Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Debunking Uncle Fetzer

Our buddy the Artistic Macrophage has done a splendid job of rebutting Uncle Fetzer's 15 points.

Most experts, and non-experts now agree it was a combination of the plane crashes, the spread of jet fuel through out the building, and subsequent fires, that eventually brought down the towers. As for his comments on the WTC being "Designed" to "withstand" a plane impact, (a) The WTC was not "Designed" for such an impact, but rather, after the designs were finalized, the plans were analysed to see if such an impact would be withstood by the existing design, and this was found to be true. (b) Most experts say that this was infact true, as the buildings did stand for an hour or longer after impact...no one debates (seriously) that the impact by itself brought the towers down, as they obviously didn't.


Highly recommended!

22 Comments:

At 22 August, 2006 08:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Well thanks for the compliment, but a guy named "baiken" doesn't seem to think so.

I did feel a little honored that a Neophyte like myself pissed them off enough that they published it on the "Libertyforum.org" site, and then proceeded to take strips off of my debating skills.

Gumboot and Wolfshade have since given me some pointers, but more than anything else, they made me realize that little of what this "baiken" guy said was actually attacking the facts and evidence I was using, but rather personal attacks on my skills as a debater, which I only take as a chance to improve...

enjoy the post...

 
At 22 August, 2006 11:04, Blogger CHF said...

Imaging getting Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Nazinyc and Killtown together on the same stage and broadcasting it on CNN.

 
At 22 August, 2006 12:40, Blogger Stevew said...

Great debunk

 
At 22 August, 2006 13:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

The problem with that "theory" is that there was not enough jet fuel to keep those fires sustained and hot enough. This has been debunked 10 fold by now. Try again.

 
At 22 August, 2006 13:36, Blogger CHF said...

Sure, Nazi boy.

The only thing that burned in the WTC was jet fuel.

Nothing else.

 
At 22 August, 2006 13:47, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nothing else.

Oh, that's right! Office furniture and computers can melt steel! How come I didn't think of that before! duh..

 
At 22 August, 2006 13:50, Blogger Chad said...

Oh, that's right! Office furniture and computers can melt steel! How come I didn't think of that before! duh..

This translation's a little trickier, but I think it roughly comes out to:

I'm a douche.

 
At 22 August, 2006 13:52, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

when a blacksmith forges something he usually hits it into shape. That is because it would take much longer for the item in question to take the shape he wants by just the heat alone. On the steel columns and components we had many outside forces to help bend and eventually collapse the steel...weight of floors above, damage from plane crashes. These were the Blacksmiths hammer so to speak...

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:01, Blogger default.xbe said...

Oh, that's right! Office furniture and computers can melt steel! How come I didn't think of that before! duh..

who ever said the steel melted? steel loses half its strength at 600C

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:26, Blogger CHF said...

Nazi boy,

No one but you morons every claimed the steel melted.

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:30, Blogger CHF said...

Are you under the impression that the WTC supports would hold up 140,000 tons unless reduced to a liquid state?

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:40, Blogger rocketdoodle said...

I think he's crunching the numbers.

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:43, Blogger Falco98 said...

I just saw a major part of the A&E documentary the other night, and there is GREAT footage of (among other things) the extensiveness of the fires. Primarily that eventually, nearly every window in the building(s) above the impact spots were billowing black smoke, and some visible flame, which indicates pretty strongly that the fire spread considerably after the initial impacts and jetfuel dispersal. Anyone who saw this documentary (and wasn't sitting there the whole time willfully trying to block out or rationalize away stuff disagreeing with the conspiracy theories), would have a hard time seriously debating against the official story...

 
At 22 August, 2006 14:52, Blogger shawn said...

Well nesnyc keeps throwing out the melted steel nonsense.

(Fires resulting from materials in the buildings could compromise the steel up to 90 percent, it didn't need to melt.)

 
At 22 August, 2006 15:14, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Falco98;

What was the name of the documentary?

was it Anatomy of 9/11?

 
At 22 August, 2006 18:04, Blogger Dog Town said...

National Geo has one sunday, also!

 
At 23 August, 2006 06:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

On the steel columns and components we had many outside forces to help bend and eventually collapse the steel...weight of floors above,

Not correct. The building was designed to redistribute weight if certain portions of the buildings were subjected to abnormal stresses or damage. The fact that the buildings stood after they got hit proves this fact.

The fires were NOT hot enough to weaken any sections of the steel especially near the top where the video clearly shows the collapses started.

 
At 23 August, 2006 06:48, Blogger CHF said...

So Nazi boy thinks that the steel supports (some of which were destroyed by the planes) should have held up 140,000 tons even when weakened by fires.

Photos of the damage area clearly show floors sagging and outter supports bending.

But pay no attention to that because some internet Nazi-lover knows better than every expert in the world.

 
At 23 August, 2006 08:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

NESNYC said:

Not correct. The building was designed to redistribute weight if certain portions of the buildings were subjected to abnormal stresses or damage. The fact that the buildings stood after they got hit proves this fact.

The fires were NOT hot enough to weaken any sections of the steel especially near the top where the video clearly shows the collapses started.


First off, redistribution of weight, does not ELIMINATE the forces on nay given area, it REDISTRIBUTES them.

Secondly, back up your stupid statement claiming the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel. I would love to see this EVIDENCE!!!

 
At 23 August, 2006 08:21, Blogger shawn said...

The fires were NOT hot enough to weaken any sections of the steel especially near the top where the video clearly shows the collapses started.

They were hot enough to cause the steel to lose 90 percent integrity in some areas.

That's quite a big of loss.

 
At 27 August, 2006 19:59, Blogger batcave911 said...

%90 ???
Whered that come from ?
the steel acts like a heat sink.

do you know much about your computer ???
the chip, has metal attached to the chip to cool it off.
ever use a soldering iron ?
you need special ones for large peices of metal, thats why to solder air conditioning lines together, you need map gas, it burns much hotter.

the steel would have acted like a heat sink.

Still, jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough for 90% fail

Brad
911review.org

 
At 11 September, 2010 19:14, Blogger JA said...

The 9/11 Commission Report backs the FBI's story, flatly stating: "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found."

There are accounts contradicting the official account of the black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. 5 The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org.

What is there to hide?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home