I think you should probably get used to the fact that Dr Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Woods, Nico Haupt and Rick Siegel will have their "research" publicly discussed, examined, debunked and dismissed by the public.

Fifth Type of Disinformation:

by Jim Fetzer

“The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating--usually by writing--entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”

Example:

[Brian Vasquez] “So, I decided to contact Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book “Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace” and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron”

Judy wrote, “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

Judy,

Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org. Thank you.

Jim [Fetzer]

Just a few months later, in December, Judy published a new paper named “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html) and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around…. Judy [Wood] wrote,

“The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

“We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.”

Does one believe in the work of a known liar?

I've got examples for all of the "5 types of disinformation"... This example posted by Jenkins is just one in a gold mine of examples.

In fact I propose that there are 6 types of disinformation. The sixth level is my own definition: theories that are unable to be tested are non-falsifiable. These theories can never be tested, therefore we can never find out if they are true. It is therefore misleading to present them as if they can explain what happened because they can never be proven.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

i can always use one more talking head for my film

Is Judy Wood really a man, and is he/she now made of straw?

It was not me that stated that “the debris shot up into the upper atmosphere, and I am using this picture to emphasize my point”, a proclaimed “favorite picture” ripped directly from her website and highlighted in a letter publication here regarding the Judy Wood interview:
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-nati...
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

I vividly illustrate the ridiculousness of the idea that, as represented in the photograph, debris “shot up into the upper atmosphere” during the collapse. I gather from your post that you don’t agree with Judy Wood’s assertion! I am glad we have found common ground.

I never argued that there was no dust generated from the collapse. There was a lot of concrete, glass fibers, asbestos, wall board, office furniture, etc. which was pulverized, some of which was fine dust as stated by all the dust samples from a variety of sources. However, if steel was turned to dust by *any* method, there should have been massive amounts of iron in the dust. USGS sampled the dust at many locations around the WTC site. The chemical analysis reveals only a 2% iron content on average. Structural steel is composed of over 98% iron.

In the upper 110 floors of the towers, steel composed about 80% of the building by weight compared to that of concrete. If an appreciable amount of steel was dissociated, iron should have appeared in the dust in roughly the same percentage. Instead, it was only 2%, a reasonable number considering the iron content of the concrete aggregate and gypsum wall boards.

Bulk concrete and wallboard collected near ground zero obtained from Janette MacKinlay contained 3.2% and .33% by weight, respectively, so the average is in good agreement with the samples from USGS [Steven Jones, “Comparison of elemental concentrations observed in WTC dust, concrete and wallboard samples”, To be published in Journal of 9/11 Studies].

There is no direct evidence that a significant amount of steel was vaporized or “dustified”, only speculation which is left entirely unsupported.

The Lioy study, which you quote in your post, clearly shows that well over 50% of the sample was NOT fine dust but was over 53 microns in size, thus supporting the claim that the average size of particles in the dust is >53 microns. Again, I thank you for supporting my argument, and I reference this study in my paper.

The UCDavis study is very interesting. They argue that the debris temperatures of the smoldering debris piles were much hotter than expected in order to aerosolize some of the elements and molecules found in elevated quatities in the air samples. This is important, but certainly does not argue in favor of DEW’s. There are a variety of mechanisms which could explain the hot debris pile, including chemical reactions from thermate. In particular, they find large amounts of vanadium, SiO2, and lead at extreme elevated levels. They don’t argue that unreasonably massive amount of iron were found in the aerosolized particle samples, especially any appreciable fraction of the total amount of iron in the buildings. If I am misinterpreting the data, please let me know. Otherwise, I conclude that the UCDavis study definitely does not support the DEW hypothesis.

Lastly, Jim Hoffman has explicitly rejected the DEW hypothesis. The link with his statement of rejection as well as a few cursory reasons are listed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/energybeam.html

of particles in the Davis study? What I mean is, how does it compare to Loiy's finding that over half of the particles were greater than 53 microns?

