A brief discourse with Feltzer

[Snowygrouch]

All,
After being thoughly disgusted with beams etc I decided to email Jim Feltzer to see what he had to say for himself. Below are copies of the emails.

I recieved NO reply from my second email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Dear Jim
Whilst I hold yourself in very high esteem and regard the work of ST911 as
pivotal to the movement I hold EXTREMELY deep concerns over the very odd
split occuring between Reynolds/Judy and Jones.

Personally, a paper titled "did classified weaponry destroy the towers" is
an oxymoron in an academic context as be definition classified means
unavailable to the public. Hence no proof of their existence can be
ascertained (in the form required at least).

To base a paper on theoretical star wars weapons and then claim Jones to
be defunct because a thermite theory is "preliminary" is the height of
intellectual and scientific malpractise.

It is my firm belief that Jones papers are both well constructed and
logicaly researched; but most critically of all.....PLAUSABLE.

Beam weapons, classified weaponry and so-forth are radical,
unsubstanciated, unresearchable and quite probably non-existant in the
form required to expel momumental quanitites of energy.

Only a nuclear powered satellite could possibly generate enough energy to
produce such destruction; the technical implausabilities there are just a
tiny portion of those involved PROPERLY researching a paper on such
apparatus.

Persuing such matters as offical ST911 policy will WITHOUT ANY DOUBT
result in irrevocable damage to the process of gaining public acceptance
of the wider theory of "9/11 inside job".

It is my belief that scholars such as yourself are more than intelligent
enough to understand that and thus henceforth -barring an change of ST911
policy- I shall be FORCED as a prospective mechanical engineer to consider
regarding your motives as fundamentally un-sound.

I hope for the sake of the movement ST911 can COLLECTIVELY persue useful
avenues of research.

Yours Sincerely

Mr C. Douglas
Oxford Brookes University
UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
I am all for freedom of inquiry. We have to consider every possible alternative
explanation. I am convinced that thermate cannot have been the sole cause of
the massive destruction of the entire WTC! If you can't see that, then I would
question your competence just as you appear inclined to question mine. Look at
the evidence Judy and Morgan have adduced! I did not name that little clip, by
the way, but "classified" only means that it is knowledge kept from the public.
If we have effects that cannot be explained by another other hypothesis,
however, then we have a basis for evaluating that alternative, though of course
not with the specificity we could if we had more detailed information about the
precise weapons involved. There are whole families of directed-energy out
there. Thanks for writing. There's something about your letter I really like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
My final email to Jim is Below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
Dear Jim,
Thankyou for your very prompt reply, I agree with most of your email and i
CERTAINLY agree that thermite alone CANNOT possibly account for the
destruction sequence seen of WTC1 & 2.

However it has always been my understanding from reading Jones papers and
hearing him speaking that he has ALWAYS made a point of noting that
high-explosives were also certainly used in addition to thermite.
If he has explicitly stated that thermite was in his opinion the SOLE
cause of the WTC collapses I would THEN express doubts in the same way you
do now.

Indeed Jones states that men probably carried HE charges into the elevator
shafts in one US Univerity talk a few years ago.

If he has since retracted this assertion so I would like to see the footage.

ST911 is a beacon of light for the movement and non-scientifically
literate people look up to ST911 for advice; in the knowledge that their
deliberations will be non-partisan and strictly based upon research and
study of EMPIRICAL data. I cannot understand how and why exotic means of
demolition would be used since they are very risky, no doubt incredibly
expensive and unnessesary.

I have listened intently to Judy and Yourself discuss the "bathtub" and
resonant frequency destruction; whilst I do not doubt the theories are
within the realms of physics that is not the same as a probable cause.

Personally the thousand plus hours of research I`ve done point to
conventional, known, reliable and fast high-explosives. Simple and
relatively risk free. Why any other hypothes need be developed is beyond
me and quite an unnessesary waste of our limited resources (as far as I`m
concerned).

