBS report focuses on Gary Welz, an adjunct lecturer at John Jay Criminal College and Lafayette University, who told a CBS reporter, Alfonso Serrano, that he had left Scholars in December following Jones “after other prominent members of Scholars began promoting wacky explanations for the fall of the twin towers.” Fetzer replied, “That’s wrong on several accounts, including that the Twin Towers did not ‘fall’ but disintegrated from massive sources of energy.”
“Which theories are ‘wacky’ appears to depend upon how much you know about a subject,” observed Judy Wood, a prominent member of Scholars. “When you consider the extent of the devastation of the World Trade Center, the very modest damage to its foundation, and as many as 1,400 ‘toasted’ cars as much as a mile from ground zero, for example, any explanation that is based upon conventional explosives, including Steve Jones’ own hypothesis, is going to look ‘wacky’ to those who know enough about the evidence in this case.”
Although Jones has suggested that thermite and thermate could have brought down the Twin Towers, in a recent chapter in a new book edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire (2007), Jones expresses astonishment that the top thirty floors of the South Tower started to fall but “turned mostly to powder in mid-air,” an effect that his hypothesis cannot explain. “Indeed,” Fetzer said, “other recognized scholars, such as Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11: Synthetic Terror (2005), have observed that an adequate explanation of the devastation to the WTC will almost certainly require the use of high-tech, directed energy weapons.”
Among the claims CBS reported that are inaccurate or outdated, the statistics for skepticism from a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll have been superseded by a New York Times/CBS poll conducted last October, which showed that 53% of Americans doubt The 9/11 Report and 28% reject it completely, which means that 81% of the American people don’t believe what the government has told them. “I don’t quite understand how a CBN NEWS report could overlook the results of a poll in which CBS participated,” Fetzer observed.
Wood pointed out that Jones’ hypothesis is based on three primary sources of evidence: studies of dust samples, a waterfall-like flow of molten metal from the South Tower, and photographs that show workmen peering into a cavern glowing with molten metal. “I think Steve needs to think more about his own evidence,” she said. “The dust samples were non-random and, if these photographs were authentic, the heat should have melted the skin from their faces.”
Other questions have arisen about Jones’ evidence, which concern the waterfall-like flow. “Even setting aside serious questions about the authenticity of the footage,” Fetzer said, “another student of the case, Frank Greening, discovered a possible alternative explanation for the waterfall-like flow of molten metal, which Jones had insisted had to be molten iron caused by thermite or thermate. “Apparently, Fuji Bank had installed a massive assemblage of server-sized lead batteries around the 80th floor. Since lead melts at a much lower temperature than steel,” Fetzer added, “that might explain this peculiar phenomenon, which was distinctive to this location.”
Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, observed, “It is ironic that this report from CBS NEWS appears in the same week our efforts are being covered by publications as diverse as HUSTLER (March 2007) and The Nation (5 February 2007). A set of seven letters to the editor of The Nation, including one of mine, lays out over fifteen reasons why the official account cannot be sustained,” adding, “What we have been told violates laws of physics and engineering related to the weakening point of steel, the temperature of jet-fuel based fires, and the speed of the destruction of the Twin Towers.”
“What we have been told is just fine,” Fetzer said, “as long as you are willing to believe impossible things.” A nice demonstration of the problems with the official account are the times in which the government claims the buildings “collapsed” under the influence of gravitational attraction. “As Judy Wood has shown,” he added, “the official times, which average ten seconds each, are faster than free fall though air and are inexplicable without the use of explosives.”
“The situation is even more awkward for the government than that,” said Wood. “The buildings are actually turning to dust from the top down. It is as though two enormous trees were turning to sawdust before our eyes. The concrete floors, the desks, chairs, computers, even human beings and other living things, are being pulverized by some massive source of energy, which neither Jones’ hypothesis nor the official account can explain. We are attempting to determine how this was done, but it probably involved the use of weapons that are classified. There’s nothing ‘wacky’ about trying to figure it out.”
Wood has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics and materials engineering science. “If there is a better qualified student of 9/11 with respect to its physical dimensions, I don’t know who that would be,” Fetzer remarked. He said that, once he had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids. “I don’t know what’s going to pan out,” he said, “but we aren’t going to be able to figure it out if we don’t consider all the alternatives.”