The UCDavis study only looked at air-born aerosols.... basically, suck alot of air through filter paper and analyze the chemical composition of what is left behind. If memory serves, the sampling station was something 1.8 km north east of GZ. So we are talking about particles that are practically in colloidal suspension in air, so they look at the small particles. So to directly answer your question, the can not be really compared as far as 'average' particle size. However, the data is still well worth taking a closer look.

The distribution of particles sizes and other info is in ppt download here:
http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt

I am going to narrow the focus of the discussion, because there is alot of interesting things associated with the UCDavis group study. I don't fully understand all of their results which will require further time --- basically, I need their paper. I have not yet gone to the library to grab the actual publication, but instead have been relying on their webpage publication with some graphs. I do plan on checking more into it in the near future, though, and will dig the paper out of the archives. However, I do understand some pertinent results for this particular discussion.

First, go to slide #16. You will see particle distributions for 'minerals'. It is low for the very fine particles, but begins ramping up as the particle sizes increase. The graph stops at about 12 um since this is an aerosol study, and that is as large as their machine would sample. Iron and amost all the materials in concrete would be lumped into the 'minerals' graph.

Next, go to slide #22. Look at the "Fe" (iron) value in red --- above the red bar you will see 39 ng/m^3. The title of the graph says .26>Dp>.09 um, which is the range of particle samples that are graphed. That is, there is only 39 x 10^-9 grams in every m^3 of air volume of iron in the range of .26 to .09 um. This isn't much mass. There is no way this is going to sum up to be a significant percentage of the iron in the towers. I have not crunched the numbers, so I certainly welcome a post where someone does do it! I'll tell you how to do it...... or at least how i would approach the problem.

Estimate the volume of the smoke plume which would fully pass a given vertical plane over the course of a month. This isn't easy, and you are going to have big honkin' error bars, I'm sure. Multiply this volume by 39*10^-9 ng/m^3. This will give the approximate total weight of iron that has been aersolized in the range .26 to .09 um over the entire month of October.

This is not an easy problem to solve and there are alot of things to consider while doing the estimates (wind velocity maps, photograph perspective corrections, etc.), but I think it is solvable if anyone wants to take a crack at it.... I would suggest starting with a reasonable plume cross sectional area estimate, and a reasonable wind velocity estimate. From there, if you are many orders of magnitude too small to account for the mass of the WTC towers, then I would conclude that there is not a significant amount of iron in the aerosol. If the number suggests that it approaches, say, 1 or 10% of the mass of iron in the building, then i would say it is time to start making some serious estimations on the volume of the plume.... Also, you need to factor in that iron was also found outside this range of particle size in the UCDavis study, so figure this into your estimations as well....

Maybe it would be better to work the problem backwards.... assume that, say, 10% of the iron from the towers was actually in the dust plume. Then ask the question, how large would the dust plume have to be with a reasonable estimate of wind velocity. From this you can probably immediately tell if you are in the ballpark. My guess is that the volume will be something comparable or greater than the entire earth's atmopsphere!

Any wagers?

Hope this helps....

In a previous post on an earlier blog you claimed you were leaving 911Blogger - never to return.

Why are you here?

Its seems like your only loyalty is to whatever disinformation meme of the day is being intentionally foisted on this movement. You have consistently fallen on the wrong side of the fence on each and every issue of BLATENT disinformation and disruption that has arisen here. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

Furthermore, your attempts to debate the issues reveals a careless transparency for intellectual dishonesty. When push comes to shove you reveal yourself to be unconcerned with the truth - and real facts - seeking only to stir the pot with felonious and socially aberrant accusations and claims - an agent provocateur for disruption wrapped up in a feigned sense of righteous indignation designed to create the illusion that you are a real flesh and blood activist for truth. Your posts are antisocial and insulting to the intelligence of those who seek social justice for our fallen friends.

Your pursuit of trojan horse logic and discordant themes is obvious. The researchers you support and defend are immoral, iniquitous, disgusting turncoats for truth.

