What caused the concrete to turn to dust? I'm not saying Fetzer is correct, I'm just asking a simple question?

Any explosive will pulverize dense material like concrete, it doesn’t have to be a “mini nuke” or “space beams”. And in fact if that’s what your implying, please then provide an example of where a “mini nuke” or “space beam” has ever been used to demolish a building and pulverise it’s concrete.

Yes, but thermate is not an explosive, as Jones himself stresses in his interview with Infowars (blech). Alex even tries saying, "but is that the explosive; is it an explosive reaction," and Steven clarifies by saying that no, it's an incendiary, the reaction is quite rapid, but it's more like a blowtorch than a bomb, though there is an actually explosive (pushes outward with force) form called "super-thermate", though he did not suggest that he had found evidence of it. Thus, the EXPLOSIONS witnessed at the WTC are yet unexplained and could be accounted for EVEN BY A MINI NUKE (and some of the rescue worked have suffered radiation-like symptoms) until a better explanation comes up. But as of now, it's illogical for any of us to say one way or the other because NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Jones' work appears fine to me and does indicate insider action (thus making an investigation all the more credibly urgent), but it does not address the EXPLOSIONS and this ought to made really clear.

"could be accounted for EVEN BY A MINI NUKE (and some of the rescue worked have suffered radiation-like symptoms) until a better explanation comes up"

That is, "...could be accounted for by a number of hypotheses, EVEN BY A MINI NUKE..."

"and this ought to made really clear."

Even just for our own sake in discussing this and pursuing an investigation.

What are you a moron or disinfo? Dr Jones has stated a billion times that, paraphrasing - "Thermate might have been used in conjunction with regular more explosive demolition charges such as HDX or RDX". "Mini nukes" "Space beams" "No planes" "Tv fakery", all that shit is obvious disinfo that anyone with a brain can spot a mile away.

Without my even mentioning it. I said I thought they were obviously brought down on purpose and he said well, it doesn't make sense--using RDX and det(onation) cord wouldn't be feasible, bla bla bla. He also claimed to have firefighting training but did not know that jet fuel couldn't melt steel.

At the time I thought he was mentioning det cord because he knew that radio transmitter detonators were used and was trying to throw me off. But Scott Forbes' testimony about workmen with spools of "cable" made me think twice. I think the shill may have gotten ahead of himself (and me!) Basically, when you meet a shill, argue a bit but make it seem like you're open to being convinced, and see what kind of things they say--it's fun!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

That's a bit aggressive and unwarranted, Dem. Let's just go with a "chill the fuck out" and don't give me any excuses. I hadn't heard him say that but was looking for it, i.e., I hadn't come across it.

standard controlled demolitions. it is in fact a SIGNATURE of controlled demolition. it is a result of high explosives.

Fetzer claims the STEEL turns to dust. this is clearly inaccurate.

to everyone else - please no not give a negative rating to people who are simply asking questions.

I thought the video of the collapse showed the steel columns collapse into dust. Again, I'm not trying to cause an argument, I'm just curious.

The dust is probably just the fireproofing coming off the "spire" (really a section of the core wall) as it falls.

If the fireproofing was what I saw at the end of the collapse turn to dust, where did the steel go? Your explanation just doesn't sit right with me and I'm not sure why. Could you expand on it?

The spire fell straight down leaving dust behind it as is visible via the 2 movies I link in my debunking below.

I.e., he's saying the spire falls but the dust hangs in the air for a minute or two in its place.

Is there not enough steel at ground zero for you? Do you have any analysis that we can see that indicates that the volume of steel at ground zero is less than what would be expected? Can you show us a study ANYWHERE that indicates that steel turned to dust or disappeared?

IF not - then why are you framing questions in this way?

I have looked at literally hundreds of photos from ground zero looking for any steel that showed ANY signs of cutting/melting/etc.

I have not seen one member "partially" turned to dust, disintergrated or anything resembling the steel to dust idea.

very very very weak an unsupported claim. 

i feel sorry for you

where do you work? the pentagon?

i suppose its better than going to Iraq - right?

the insurgency is in the last throes - right?

WMDs are a slam dunk - right?

how humiliating to have to take orders from such a clearly inept administration.

i've had jobs that were humiliating also. maybe some day you will grow half a sack and walk away from all this and have stories to tell your kids. maybe you will be able to tell them - with a straight face - that their dad had integrity.

"get a real photo?" that's the best the Pentagon braintrust has to offer america? i feel sorry for you. you are just going through the motions and must know now that you are fighting a losing battle - like Iraq - that the morons above you cannot acknowledge.

By JACK WHITE !!!




