The Conspiracy Spreads
I was listening to Uncle Fetzer interviewing Steven Jones on his Paranoia network radio show. Just when you thought the conspiracy was just limited to buildings 1,2 and 7, now you find out that it has spread:
Fetzer: I was looking at Eric Hufschmid's book here, I think building 4, 5 and 6 may deserve more of our attention....
Jones: I agree.
Fetzer: Because there are so many anomalies related to them.
Jones: Especially, if you look at building 6 Jim. I have been looking at that also.
Fetzer: There is a huge cavity in the center.
Jones: Cavity in the center.
Fetzer: Immense.
Jones: So the question there is... was this hit... supposedly clobbered by something from one of the towers, but then you would expect to see the clobbering mass (laughter) still there. Instead what you see is a cavity. Very startling and umm... I remember reading that the investigators for FEMA were restricted in access to building 6. You see.
Well yeah, they were restricted, the building was on the verge of collapsing, and had to be "pulled" down. Geez, it is dumb and dumber here.
Ironically Jones later comments that he is hoping to see "increased unity" in the 9/11 truth movement and that he has seen that in his recent trip to Colorado. I am not sure how much I buy that, considering Fetzer's guest on his show next week is none other than Judy Wood.
posted by James B. @ 10:40 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I wonder if the thousands of tons of steel crashing down could have caused the hole in WTC6? If it was a bomb the debris pattern would be out not in as the photo's show
This comment is the only response I feel their bullshit deserves.
TAM
That's the problem with conspiracy thinking. EVERYTHING that happens, happened exactly as planned.
Here's a conspiracy theory you'll never hear: "Bush allowed the planes to crash into the WTC towers, but the destruction of other buildings was an unintended consequence."
There are no unintended consequences in conspiracy theory. There is no room for error, failure, or side effect. Therefore, they have to take disparate, random outcomes of the main plot, and backform elaborate plans for them to happen exactly as they did.
Not to mention that the billions of dollars in collateral damage kinda undermines the whole LIHOP notion.
So the conspiradorks will now look at WTC 4, and 5, and 6, and undoubtedly discover more things they can Just Ask Questions about. Never once will it occur to them that even if there were a conspiracy, these buildings don't have to be a meaningful part of it, and would likely contain no evidence anyway.
On the plus side, this will push the whole conspiracy notion even further into the realm of the laughable. We've already got people looking for explosives in WTC 7 when no evidence was found in WTC 1 or 2. As if the whole hijacking/mass murder/tower collapse thing was just a cover to blow up these irrelevant secondary buildings.
Next!
Dear Mr. Fetzer,
I assume that your silence communicates your refusal to debate Mark Roberts.
Ronald Wieck
Although, if I agree with this, how do candles work?!
Thermite.
Think about it if you light a match but hold it upright it will never burn down to your fingertips.
...it will! It bloody will! What the Hell is the point of providing easy experimental evidence if you can't be bothered to try it yourself! It's like that stupid phonecall on a commercial jetliner thing they love to trot out. Goddamn.
UPDATE: I just received an e-mail from Fetzer claiming that he didn't get the original message. To be continued...
I hardly know what to say about this one...
For some reason it reminds me of when I went to Alaska. The grandeur and majesty of nature was nothing short of incredible.
What does this have to do with 9/11, well, you see, when the ship was passing by mountains that were 14,000ft high, we would look at each other and all of us would say "It just doesn't look real". Being from New York City, we could barely grasp the enormity of nature or the scale of what we were looking at.
On 9/11 the devestation was so immense, so huge, so massive, it felt kind of the same. Looking at the pile, you just couldn't imagine that it was real. It was such a huge pile with gigantic pieces of debris. Your brain would try to put it in to scale, but it was just too enormous. I'd look at things and think, there's a rock, and then notice a crane or bulldozer underneath the rock and realize how enormous the piece I was looking at was.
The pile was like that. It was HUGE . Bigger than some of the smaller buildings around the site.
If you didn't see it, you will just never understand.
So I guess I kind of understand this. They don't have a clue how unbelievably large the devestation was, so they assume that damage caused has to be from bombs or whatever.
Their minds simply cannot grasp the enormity of the destruction.
That said, they are also idiots.
Actually I wouldn't mind seeing that too. It'd be hilarious to watch him pull a 180 on the 9/11 denial nonsense, and then have the CT movement attack HIM for being a shill.
Although granted, comedic value is not the wisest benchmark for choosing a president.
I would like to see Steven Jones as the next President of the USA.
ummm...ummm...ARE YOU CLINICALLY INSANE.
The man, and those who he "hangs" with know nothing about politics or running a country.
You have got to be kidding, because if you are serious, I am more worried that you are allowed out in public than I am of S. Jones being president.
TAM
The man, and those who he "hangs" with know nothing about politics or running a country.
Oh c'mon. They're experts!
Honest? He takes pictures of firefighters searching for survivors with flashlights and claims they are looking into the hot glowing core of melted iron.
He takes pictures of steel beams cut by ironworkers during clean up and claims it was done by thermite.
He takes pictures of concrete and miscellaneous debris compressed during the collapse, and claims it is molten steel.
Yeah, some honesty.
James, why do you consistently misstate what Jones says to make your case:
He takes pictures of firefighters searching for survivors with flashlights and claims they are looking into the hot glowing core of melted iron.
Read the quote again: Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm
I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole. In any case, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html.
He takes pictures of steel beams cut by ironworkers during clean up and claims it was done by thermite. The date of said pictures is unknown. There is no evidence of said picture that it was taken during clean up or cut as a result of clean up activities. Which means both interpetations could be correct. From the Dr. Jones's paper:
Above: two men install a conventional cutter charge to steel column, preparing for a controlled demolition of the building. Notice the narrow width/size of the explosive cutter charge. From History Channel: “Wrecking ball – Modern marvels” and thanks to Robert Moore and http://piratenews.org/911con.html . For comparison, observe one of the angle-cut columns seen at Ground Zero after 9/11/2001, below. (Notice especially the uneven cut at the back of the column and the clinging previously-molten metal on both the outside AND the inside of the column, suggesting this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)
He takes pictures of concrete and miscellaneous debris compressed during the collapse, and claims it is molten steel.
The actual quote- The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:
After viewing the picture it is hard to tell what exactly the big 'chunk' is. James you forgot to mention that Jones calls for further testing of the item.
In each case Dr. Jones quantifies his statement by the term evidently, which leaves open the door for further testing or a change in what is actually percieved. He does not state that the item is unconditional ly what is perceieved to be. He doesn't state it as fact. Again, the OSers change the meaning of statements to fit their agenda.
I encourage anyone reading this post or site to read the documents that people keep trashing, don't take their word or anyones word for what they say unless you read the document itself.
James, stop lying to support your position. And if your going to crticique Dr. Jones, do so factually using his words not ones you make up.
Swinger, when are you going to debate Dr. jones' Gremlin Demolition theory?
Post a Comment
<< Home