Fetzer said that CBS might have avoided some of these mistakes if it had made an effort to check its facts. “If this is the best CBS NEWS can do with its coverage of the 9/11 truth movement, then it is no wonder the American people can have the wool pulled over their eyes so often by Bush and Cheney. This report,” Fetzer said, “is disconnected from reality. If you want to know what we know about the official government account, forget CBS and read The Nation.”
The adjunct math lecturer it cites, Gary Welz, told CBS NEWS that he is not a “conspiracy theorist” because he is not convinced there was a government conspiracy. “If that’s his position,” Fetzer replied, “that’s very peculiar. I can’t imagine a serious member of Scholars who wouldn’t be able to demonstrate that the government has been lying to the American people based upon studies at our web site, 911scholars.org. For CBS NEWS to put out a misleading and false report without consulting relevant experts,” he observed, “makes this a stellar example of irresponsible reporting. It’s a hatchet job!”
“A phone call could have cleared up these misconceptions,” Fetzer said, “but Alfonso probably knew how he wanted to spin this. We have proven that the official account cannot possibly be true and are trying to figure out how it was done.” He smiled and said, “It is ironic that more accurate information about Scholars for 9/11 Truth can be found in HUSTLER than on CBS NEWS,” adding, “and they say that the standards of journalism in this country are slipping!”
James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org
- Jim Fetzer's blog
- Login to post comments
Piled high deep
Fetzer your comment a massive sources of energy.” Do you mean space beam, mini nukes or any other absolute nonsense. The debunking are laughing all the way ro the bank on that garbage, get a life.
Oh yea does Phd stand for Piled high deep
“HATCHET JOB” ON SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
Sounds familiar...
hmmmm, where have I seen this before ?
Find a new hobby, Jimbo.
Find a new hobby, Jimbo. You're nailed along with your "Sciency Girls Gone Batty" gal pal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
Each time you open your mouth, every keystroke on your computer, you crap all over the movement. Go away.
Mockingbird fight! ......
Mockingbird fight! ......
Fetzer vs. CBS! Sit back and grab the popcorn.
Operation Mockingbird is a Central Intelligence Agency operation to influence domestic and foreign media, whose activities were made public during the Church Committee investigation in 1975 (published 1976
--
Mockingbirds' willingness to nest near houses, loud and frequent songs, and territorial defense often annoy people. John van der Linden, the author of the Eastern Birding Central FAQ, says that 25 to 50 percent of the e-mail questions he receives are about how to deal with annoying mockingbirds.
In addition to its well-known song, the Northern Mockingbird utilizes a variety of calls to communicate specific information. As with its song, these calls are among some of the louder sounds produced by birds of its size. Mockingbirds make a harsh, raspy noise when chasing other birds out of their territory.
The Northern Mockingbird builds a twig nest in a dense shrub or tree, which it aggressively defends against other birds and animals, including humans. When a predator is persistent, Mockingbirds from neighboring territories, summoned by a distinct call, may join the attack.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
"Each time you open your
"Each time you open your mouth, every keystroke on your computer, you crap all over the movement. "
Well that IS sorta his point! Or at least cause division. He wastes his time talking about Steven Jones when he should be focusing on what he *claims* to be representing.
eh fetzer
Why don't you go hang out with your friend Barbara "Olsen" on the "Polish-Austrian" border.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
Adam
Maybe that's cuz you haven't yet seemed to catch on that Fetzer is a liability to 9/11 truth.
"Water-fall" Video Footage
"...waterfall-like flow of molten metal from the South Tower... “Even setting aside serious questions about the authenticity of the footage,” Fetzer said..."
Jim, what causes you to question the authenticity of the video?
Book Opportunity
Jim,
You should write a book about the "Direct Energy Beams from Space"
and see who if anyone buys a copy
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
...
PISS OFF FETZER!! The Truth Movement is stronger without you and Wood and Reynolds. We don't want or need your help. There is no cult developing around Steven Jones. People are attracted to intelligence, not wild speculation about space beams. That's why people follow him and not you. PISS OFF!!
“A cult-like atmosphere"
“A cult-like atmosphere had developed around him, which I considered to be bad for scientific research on 9/11.”