On the image below he has falsely placed a "9:04 am" time stamp approximately 56 minutes earlier than the ACTUAL time... and he has the audacity to claim the south tower is still there







The below image is from 9/11 Eyewitness at the same moment as above image - The actual time is when south tower collapsed almost one hour later, approx 10:00am.






He used his forgery to claim that WTC6 was blown at 9:04 am... Naughty, Naughty Jack White !!!



I find it very interesting that Jim Fetzer wrote a book with Jack White (never knew that).

I suppose anything the "Jack White" has been involved with, requires investigating at sometime in the future.

please refer to this map:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm

the camera (POV) is on the line connecting the northeast corner of WFC and the southwest  corner of WTC1.

the smoke was blowing south east therefore no smoke (trailing plume) would be visible to the right (west) of this line.

for NASA photo showing smoke direction, please see: http://space.about.com/cs/iss/a/911attacks_2.htm

Many sacred cows.

I suspect the Fetzer crew wants to minimize the link and history between Fetzer and White...

http://www.d.umn.edu/~pnuhring/JFKSymposium.html

JFK Symposium -

Saturday, May 10, 2003
     
8:00 - 9:00 AM     Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:00 - 9:30 AM     Introduction and Orientation
    Presenter: James H. Fetzer
9:30 - 12:00 AM    Solving the Assassination from A to Z with Photos
    Presenter: Jack White

"Jack White's studies of anomalies in the Apollo space program raise the disturbing question, if man went to the Moon, then why was it necessary to fake so many photos? This parallels his earlier work on JFK, which raised a similar question about alleged assassin Lee Oswald, namely, if he really shot JFK, then why was it necessary to fake evidence to frame a guilty man?"

James H. Fetzer PhD
Dr. Fetzer is a Distinguished McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth

(1) Jack White, 20 Years of Thoughts About the Zapruder Film, included in Assassination Science (1998)

Ron Redmon, a school principal in Indiana, has studied the Z-film extensively. Ron discovered that approximately 20 spectators along the north Elm curb east of the Stemmons sign do not appear to move for more than three seconds, while every spectator on the south curb does move. By overlapping images from two slide projectors, I determined that Ron was probably correct. It seems to me that a single image of the 20 spectators had been repeated over and over. It seems improbable that in this period of time not a single person moved an arm or leg, waved, or changed position to any noticeable extent. Ron speculates that when frames were removed in this sequence, spectator movements would have been very jerky so they had to be stabilized by repeating them. In correspondence with me, Ron also mentioned many other possible signs of tampering, which he summarized in The Fourth Decade in March of 1995. These include:

(A) In frames 144-153 (one-half second), spectator Hugh Betzner has moved a distance which exceeds human speed capability indicating excised frames.
(B) In frames 155-161 (one-third second), spectator Linda Willis has turned 180 degrees and comes in contact with spectator Robert Croft, another instance of superhuman speed... again indicating excised frames.
(C) In frames 161-180 (approximately one second), Linda Willis takes several steps, and Rosemary Willis takes several steps... again much too fast, indicating excised frames.
(D) Looking at the Stemmons sign, in frame 161 it is in perfect condition, but by frame 183 there is a significant notch on the top left edge, yet by frame 188, the notch disappears.
(E) In frame 255, Ron speculates that a fake shadow has obscured driver William Greer, to his west. Since the sun was overhead and to Greer's left, Ron says this shadow is inconsistent.
(F) In frames 312-321, Governor Connally turns 90 degrees in one half-second. Also the white spot on the grass in the background moves more than 10 feet in one half second.
(G) In frames 321-336, JFK's head moves from the seat back to leaning forward with his head in contact with Jackie's left arm in less than one second, seemingly too fast.
(H) In frames 153-155 (one-ninth of a second), a woman who is the thirteenth person east of the Stemmons sign has shifted her feet significantly... more than should be possible.
(I) In frames 335-336 (one-eighteenth of a second), Jackie moves her right arm a significant distance. Ron reminds us that laboratory tests show that a human eye blink is one-twenty-fifth of a second, and a flinch or startle response of moving an arm, leg or head takes one-fifth of a second as a basis for his conclusions.
(J) Comparing the Willis and Betzner photos, which are almost simultaneous in time, Ron notes that in Willis five adults and a child can be seen framed between the posts of the Stemmons sign, but in the Betzner picture, from a similar angle and a split second earlier, the same persons are not seen. Also, two women appearing in Zapruder in this sequence (188-210) should be seen in Willis and Betzner are not seen.
(K) In recent correspondence with me, Ron cites Dan Rather's description of the film and compares it to what is seen. Rather, of course, was one of the first persons to view the Z-film. Early in his commentary. Rather says the film shows... "The President's automobile was preceded by one other car... (the film does not show this) ... the President's black Lincoln automobile made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street (the film does not show this). It got about 35 yards from the corner of Elm and Houston... at the moment the President put his hand up and lurched forward and it was obvious he had been hit." The present film begins with the limo already on Elm at frame 133 and the forward lurch is between frames 188-200. "Governor Connally," Rather continued, "... in the seat just in front of the President, sensed something was wrong... his coat was unbuttoned... and as he turned he extended his right hand toward the President, he exposed his entire shirt front and chest... and was wounded with... a second shot (as Redmon comments, no existing Zapruder frames show the specific action that Rather describes, with the governor in full turn with hand extended toward the President). Rather continues"... the third shot hit the President, and... his head went forward with considerable violence." Was Rather looking at an unaltered different film... or is he just a lousy reporter?

