Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

9/11 Smoking Gun: WTC 6
  • NutzyNutzy
    Posts: 17
       I came up with this idea a few years ago and submitted it to someone
    who should've been able to be at least critical of it (Jim Fetzer) but
    instead I heard nothing from him and I was to find out later that I
    hadn't done my homework.
       My theory met with dead air because
    Fetzer is a proponent of a conflicting theory, that of Laser beam and Directed Energy weapons and I find that theory far fetched
    at best, no matter what Fetz's and Dr Judy Woods' credentials.
    My
    theory is simple. Sure WTC's 1, 2 and 7 are smoking guns but I was going
    through pictures at the time on the web and Building 6 seemed to be the
    biggest smoking gun to me.
       Begin by googling "WTC 6".
       The
    official story would have us believe the buildings fell around their
    core causing the core to disintegrate and somehow disappear (bullshit at
    best).
       "But" if you look at WTC 6 you'll notice a large hole in
    the center where the core column(s) should be but the building is still
    standing. Why?
       I believe WTC 6 proves the central cores were
    removed before the collapses and the exterior structure of 6 was strong
    enough to support the building and much of the remaining floors long
    after the disaster. In fact, Buildings 5 and 6 had to be demolished
    afterward.
       The questions remain, "Where are the core columns?"
    "Why is this building the exact opposite of the official theory?" "Did a
    piece of building 1 or 2 fall into the center of 6 and drive the core
    columns into the ground like a huge nail?"
       This, to me proves that
    Steven Jones is on the right track, the core columns were removed by
    explosive devices planted in the days/weeks/months leading up to 9/11
    and Building 6 could be considered one of their failures, standing after
    the event as mute testimony.
     Any comments for or against are welcome. I'm open to changing my direction if there is an intelligent reason.
  • WTC 6 was an 8-story building. Did it even have core columns?

    As for the removal of the core columns in 1 & 2, the guys at Citizen Investigation Team think the explosives were planted in the elevator shafts, which makes sense to me. In fact, the Nova simulation required the removal of the columns in order to make the computer model show the building collapse. Which, to me, is about as much of a smoking gun as you can get, though the irony there is lost on most people.

    And finally, I wouldn't take anything Fetzer says seriously. The word bombast comes to mind.
  • NutzyNutzy
    Posts: 17
    I lost faith in Fetz when he began to dispute Steven Jones. If I was to take my information from anyone I'd rather it come from a scientist/physicist than a philosopher. One knows what he's talking about and the other only thinks he knows.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    I wouldn't put it down to his being a philosopher. Sometimes a scientist can't see the forest for the trees. Many scientists today couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag. But I agree with you in the broadest sense. It comes down to being able to evaluate alternate theories. If Jones et al. find evidence of nanothermite being used (those particular little flecks in the dust, etc.) then anybody who advocates a beams-from-space theory has to be able to account for those flecks. Maybe the findings were faked or misinterpreted, or maybe the 'energy weapons' could also produce them. In which case, it'd have to be explained using hard science. Regardless, a theory is supposed to fit the facts, and the facts are clearest when they come in the form of physical evidence.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    I still listen to his show once in a while, just to find out what he's hyping this week. The question that comes to mind is whether he is just being nice to his various "very special guests" or whether he's really quite soft headed and falls into the thought patterns of anybody who crosses his path.

    I was just reading the Wikiganda article on Fetzer looking for the exact form of his degree in the philosophy of science, which is of course philosophical, but it should have given him a grounding in scientific methods, of which he appears to have lost track. But what caught my attention was that the authoritarians at Wikiganda still insist on calling folks like Fetzer "controversial" in regard to their views on the Kennedy assassination, whereas the vast majority of the population of the world suspects a government conspiracy. Funny these folks don't call the spherical earth theory "controversial" because there are still idiots who believe it's flat.

     
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    I agree with you. The official mythology surrounding the Kennedy killing(s) has a hold on everything trying to be 'legitimate'. Even the so-called new media, as DiEugenio has pointed out, scrambling to be 'legitimate' has to reinforce it. It seems like hardly a week goes by that I don't see at Slate some article or other alleging all belief in political conspiracy comes from being insane. Every time some new event occurs, Slate leads the way at denouncing conspiracy theories before they've even had time to articulate themselves. The Huffington Post is never far behind. Wikipedia, too, is desperate to seem 'legitimate'. The things I've seen there are appalling. Anytime a subject is even half controversial, you can count on Wikipedia to be near-useless. So-called 'editors' cybersquat on certain topics. McAdams has an arrangement with one or two cronies when it comes to JFK-related articles. A bigger reason, though, why McAdams does it is because he uses links from Wikipedia to his own site(s) to give a heavy boost to his Google rankings. That means any time you do a search on JFK, you're likely to end up on McAdams' page first.

    I agree with you also on Fetzer. It's hard to tell whether he's just advocating a position in order to test the other side (whatever that may be at a given moment) or if he actually buys into a certain idea. Often it sounds like he starts with the former and, when no one can answer his filibustering, he ends up going with the latter. I enjoyed him on BlackOp back in the day when he was a frequent guest till the end when it sort of became a weekly political editorial.


  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    "Filibustering" is a great word to describe Fetzer!

    As for the "new media" trying to be legitimate, I am reminded of what Jacques Vallée said about UFO studies: There are only two parties you can belong to. This seems to be true of all borderland subjects. You either buy the standard authoritarian narrative or you believe in the standard alternative explanation, which is often just a caricature of alternative opinion. Often, the best explanation is not one of the two but something at an angle to the line between them.

    As for Google, my tolerance of their shenanigans has pretty much reached its limit. Don't even talk about Wikiganda. Unless you're looking for a discography of Joan Jett, it's pretty much useless to any serious researcher in any field. In their quest to be authoritative, they have become irrelevant. Rarely are scholarly breakthroughs widely accepted for years after their discovery, so that what you are looking at on Wikiganda is 1950s consensus reality. It's really quite sad.

    Here is a classic example from the website http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/, a generally good anti-establishment site, and I quote:


    Name That Troofer!

    May 23, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

    Match the conspiracy theory with the conspiracy theorist!

    1. The government “can create and steer groups of tornadoes.”

    2. “I suppose it’s too paranoid 2 think sudden spate of military sex scandals a way 2 crowd out WH scandals AND [pet obsession that would give away answer omitted].”

    A. Mickey Kaus B. Alex Jones


    And this guy is an academic. You'd think he'd know better.