A blatant ad-hominem against the entire truth movement [coming from a minority position]. It sounds like something straight out of the rabid and irrational mouth of Nico Haupt. But that’s hardly surprising considering the fact that Nico has quite the connection to scholars for 9/11 truth. Apparently, there is a prominent member of the group who funds his websites. Now you are starting to sound like him. What a coincidence.
Your statement is also ironic considering the “cult-like” belief in unsubstantiated theories at ST911. The 9/11 “truth” website where no alternative theories are shown to be false.
That is worthy of concern. After all, how good can the “scientific research” be when none of it is shown to be false? A website that considers all theories to be worthy of equal consideration is “bad for scientific research on 9/11.”
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Controlled Demolition versus Directed Engergy Weapons
“What distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts [i.e. like the scientific method] and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts [i.e. like the political method]. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”
David Ray Griffin
Controlled Demolition has 11 features: all of which are shown to be present in the collapse of the twin towers:
• Sudden Onset
• Straight Down Collapse
• Free Fall Speed
• Total Collapse
• Sliced Steel (conveniently manageable pieces)
• Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
• Dust Clouds
• Horizontal Ejections
• Demolition Rings
• Explosions
• Molten Steel
Eyewitness Evidence:
Prolific eyewitness testimony supports the conclusion that controlled demolition was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. This includes testimony before, during, and after the collapse. Massive explosions were observed in the buildings before they were struck by planes. Live news footage, oral Histories, firefighter tapes, civilian survivors, and tape recordings all confirm these observations.
Physical Evidence:
Molten Steel:
Was present for more than a month after the disaster. Can "space beams" explain this reaction as well as the sulfidation of the steel? Only thermite/thermate has been able to explain this phenomenon so far.
Thermate proves an inside job and is sufficient to proceed with a criminal investigation. No more theorizing is therefore necessary—especially theories that are not supported by the evidence.
Steven Jones analyzed the molten metal and found evidence of thermate—A known incendiary. Even if he didn't find this, molten metal is strong evidence of controlled demolition because normal fires are incapable of melting steel. Jones has NEVER maintained that ONLY thermite and its variants were used to destroy the towers. Attempts to pretend that he holds this position are a straw-man fallacy.
Ejection of materials:
Material from the building exploded in all directions, characteristic of an explosive force from within the towers.
Dust:
Dust evidence supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. See Steven Jones' explanation of this independently verified evidence here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290
Fact: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.
Let’s compare the theory that Space Beams destroyed the towers:
1. The towers fell straight down; they did not topple over. Not only this, the collapse was perfectly symmetrical—floor by floor by floor destruction that is impossible to explain unless done with controlled demolition. If done with a space beam it would have to be done exactly above the towers. This can't account for point #3.
2. The towers exploded in all directions as far away as 400 feet indicating an energy source from within the towers; causing material to powerfully strike other buildings with notable force. How can a space beam explain the basic physics observed?
3. The collapse started from the upper portion of the tower [plane impact zone] and not from the very top which might be expected from a space beam.
4. If the beam approached from an angle it would have to account for point #2 and point #1; in other words the dust and debris appears in ALL directions, not on ONE part of the building. The building collapse is perfectly symmetrical.
5. Any explanation must account for ALL of the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present. Ignoring them is NOT scientific.
6. The energy required for a space beam would be incredible; it would be dangerous to use [i.e. if it missed—how could it be explained by the perpetrators?]. It would presumably go through buildings to hit other buildings. It would also presumably destroy the bathtub if directed from above. After all, the beam would have gone through a massive 110 floor building. How much energy would be required to make a beam completely destroy 110 office towers in less than 15 seconds?
And it would have to be amazingly accurate; it would have to explain how the towers were destroyed in a perfectly symmetrical way.
7. In one of the towers the antenna fell first, indicating structural collapse—controlled demolition. Space beams can't explain this. Why would a space beam be necessary if there was a pre-planned structural collapse of the building with controlled demolition as observed with the fall of the antenna in WTC1?
8. No such technology is known to exist capable of destroying 110 floor office buildings—the burden is on the theorists to prove that any such technology exists.
9. It can't explain the molten metal for weeks after 9/11. This is a chemical reaction that can be explained by thermate. How could a directed energy weapon have caused molten steel under the rubble of the trade center for more than a month?