Thousands of family members and walking victims of 9/11 with lingering wounds that will not heal are watching. The whole world in fact is watching. I think you underestimate the TRUE meaning of what DIRECTED ENERGY means. You are attempting to hold back the ocean with a broom - and risk losing yourself in the process. If it were not for the despicable, contemptible, shameful, disgraceful behavior that you represent and defend - i would actually pity you.

So. Do you have anything else you need to say here?

I shall decide whether or not to post here. Not you. I understand the owner of the site is 'dz'. So far he has not banned me - you could try to persuade him to I suppose.

Your rant is so ridiculous I feel no anger at the insane and insulting allegations. I am a respected member British 911 and was invited recently to be a moderator by one of the site organisers, an invitation I have politely refused. I recently posted a video response to the guy on You Tube who ranted against the Truth movement. It shot within a few hours to #66 on You Tube for ratings and now stands at 245 views, 19 ratings, I favourite and I link - not bad for a newbie vlogger.The viewers seem to like what I have to say - maybe you should have a little talk with them ?

I'm just an ordinary guy who has got interested in 911. I'm not going to say I know what happened to the Twin Towers. Maybe it was conventional explosives. I just think we haven't been told the truth.

I welcome debate, and thank Greg Jenkins for addressing my points above.
What I have done is refuse to be brow-beaten by you or anyone else who tries to shut me up from talking about subjects which are clearly embarrassing to no-one other than the US military.

I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding the collapse mechanisms associated with the Towers. However, after quantitatively thinking about directed energy weapons over the past few weeks, I am convinced that the DEW arguments don't add up. Not even close.

The evidence supporting DEW that has been presented of which I am aware is either blatantly flawed or other more plausible explanations are easily ascribed to phenomena which supposedly support the DEW notions.

I am earnest in my openness to inquiry as well as criticisms of the paper that was just published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. There may be other anomalous phenomena of which I am unaware that was not addressed in the paper, or possible flaws within the paper itself. Try to rip it apart! I encourage it....

So, I return a thank you for your post.

I would like to address one other issue from your post regarding the radius of the debris field from the Towers. It is not really that important in my analysis in the paper, but at the time of the interview was rather important to me.

Yes, you can have dust spread all over the place. However, no matter what type of distribution you choose (that is, a guassian, exponential, constant distribution) you can always define a radius of the debris field. Granted, you have to define what it is you are talking about --- usually it is, for instance, 1 or 2 standard deviation for a guassian distribution, or 1/e point for an exponential distribution, etc... However, just because dust was spread out beyond a defined radius does not mean it constituted an appreciable amount of mass from the buildings. Most of the debris was contained within a certain radius, and a *conservatively small* estimate is that most of the debris was within a radius defining an area of 6 times the footprint of the WTC towers.

In the interview, the only reason I bring up the radius of the collapse was to show, in contrast to the kingdome, that the towers did not collapse into their own footprints by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, you have to scale the debris height you would expect by how much the debris was spread out. For instance, *if* the debris was spread out over 6 times it's footprint, how high would the debris stack up (~2 stories, see my paper reference #21). This assumes that NO dust or steel was outside this radius. The more it is spread out, the less this number will be. This height is not all that large. Stated in this manner, sublevel collapses seem like a plausible way to account for the 'missing' debris. Note that I do a more thorough calculation in my paper which does not directly relate to defining radii of collapses, but at the time of the interview it was what I was thinking.

I could not make this simple point since Dr. Wood could not remember her own research and could not speak coherently about it and, in fact, she would not even admit that any debris hit the ground! Imagine my surprise.....

I hope this clarifies the point.

According to Jim Hoffman, the Lioy study did not give clear results for iron in the dust analyis.

''The report makes several mentions of sulfur, indicating that many glass and cement particles in a fibrous form contained sulfur. It also mentions that the three samples contained around 40,000 ng/g of sulfides. Interestingly, it states that X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron, but fails to quantify the proportion of iron, omitting it from the table giving concentrations of elements.''

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html

My humble suggestion is that the evidence to rule out some form of 'dustification' of the steel is not conclusive, leaving the path open for further research.

