Seven Questions about 9/11

[Greg Burnham]

Of course, he cut and pasted a list of HIS own work and links to all of it so that it might be evaluated by any who so chooses. He put his "money where his mouth" is, so to speak, Mr. Orling. What have you done? Can you prove it? If indeed the experts you will need to recruit in order to conduct a proper analysis of the subject are "above your pay grade" then what qualifications have you that justifies your having judged Jim's work--after all Jim has employed EXPERTS himself in those fields of study?

You are behind the curve, Mr. Orling. That'll teach me to give someone the benefit of the doubt too soon. You owe Jim an apology, not a concession, an apology.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mr. Burnham

I don't like to call myself an expert in anything. I am a licensed architect since 1982 and working in the profession since 1970 including working for the very architects who had designed the Twin Towers as my first post graduating college job.

I have been "reverse" engineering and presenting the basic structural issues which IS at my pay grade but clearly above Mr. Fetzer's in these matters as he has proven in spades in the "where did the towers go?" thread not in the "bear pit".

There is other technical work which I don't do such as video trace analysis and assorted energy calculations that physicists are doing PROPERLY... I trust. I can't evaluate their work because I am not trained in it. I can somewhat comprehend their methodology and intellectual honesty in their presentations. That is to say I can see when someone is BSing and citing things which they don't understand... such as Mr. Fetzer does in MANY.. too many cases.

I don't venture into the analysis of aviation data, avionics, and even seismic data... all fields I am not competent to evaluate... nor I think is Fetzer or you!!!!!!!!!

My work is simply to model the twin towers and find their weakest points which obviously were the points which failed FIRST. And this lead to their total destruction. I think that is a sound approach. This would have to correlate to the observables and for example the claims of explosions in the sub basements DO NOT correlate to the observables (collapse sequence). The "explosions" need to be properly identified and explained. They can't be simply ignored as outlier.

As far as I can tell at this date the best fit to the observables is a gravity driven collapse from around the plane strike zones of undetermined cause... initiation.

[James H. Fetzer]

Like my research on JFK, my research on 9/11 is collaborative. That was the whole point of creating the research group on JFK, which led to the publication of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), and why I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which led to the publication of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organizing and moderating its first conference and producing its first DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11" (2007). I don't see where Jeffrey Orling is making any remotely comparable contributions. My background in the history and philosophy of science--not to mention 35 years offering course in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning--has provided a very broad framework for evaluating work across a broad range of disciplines. And that includes Orling's own work, which I have refuted time after time on this forum. Get over it, Jeffrey! You're toast!

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.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Whatever Mr Fetzer. Everyone can see how impressed you are with yourself. You show very little technical comprehension and dismiss what you don't understand. That's understandable.

You don't know what you don't know and you don't know your don't know it!

[James H. Fetzer]

. . . which is shallowness, banality, and vacuity! A five-star performance! You attack me for doing nothing and, when I refute your claim in spades, you attack me for being preoccupied with myself! Now THAT'S some kind of gall! Get over it, Jeffrey. No one care about your opinions on 9/11 except you. That's life.

Whatever Mr Fetzer. Everyone can see how impressed you are with yourself. You show very little technical comprehension and dismiss what you don't understand. That's understandable.

You don't know what you don't know and you don't know your don't know it!

[Jeffrey Orling]

Let's move this to discussion of the facts and off of the character of those who comments and their motives.

I posted several slides... perhaps Fetzer would critique them????