10. It presumes there would be no visual reaction of the beam, or of the beam hitting the tower.
11. The so called "car evidence" is easily explained by the fact that the cars were under a bridge that is not damaged in any shape or form. Therefore, they must have been moved there.
12. How could a space beam be accurate enough to hit the towers and then be inaccurate enough to hit only cars a mile away? Is this actually being promoted as a logical argument?
13. What forensic evidence is there that supports the space beam theory? None that hasn’t been explained with conventional explosives and/or thermite and its variants.
14. What evidence is there that the bathtub was not significantly damaged? Not much as shown in the recent letter published in the Journal of 9/11 studies.
15. What evidence is there that the space beam is a falsifiable theory? How can the theory be disproved? A non-falsifiable theory is non-scientific by definition. A non-falsifiable theory can’t lead us to the truth about 9/11. Therefore it is a distraction in the pursuit of 9/11 truth.
16. Eyewitness testimony does NOT support the DEW hypothesis. Massive explosions were heard just BEFORE the towers began to collapse. Only controlled demolition can explain this.
Conclusion: space beams did not destroy the tower; controlled demolition did. The DEW theory is an “outrageous” theory as defined by David Ray Griffin.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
I agree that the bulk of the
I agree that the bulk of the evidence looks like CD; however, as a researcher myself I can't help but make some responses to the following. When reading the following keep in mind that I AGREE it looks like CD BUT because of my research background I take issues with some of the claims.
"1. The towers fell straight down; they did not topple over. Not only this, the collapse was perfectly symmetrical—floor by floor by floor destruction that is impossible to explain unless done with controlled demolition. If done with a space beam it would have to be done exactly above the towers. This can't account for point #3."
OK, straight down, not assymetrically. CD's can fit that description. How do we know DEW wouldn't also accomplish this? This is an honest question. How do we know? Why would a DEW have to be exactly above the towers? If it was exactly above the energy from the beam just isn't going to stop, it would need to dissipate somewhere, probably the closest, tallest point.
"2. The towers exploded in all directions as far away as 400 feet indicating an energy source from within the towers; causing material to powerfully strike other buildings with notable force. How can a space beam explain the basic physics observed?"
Particle beams which are used at places such as Fermi Labs are majorly scaled down versions of Tesla's vision. As such I think it's reasonable to make a comparison between them. When a particle is fired around one of those mile long tracks it eventually impacts with a target. Once it impacts it sends subatomic particles flying everywhere. Why wouldn't the larger version of a DEW do the same thing? Number 2 is a question not a statement. If you had proof that particle beams did not do what I just claimed then that would bolster your point. This is just constructive criticism so don't be offended.
"3. The collapse started from the upper portion of the tower [plane impact zone] and not from the very top which might be expected from a space beam."
Once again you need to back up your claims with evidence. Where should a DEW be expected to show effects first? You're stating that it wouldn't be from the top but why? If you look at the particle guns at Fermi you would expect the effect of the target to occur as soon as the projectile hits it. Is this not the same as a DEW from space projected towards a tower? The first part to get hit is the top! If I am mistaken about how these things work please by all means correct me.
"4. If the beam approached from an angle it would have to account for point #2 and point #1; in other words the dust and debris appears in ALL directions, not on ONE part of the building. The building collapse is perfectly symmetrical."
Ok I want to make sure I'm getting this correctly. If the beam hit from an angle it wouldn't be able to cause symmetrical damage. If this is the jist of it here's a question. If the beam hit from an angle and had a tiny radius, I agree we would see assymetrical damage to the building. However, what if the beam has a large radius? A larger radius would cover the building allowing a more symmetrical collapse. Keep in mind for the angle to have a significant effect on the damage we see, the radius would need to be relatively tiny as compared with the building AND the angle would have to be pretty large. Considering that the DEW would be in space that would allow for a huge span of miles for the DEW to be in and get the same effect(the angle formed with the buildingwould be tinier the further you move from the vertex.).
"5. Any explanation must account for ALL of the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present. Ignoring them is NOT scientific."