(2) Jack White, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, included in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000)

Abraham Zapruder, with his secretary Marilyn Sitzman, allegedly photographed the JFK assassination while standing on a pedestal in Dealey Plaza. But did he? Recently analyzed evidence shows not only that Zapruder could not have filmed "the Z-film", as it is known, but that this film and several other movies and photos of the assassination have been fabricated, altered, or faked to conceal evidence of the crime.

(3) Jack White, Was Mary Standing in the Street?, included in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)

In 1982 JFK researcher Gary Mack noticed what he thought to be the image of a gunman behind the fence on the knoll in a Moorman slide copy given to him by Robert Groden. Mack asked whether I could copy the image, enlarge and enhance it. By copying the slide at great enlargement and using a wide range of exposure stops, I was able to derive a number of optimum exposures which show in clear detail the face of a man whose chin is obscured by a puff of smoke, in a rifle-firing, pose. He seems to be wearing a Dallas police uniform, complete with shoulder patch and badge. Considering the original image is smaller than an eighth-inch square, the image is extremely sharp. This image was later confirmed by computer photoanalysts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Lab, but neither would go public because of political considerations.

### 

I believe all three books are Fetzers. 

Whether I "wrote a book with Jack White" depends upon what you mean by that. I have published three books on the death of JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), to which Jack has contributed. Far from wanting to separate myself from Jack, I am extremely proud of our association. In my opinion, he has been a pioneer in photographic analysis and has probably discovered more anomalies in more photographs in more contexts than any other living human being. He is not always right, but he has a remarkable batting average. Even when he makes mistakes, they are interesting and plausible. I really don't understand the burning desire of some contributors to these threads to destroy everything they can. It is some weird kind of "scorched earth" policy that I simply do not understand. So be it!

and examine the facts of your fellow fantastic researchers before shouting your mouth off...



i.e. the considerate lazer that folds down the roofing felt prior to burning a hole in WTC5.

PS... The seismic recordings (2.1 and 2.3) tie to the pre-collapse explosions and not the buildings falling...

Do your research

A Mistake - An unintentional error or misunderstanding

Jack White's studies related to 9/11 at both the Pentagon and WTC do not contain mistakes but deliberate lies.  Its too late to play the "moderate" card. 

Exactly the point.

Where are the chunks of concrete from 100+ stories of concrete floors?

5 Minute Debunking of the 'Steel turned into dust'

Just to prove how little research it actually takes to debunk this junk science...

Woods, Reynolds (and now Fetzer) make use of the following clip to argue that the core turned into dust via space beams

They further their suggestion of steel turning into dust by using the following image series

The video clip is of low quality and the image series is deceptive in that it appears to show the steel turning into dust instead of the actual collapse of the spire, perhaps that is the reason why they are chosen to promote their exotic 'theory'. This could be considered intentional deception given the quickness at which higher quality clips and photos can be readily found on the web.

There are 2 other clips of the spires collapse which are much better quality. These clips are not used however. Perhaps that is because these clips clearly show the steel core collapsing, and NOT turning into dust.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi
To view the second clip you will need the 3ivx codec which you can find at http://www.3ivx.com/download/windows.html

To judge just how poor quality the clip and image series are check out the following close up image of what the remaining spire actually looked like:

From that image it is very easy to see that there remained horizontal slabs which most assuredly would have collected concrete powder during the collapse. Therefor when the spire collapsed it released a large amount of this accumulated dust which obfuscated the view of the spires collapse. This is the dust which is seen, not the 'steel turning into dust'.

Just to clarify here, folks, and so we don't go biting each others' heads off over confused semantics, the towers were pulverized, i.e. turned into dust, this being a notable feature distinguishing what appears to be explosives from just the "it was fire" assertions on the part of the official mythmakers. But now we are presented with the "it all, even the steel, turned into dust, and so it was laser beams" people, taking this a step further (and perhaps a step too far). For Christ's sake, can we get an investigation going and subpoena some evidence before the disinfo crews start saying Godzilla did it?