I an sure that like me you will want to know the truth about the wtc demolitions no matter how strange that truth might might turn out to be.

As a matter of fact, would there have been any idea in the scientific community outside those in the know that the Manhattan project was developing a new kind of weapon. and how that weapon might work
or would they have said ''it's scientifically impossible?

I voted your first comment up.

I voted you complaining about being voted down down.

I voted your suggestion that you were voted down because the Pentagon wants it down too.

Ever think that maybe some just find you highly annoying? Anytime I see anyone complain about being voted down I vote them down more.

I think most believe you are the one with the agenda here.

I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass what anyone says on blogs...... or bars..... etc.. However, when promoting these things in a very public way as if they are well founded is an entirely different issue. This is exactly what Dr. Fetzer does, and it is measurably harmful to the Truth movement in a variety of ways. When publicly interfacing with the public at large, you put your best foot forward, NOT your bare back-side. *This* is the problem. No one has a problem with discussion, it is when highly tenious (read unfounded) ideas are promulgated as science fact, when by all measures they are science-fiction. This is akin to laying the entire 911 Truth movement across a 6 lane highway waiting for the next Bus to roll by.....

I hope you can see the difference, because it is infinitely important.

There is something you just don't seem to catch on. Yes "we want to know the truth about the wtc demolitions no matter how strange that truth might might turn out to be". But above all, we want a real criminal investigation to pursuit the perpetrators of the crime. Then we'll have the truth. By making those proven weird speculations in public debate on the 911 truth movement, what all of you are doing is diminish the possibility to have that new investigation.

English isn't my mother tongue, so I hope I make myself clear enough for you to GET IT!

Jones has proven to have done valid scientific research about CD at WTC.

Wood, Reynolds AND Fetzer are cartoon characters promoting outlandish speculations.

The vast majority here agree, after reviewing the "evidence", that space beam is a closed case.

I won't argue nomore with you about this, even if I know pretty well that is what you'd want me to do.

Good day, Sir.

You're wrong!

Public pressure will force authorities to open an investigation. Outlandish speculation turn people off from 911 truth. Do the math.

I am totally sincere in my desire to see justice done and the perpetrators charged with their heinous crimes. If by focussing on the means of destruction and possible obscuring of the truth, I am turning people off that truth , then indeed you are right and it is a foolish thing to do. It is however also true that to most non-believers the suggestion that the US government wilfully helped or caused 911 to happen is itself a monstrous and outlandish theory - yet you are not going to go easy on it to give people a good night's sleep - are you?

but you are making assumptions about what the public will consider "outlandish." For many, the mere idea that the towers were demolished is "outlandish." Should that be suppressed in the interest of "truth"?

I don't have a position on DEW. I do have a strong position on the videos of "Flight 175" penetrating the South Tower, which are obviously faked. Is that "outlandish"? Why? And even if it is, it is a fact, and those who deny it and attack it turn people away from 9/11 truth.

Investigations often begin with premises that predetermine the result. So it is not fine to get just any investigation - the wrong investigation could just cement another untruth.

Personnally, I address people not aware of the truth with:

1. The holes in the official conspiracy theory
2. The cover-up (The (C)ommission, the media, etc...)
3. 911 Press for truth.
4. Pointers to GOOD web sites.

That always work. It get them curious and they make their own research. They come back to me later saying: I'm sure it was an inside job, the towers were CDed, etc... Hope you see my point.

As fas as DEW, the technology may exists in military secret, but it wasn't and couldn't be use to bring down the buildings.

As for "...videos of Flight 175 penetrating the South Tower, which are obviously faked...": BS. Planes hit the towers. Maybe not the flight we were told, but PLANES hit the towers. Take this in consideration:

1. Lost of details in video quality, resolution, etc...
2. The speed of the planes
3. The surface of the towers. A mosquito net which surface is mainly composed of window, GLASS.

Conclusion: If you want to believe in TV fakery and DEW, what can I do! :-( But when you go public with the truth, individually or in the media, you must always go with the soft approch. That something Fetzer and Slayer don't do, purposefully.