The 11 characteristics you cite could also be part of the subset of characteristics of a DEW. Even if they aren't fully overlapping then a combination of CD and DEW could still explain the effects seen. The perpetrators of 9/11 had no doubt assessed many contingencies. If one part of the plan failed then there needed to be a back up to get the same outcome. DEW/CD could have been used in conjunction. As I stated I personally lean towards CD BUT because I am a researcher I KNOW you can not just ignore other possibilities because the other people proposing it are people I might not like. I saw the interview with Judy Woods and some other Dr. She played games when he asked certain questions and she wasn't on the ball when he asked others. Just because she's behaving a bit nutty doesn't mean that whole hypothesis should be thrown out. DEW's DO exist as per Tesla's theories. Hardly any of us can claim to be experts with regards to them especially considering there is less information about them publicly available than there is for CD's. Almost everyone has seen a CD, how many of us can claim to have seen a DEW? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
"6. The energy required for a space beam would be incredible; it would be dangerous to use [i.e. if it missed—how could it be explained by the perpetrators?]. It would presumably go through buildings to hit other buildings. It would also presumably destroy the bathtub if directed from above. After all, the beam would have gone through a massive 110 floor building. How much energy would be required to make a beam completely destroy 110 office towers in less than 15 seconds?
And it would have to be amazingly accurate; it would have to explain how the towers were destroyed in a perfectly symmetrical way."
It is true the energy would be incredible. In fact as proof, the first time Tesla fired up his workshop to utilize the ionosphere he fried major components at the hydroplant which was supplying him energy. If it missed how would we know? If the effects were similar to what we saw when the 2 towers came down then presumably any other building hit would have looked similar. The perps got the media to shut up about WTC7 long enough, why wouldn't they have handled things the same way for a misfire? Both of the WTC's were the tallest buildings around which automatically makes them an easier to hit target. Think lightening and lightening rods. It seeks the closest ground, in which case would have been the two towers. The bathtub was at ground level. The DEW could have been set to shutoff once it had progressed to a certain level. Worrying about the energy level is pointless. DEW's have the potential for more destruction than a hydrogen bomb. Tesla knew this and in fact never released much of his work related to this. Unfortunately for us, the US government swarmed his home and stole much of his writings. Look it up. It's pretty interesting stuff. The accuracy once again is not an issue. DEW presumably works very similar to lightening(visually things may have somehow been modified so that we would not see lightening-like effects...).
"7. In one of the towers the antenna fell first, indicating structural collapse—controlled demolition. Space beams can't explain this. Why would a space beam be necessary if there was a pre-planned structural collapse of the building with controlled demolition as observed with the fall of the antenna in WTC1?"
I completely agree. This is just one of many things that makes me think CD did occur. Space beams don't need to explain it if indeed it was CD. However, this effect does not preclude DEW from assisting in the overall collapse. I'm going to make a point by using your question and modifying it just a tad: "Why would a _Controlled Demolition_ be necessary if there was a pre-planned structural collapse of the building with _Planes and Fire_ as observed with the _Plane crashing into_ WTC1?""
Get my point? One thing is covering up for another AND it deals with redundancy to get the same outcome-a collapsed building.
"8. No such technology is known to exist capable of destroying 110 floor office buildings—the burden is on the theorists to prove that any such technology exists."
I'm not going to blame you for not having knowledge about Tesla's work but I am going to post some links(I have done this many times before and I hope people are taking the time to learn). Tesla had many theories about the electromagnetic universe and before his funding was cut by JP Morgan he was able to test some of them.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1931264939946928065&q=Tesla+Inve...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5834867580747017149&q=Tesla+-+T...
Here's proof that these weapons exist. As far as their capacity to destroy things one would have to extrapolate from the hydroplant that Tesla damaged. Keep in mind the decades that have passed from his tests.
"9. It can't explain the molten metal for weeks after 9/11. This is a chemical reaction that can be explained by thermate. How could a directed energy weapon have caused molten steel under the rubble of the trade center for more than a month?"
Again this could very well just be CD after effects; however, what happens when you pump too many amps through something not rated for that high amperage? It melts. The melted stuff in no way eliminated DEW in my opinion. I would say try it at home but one could get seriously injured when playing with electricity.
"10. It presumes there would be no visual reaction of the beam, or of the beam hitting the tower."
This has been my biggest beef with DEW. As stated by Tesla, his results mimicked lightening visually; however, it was stronger than lightening. If a DEW was used it would have had to of been modified from the period when Tesla first discovered it. Considering our military has a bewildering amount of money to throw at finding new ways to maim and kill AND it has been over 60+ years, I think it is possible that they could have enhanced the DEW that Tesla invented. I haven't spent enough time trying to figure out if it is really possible however : (.
