Seven Questions about 9/11

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mr. Burnham

I was referring SPECIFICALLY to original work on:

9/11

There is one citation as EDITOR and that doesn't sound like original research to me. How bout you?

[Greg Burnham]

Mr. Orling said:

"The problem with Mr. Fetzer is he is clearly a copy and paste kinda guy and then throws in some flawed "it-looks-like-a-duck" thinking which he passes off as "scientific analysis".

That's what you originally said. Jim is either a "cut and paste" kinda guy or he isn't. Clearly he is not.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mr. Burnham,

I don't care about Fetzer's other work. it could be good, bad or indifferent. I am referring to what he posts and presents on 9/11 in this forum. I was completely unimpressed with is comments on the Where did the Towers Go thread. He got his buddy a retired physics teacher to "help" him but Mr. Boldwyn was completely wrong on the facts and he's gone. He's also been rather insulting... which is beneath someone with academic credentials... Oh I forgot he was a marine too. He mis-characterizes what I write and my work so he either can't read or won't read of doesn't understand or doesn't care... or all of the above.

He's now part of the problem and not part of the solution.

[Greg Burnham]

I responded to a fallacy that you committed. Perhaps you didn't intend to be taken that literally. But a generalized characterization, as the one you made, is indeed fallacious on its face. Up until now I have stayed out of this (subject matter) as it is not my main focus, but a fallacy is a fallacy all the same.

As a point of common sense, even if your criticism was valid in this case--a point with which I do not concur, but even if it was--still it is illogical to observe an individual's behavior in one area and conclude that the behavior is typical of them in all areas.

So, now that you are limiting your criticism to this one subject, it is also unlikely that an individual would be consistently original in all other areas and the opposite in just this one area. Possible? Yes. Probable? Nope. But that is another subject.

[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.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately this subject seems to bring the worst out in people. Not always, but often. Hopefully some good will come of it all.

[James H. Fetzer]

These aren't all mine, but I recommend all of them. Tell
us all about your work, Jeffrey. Where is your 9/11 list?

ON CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/...acism.html

"7/7 Ripple Effect" (a "false flag" attack from beginning to end)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...359807776#

ON WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11:

"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/...Aires.html

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

"Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621

ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS:

"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/...-game.html

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...wtc-on-911

"Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimi...7-FDR.html

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-i...1-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/10/gue...r-mon.html

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/...about-911/

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/...duplicity/

Mr. Burnham

I was referring SPECIFICALLY to original work on:

9/11

There is one citation as EDITOR and that doesn't sound like original research to me. How bout you?

[James H. Fetzer]

An all-time award winner in this category: Jeffrey Orling, Horse's Ass!

Mr. Burnham,

I don't care about Fetzer's other work. it could be good, bad or indifferent. I am referring to what he posts and presents on 9/11 in this forum. I was completely unimpressed with is comments on the Where did the Towers Go thread. He got his buddy a retired physics teacher to "help" him but Mr. Boldwyn was completely wrong on the facts and he's gone. He's also been rather insulting... which is beneath someone with academic credentials... Oh I forgot he was a marine too. He mis-characterizes what I write and my work so he either can't read or won't read of doesn't understand or doesn't care... or all of the above.

He's now part of the problem and not part of the solution.

[James H. Fetzer]

Of course, I am also the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which means maintain its web site at http://911scholars.org and its forum, which you can eventually find, host a radio show with archives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com as well as a blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, and give hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews, many as long as four hours. I can't believe what a colossal bore you have become, Jeffrey. I doubt that you have any friends at all. You remind me of the guy who wasn't the smartest guy in the class but thought he was. That's Jeffrey Orling, Esq.

These aren't all mine, but I recommend all of them. Tell
us all about your work, Jeffrey. Where is your 9/11 list?

ON CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/...acism.html

"7/7 Ripple Effect" (a "false flag" attack from beginning to end)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...359807776#

ON WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11:

"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/...Aires.html

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

"Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621

ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS:

"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/...-game.html

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...wtc-on-911

"Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimi...7-FDR.html

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-i...1-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/10/gue...r-mon.html

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/...about-911/

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/...duplicity/

Mr. Burnham

I was referring SPECIFICALLY to original work on:

9/11

There is one citation as EDITOR and that doesn't sound like original research to me. How bout you?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jim,

I am not publishing my work at this time in a formal manner. I may not bother to as I don't see the point in publishing work which is preliminary. Others at the 911 Free Forum may choose to publish their findings which I support and might contribute graphics etc.

I have produced over 30 graphics, some of which I have posted on this site such as the graphics below of the Factor Of Safety study which IS preliminary and will vary depending on the actual mass of the towers. Or the explanation of the collapse/self buckling of the core which survived the floor destruction shown below.

I am also posting a graphic about "collapse" time and what we can see. These charts are based on theoretical values and don't consider the resistance of air to free falling material. What they do predict is how much of the towers one can see (from the level of destruction down) as related to the speed of the destruction down the tower. I suppose the next step would be to correlate these to the actual videos of tower 1 to determine which is the highest floor which can be seen before the free falling debris blocks our view... and then revise the collapse duration interval.

Perhaps a reader can provide the information from studying the video of the collapse of tower one as to what was the highest floor seen before the canopy of falling debris eclipses our view.

I continue to produce graphics and do calculations and study the visual record as do other researchers at the 911 Free Forums such as Tim, femr2, Oz, Achimspok, OWE, Enik and others. Investigation and research continues and is advancing our understanding and falsifying some of the mainstream 911 Truth movement's pet theories such as Hoffman/Chandler/Gage/Cole et al's "explosive controlled demolition", or Wood's DEW and Mini Nukes in the sub basements.

I suppose that there will come a time to assemble and present the case representing the best evidence and understanding of how the towers came down. This does involve many science and engineering disciplines and most of them are above my pay grade and yours too! So this presentation likely will be a group effort produced by those who have the requisite technical background in the various disciplines. In the end the explanation / presentation must be made comprehensible and credible by John and Jane Q Public and that in itself is a difficult problem to solve considering the complexity of the science and engineering concepts which are involved.

It's the public which must then demand any new investigation or conduct one which goes beyond what happened to determine who ACTUALLY made it happen and bring about justice and accountability. All indications at this time is that we went after the wrong conspirators.

Research is ongoing.