11-07-2011, 10:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2011, 10:52 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Mr. Burnham.
I really don't care about the rest of Mr. Fetzer's life as I was invited to this forum because I had been involved with research into 911 and I was also somewhat of an activist who was working with others to advance the call for a new investigation with the goal to achieve justice and accountability. That is a huge task.
Since solving a crime is also a technical matter.. who did it, how did they do it, and so forth 9/11 is on one level a technical mystery to solve.. a forensic investigation of the evidence in the public record. Can we figure out what happened first and then see who might have done it second and so on.
Since the official account is so terribly flawed and it was delivered to us by the government the obvious conclusion is that the story was a cover up and they were covering up for their "friends" in high places.. and that became the MIHOP and the LIHOP and so forth and the ACTUAL evidence seemed to hardly matter. The more powerful the conspirators.. the more fantastic their plot and "deception. Hence the rather "bizarre" theories... space beams and so forth.
All I have done is log the ACTUAL observations of the event as best I can (others are doing the same) and study the structure and engineering principles which attend. This seems to be something with Fetzer finds fault with though he is unable to fault my actual findings. And yes they are preliminary and I am refining my understanding as I drill into this. I am not finding evidence of the extensive use or need for the enormously powerful and energetic "weapons" that many seem to believe were required.
This is not to say that the planes and subsequent fires was the sole cause of the collapse. But it IS to say that the twin towers' designs made them quite vulnerable to collapse if one focused on their weak points.... the towers could then collapse in a sort of straw that broke the camel's back approach.
Fetzer et al keep going on with their fantasy belief that these towers were so strong they could not collapse without some rather intensive, extensive intervention. That's not true. And this is such a unsettling idea to the truth movement anyone who poses such is deemed a shill for the government. I am not sure why that's the case... but that is the reaction.
I'd like to debate with engineers and scientists not self appointed "experts", stenographers and "logicians" who simply cite what someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about said.
I really don't care about the rest of Mr. Fetzer's life as I was invited to this forum because I had been involved with research into 911 and I was also somewhat of an activist who was working with others to advance the call for a new investigation with the goal to achieve justice and accountability. That is a huge task.
Since solving a crime is also a technical matter.. who did it, how did they do it, and so forth 9/11 is on one level a technical mystery to solve.. a forensic investigation of the evidence in the public record. Can we figure out what happened first and then see who might have done it second and so on.
Since the official account is so terribly flawed and it was delivered to us by the government the obvious conclusion is that the story was a cover up and they were covering up for their "friends" in high places.. and that became the MIHOP and the LIHOP and so forth and the ACTUAL evidence seemed to hardly matter. The more powerful the conspirators.. the more fantastic their plot and "deception. Hence the rather "bizarre" theories... space beams and so forth.
All I have done is log the ACTUAL observations of the event as best I can (others are doing the same) and study the structure and engineering principles which attend. This seems to be something with Fetzer finds fault with though he is unable to fault my actual findings. And yes they are preliminary and I am refining my understanding as I drill into this. I am not finding evidence of the extensive use or need for the enormously powerful and energetic "weapons" that many seem to believe were required.
This is not to say that the planes and subsequent fires was the sole cause of the collapse. But it IS to say that the twin towers' designs made them quite vulnerable to collapse if one focused on their weak points.... the towers could then collapse in a sort of straw that broke the camel's back approach.
Fetzer et al keep going on with their fantasy belief that these towers were so strong they could not collapse without some rather intensive, extensive intervention. That's not true. And this is such a unsettling idea to the truth movement anyone who poses such is deemed a shill for the government. I am not sure why that's the case... but that is the reaction.
I'd like to debate with engineers and scientists not self appointed "experts", stenographers and "logicians" who simply cite what someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about said.