As far as the beam hitting the tower and causing an effect, if it was done in conjunction with CD then it would be very hard to separate the two. There is one video however of some of the steel frames just vaporizing which was the single thing that made me wonder if DEW had any involvement. It is the only thing that has made me think DEW may also be involved. If that scene can somehow be explained by a new nonconventional CD then I'd believe it but I don't think the superthermite has been shown to be able to do this.
"11. The so called "car evidence" is easily explained by the fact that the cars were under a bridge that is not damaged in any shape or form. Therefore, they must have been moved there."
Agreed. The cars are the flimsiest evidence I have seen to date. Maybe I'm just not seeing the same pictures as some of these other people. The most curious evidence as I stated was the video of the steel frame just poofing away into dust.
"12. How could a space beam be accurate enough to hit the towers and then be inaccurate enough to hit only cars a mile away? Is this actually being promoted as a logical argument?"
Agreed. I don't think the cars have any evidence at this point in time.
"13. What forensic evidence is there that supports the space beam theory? None that hasn’t been explained with conventional explosives and/or thermite and its variants."
Considering DEW use is new/rare it is impossible to say what traces may be left behind aside from the following possibilities: visual effects during it's use, melted/vaporized material.
"14. What evidence is there that the bathtub was not significantly damaged? Not much as shown in the recent letter published in the Journal of 9/11 stuDEWs."
I don't think bathtub damage or lack thereof is indicative of CD or DEW. Both should theoretically be able to be setup in such a manner as to cause damage to certain areas or to avoid damage in certain areas.
"15. What evidence is there that the space beam is a falsifiable theory? How can the theory be disproved? A non-falsifiable theory is non-scientific by definition. A non-falsifiable theory can’t lead us to the truth about 9/11. Therefore it is a distraction in the pursuit of 9/11 truth."
To be able to fully test the DEW alone theory one would have to know National Security information with regards to the weapons. Since the government isn't going to tell the public or the world the specs on such devices we are pretty much stuck with theorizing around 60+ year old data from Tesla. There is probably more info on this technology but it's going to be hard to find. The Russians were actually the first to seriously implement much of Tesla's work with EMF. Maybe we can get some defectors to help :P. But just because you can't get that information doesn't rule it out.
"16. Eyewitness testimony does NOT support the DEW hypothesis. Massive explosions were heard just BEFORE the towers began to collapse. Only controlled demolition can explain this."
The explosions heard in no way exclude DEW. CD + DEW could be responsible for the effects of that day. If one could give explain the vaporizing steel I would be more persuaded to look at just CD. But considering DEW was first crudely tested over 60+yrs ago I can only assume that it has been improved upon which probably would change the visual effects we would expect to see.
Please take everything I have said as constructive criticism. There are too many forcefully throwing opinions about on both sides CD and DEW. If you can point me to some good discussions on the video of the vaporizing steel I would appreciate it!
BTW check out the links below. We absolutely must get away from oil.
http://www.vrijeenergiemachine.nl/content/view/77/2/
" "And what will they burn instead of coal?" "Water", replied Harding.
"Water!" cried Pencroft, "Water as fuel for steamers and engines! Water to heat water!"
"Yes, but water decomposed into its primitive elements", replied Cyrus Harding, "and decomposed doubtless, by electricity, which will then have become a powerful and manageable force, for all great discoveries, by some inexplicable laws, appear to agree and become complete at the same time." - Jules Verne
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
An investigation will answer the DEW hypothesis
The evidence that a DEW weapon was used is at best circumstantial to non-existent. The evidence that CD was used is extremely compelling to overwhelming. Contradictory evidence disproves a theory.
1. Where is the evidence that Judy Wood is maintaining a hybrid controlled demolition/directed energy weapon hypothesis? I’m debating her on that argument not on someone else’s. Why should I waste my energy arguing two positions at the same time? That’s not very fair. Some of my points are individually strong enough to disprove even that possibility (i.e. the debris pattern and symmetrical destruction of the towers).
2. I want to hear Fetzer show his support for this theory since he advocates it is worth examining. Not anyone else. That way I can hold him accountable for his answers. I’m not interested in a long-winded debate over small details (which would no doubt make dz pull out his hair).
3. As you have admitted, you say that the technology may exist—you don’t have the proof that it does. A non-falsifiable theory is a waste of time. It can’t be tested. Until that point it is only speculation. It will only lead to pointless shadow-boxing debates. The goal of the truth movement is justice—not unanswerable questions about the social security numbers of the individuals responsible for planting bombs and similar details! The use of DEW falls under the same category. This is what an investigation will answer. We can use an investigation to answer all of the questions about 9/11. An investigation will also determine whether speculation about exotic weaponry has merit once and for all. Perhaps Judy Wood should focus her energy on getting an investigation so that we can really find out if her ideas have merit. Perhaps she should also call for the release of molten steel so that more can be tested for evidence of thermate (since she doubts it was used).
I find it very revealing that she has not done so. I find it even more revealing that her theory has next to no evidence.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
I sympathise with much of
I sympathise with much of what you say--I'm aTesla fan--but it really comes down to Occam's razor: which is more likely, explosives that we know are accesible or high frequency energy weapons that are possible but we don't even know what stage of development they're in?
True the twin towers were not a standard demolition--they were too tall for that. As I'm writing this it just occurs to me having them damaged around the middle(via air craft) could have helped mask some explosions with smoke, as well as hide the odd collapse pattern. Standard demolitions blow the basement supports first, then work their way up and around(roughly). But, in one case, you had a canted top that was about to fall into the streets of Manhattan. "Oh shit! Oh, shit! Blow that top before we collapse the core!"
This is all controlled by computer these days. A non-standard demolition adequetly explains, IMO, the minor differences between what we observed in WTC1,2 and WTC 7--which was a classic controlled demolition. I also expect that, as they had only one chance to do it "right", they probably used far more explosives than they would have if it was a legal demolition.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Yes, the Towers were too tall to take down
in the same way a normal CD would.
The Towers came down in 3 stages. They blew the tops first above the first set of mechanical floors, then they blew the mechanical floors in the middle and then the basement.
Keep in mind that they used the debris raining down from the top to cover up the explosions from the next two blow outs.
Also keep in mind, that there is very little in the way of video and/or pictures to show us what happened to the lower half of any of these buildings. We have great pictures of the top halves, but we have to mostly guess what was going on underneath.
Edit: To add pic
This is one of the rare good images from the ground of the collapse. Bill Biggart gave his life for these pictures.
That is exactly why a directed energy weapon was not used
The weapon would have to go THROUGH the falling debris to strike the towers.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Why take the risk
with an exotic weapon that you couldn't actually 'test' beforehand, when there are easier ways to accomplish the same purpose?
It seems...
your brain was toasted by spacebeams, not the wtc!
Please Mister Fetzer, keep your mouth shut!!
Jim Fetzer
I had an interesting conversation with a professor from Oxford university whom you attempt to discredit in your paper "Information - Does It Have To be True?"
Truly remarkable piece of.....scholarly work.
I read your paper - and with the help of a 3rd party - got in touch with the Oxford professor to get some clarity on your work.
It appears that my initial instincts were correct. IN your paper "INFORMATION - DOES IT HAVE TO BE TRUE" you in fact take the Orwellian position that information is information - regardless of its validity. Needless to say the Oxford professor rejects your premise as simple academic charlatanism.
You sir are a snake oil salesman - by profession. Lies are the stock of your trade. I have also read your paper on the 5 levels of Disinformation.
The very fact that you have written "scientific" papers on the nature of disinformation and legitimizing the business of lying convinces me that you indeed have no interest in promoting the truth. you are simply a professional snake oil salesman.
I'll never forget...
When Jim Kenobi, during private correspondence, referred to me as a "charlatan", and a "fraud."
Silly snake oil salesman.
Meanwhile, Jim continues to play the victim. Now, instead of Steve Jones, and Alex Floum beating up on poor Jim, it's CBSNews.
Fetzer, you have been outted as a "charlatan", and a "fraud", and aside from your fellow "Beamers", you don't speak for anyone here.
"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."
— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002
He knows that
I think he posted this blog to gloat at how effective he has become at drawing in the media - and destroying the reputation of this movement. He has it down to a science. IT is his area of expertize.
Do you not find it interesting that Fetzer graduated from Princton - magna cum laud - wins awards - joins the marines - and goes on to get a PhD? Princeton does not just give away academic credentials and awards like pez candy. they have enormously high standards.
so - how do you explain someone like Fezter being so academically BRILLIANT - yet - he joins the 911 Truth movement and become Jerry Lewis in the nutty professor?
suddenly his IQ drops 30 points?
He is gloating. This hit piece on CBS was a success for him.
Unfortunately, for him, his theoretical research into human behavior and the nature of disinformation is flawed. it presumes that people are universally unable to distinguish between real and unreal information.
But - like Lincoln said - "you can't fool all the people all the time."
we may be a slim minority of the general population, but those of us who recognize Fetzer for what he is are working on teaching him a real lesson on the implications of playing "Truth or Consequences" with the 911 Truth movement.
Fetzer.... anybody with a
Fetzer.... anybody with a brain hates you.... please leave :(
I hate to pile on
Like a 3rd grader that calls a another 3rd grader a cootyface, because his friends are,
....but any rationale person who cares about this movement, would not promote a simply UNBELIEVABLE idea, when the goal of the movement is to win over mainstream skeptics and cause a tiping point of public opinion, then we can truly investigate and people can take the stand, and if some Black Op Soldiers testifies that they used some kind of space beam, the so be it.... I will be the first to but your next book....but until then get off the train man, your cover is blown...
naaaaa......
Fetzer is disinformation - and a proven liar.
in that context there is nothing else to discuss.
this is a false
this is a false dichotomy:
You either believe in the 'beam weapons' theory, or you believe in the 'thermite' theory..
another false dichotomy:
You either believe that the buildings 'collapsed', or you believe that they were 'dustified'.
these are both false dichotomies in that they assume that each of these two sets of ideas are mutually exclusive, and they infer a sort of 'belief' - almost like believing blindly in a god.
anyone who has been here more than a year knows that Dr. Steven Jones' theory was met with harsh criticism, and still is to some degree, people don't follow him like a god, but that is how those that disagree with the 'beam weapons' theory are presented. this is the essence of a false dichotomy - not believing in one thing does not intrinsically mean that you believe in one of its alternatives, nor does it mean you believe in one of its alternatives hook-line-and-sinker.
likewise none of us think that the buildings 'collapsed' in the context of a gravitational collapse - which is inferred in calling it a 'collapse' - but those that don't believe in the 'dustification' of the steel of the towers are presented as believing in a gravitational collapse only - another sort of false dichotomy.
the reality is that none of us buy anything hook line and sinker, nor place our beliefs in false prophets - because if we did we wouldn't be a part of this movement in the first place. hence, people are judged on their actions and their ability to provide rational and reasonable arguments. there is no need for the incivility we see here (and elsewhere) unless that which is being argued over has not been definitively proven to a reasonable degree - in which case it should not be the focus of those who wish to build some form of a unified movement that has a voice loud enough to hear.
we can postulate all we want, but i didn't get into this movement to argue amongst ourselves. disproving the official story should always be our first focus. replacing the official story with other stories/theories which are just as improbable and full of logical fallacies and inconsistencies as the official story does us no good - in fact it does us harm.
In the meantime BushCo smiles
while they watch the people who question 9-11, eat their own.
you know whats weird about
you know whats weird about jim fetzer....
in early 2005 at the zachariaus mossaoui trial....
he held the first press conference that broke 911truth to the fake msm---
the ice cops tried to unconstitutionally stop them
and fetzer told them to fuck off
many reporters broke down in tears at the revelation
--------------------------------------------
the next week reporters at cnn used "showbiz tonite" to give charlie sheen the platform to break 911truth to the world.....
hows that for freaking ironic.....\\\
within 6 mos he's telling everyone that 911 was done by space lasers!!!
what the fuck?
---------------------------------------------------------
no matter what----fetzer is the guy that told america
--->911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!
GOD BLESS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA!!
now things are really starting to go...
the disinfo wars are bringing rise to the new dawn
According to...
WingTV.
"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."
— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002
Is that woman in black
Is that woman in black wearing an ankh?
This looked very creepy to me at first glance--it looked like Death was standing next to him..
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.