In my opinion and the opinion of my collegues here, such theories are
playing straight into the hands of Bill O'Reilly and the other despicable
idiot on FOX. We must keep our methods water tight and avoid giving these
people ammunition.

Yours sincerely

C. Douglas
Oxford Brookes University
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

I find it interesting Jim has not chosen to address any further issues here after replying so quickly to my first email.

Something is amiss with Jimmy boy & co me-thinks.

C.

[flamesong]

Snowygrouch,

That must be immensely disappointing for you.

But I also detected something marginally creepy about the reply you did get, 'There's something about your letter I really like'. I think you are on their recruitment hitlist!

Forgive me that my generalisation might perceivably include you, SG, but I have often felt that the more one focusses oneself - the less one can see outside the blinkers. I generally apply this when I see interviews with scientists who are working on some specialised project, say, inserting human DNA into a cow's embryo - and wonder at their gestalt blindness.

For me, this is clearly the case and Jim Feltzer's failure to answer you on this point is telling. Perhaps the label 'classified' as applied to these theoretical weapons ought to be applied to this branch of research, i.e. in Feltzers own words, 'kept from the public'.

[Ally]

I hope you reminded Fetzer you're such an expert in physics and structural engineering that you believe an alumnium plane could puncture through the WTC like the Roadrunner cartoon


Link
[/youtube]

[flamesong]

What a pointless and irrelevant clip which shows a movie stunt. As any fule kno - stunts are created to produce required effects. But that notwithstanding the vehicle in this stunt hits the plane laterally in the hold area - probably its weakest point and on its weakest axis.

a). Aircraft are not just made out of aluminium, if they were they would fall out of the sky in pieces - if they got off the ground at all.

b). Velocity makes a lot of difference to the physics involved - I'm not an expert but I have seen demonstrations of spinning thin paper discs being used to cut wood.

c). If you throw enough shìt at the wall - some of it will stick.

[ian neal]

And your engineering qualifications are what exactly Ally?

From the posts I've read I have not seen SG close off the possibility of any alternatives theories such as TV fakery and beam weapons, but merely to question the wisdom of leading ST911 campaigners such as Fetzer focussing so strongly on such controversial and practically unprovable theories.

I reckon he has got a huge point. My advise to those within the 9/11 truth community that are following this line of inquiry is to continue to persue these theories largely out of the public gaze and IF and WHEN they feel they have something approaching a compelling case that they are sufficiently confident in that they believe it compares with the other key planks of 9/11 evidence, that is the time to share more widely. This is especially true of those who assume/presume a leadership role within the movement such as any high profile members of scholars for truth.

[Ally]

[Patrick Brown]

[flamesong]

Apologies, SG, for leaping in here.

[andyb]

[Ally]

[Snowygrouch]

Ally,
I have already posted a comprehensive stress calculation that shows that the steel in the WTC would have to have been several times stronger than it ACTUALLY was to NO be peirced by the plane AT 500 mph.

I have also posted IN THE SAME THREAD two engineering simulations showing an EMPTY 767 wing impact steel beams and a FUEL laden wing impacting.

I also posted a schematic of the fuel tanks in a 767 which are principally in the WINGS and extend almost to the end of the wing tips (about 8 foot short).

These simulations show that INDEED and EMPTY wing does NOT puncture the building JUST AS YOU SAY.

Trouble is the wings DID have up to 40 tons of unburnt fuel in; hence they DID and CAN puncture the steel. Thin aluminium full of tons of fluid behaves VERY differently to an empty shell Ally.

So I`m sorry but my opinions are based on stress calculations and engineering simulations.

That truck hit an EMPTY plane with no fuel and was travelling at about 50mph not a fuel laden 767 @ 500mph.

Its sometimes very upsetting when your theories just dont get validation from calculations and evidence; part of being a good researcher is to admit defeat and MOVE ON.

What are your opinions based on?

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[Thermate]

Ally, try this simple experiment: Smack yourself in the face with an empty Coke can, then repeat the experiment with a full one.

(NB Please don't actually conduct this experiment as it may hurt.)

[Patrick Brown]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Snowygrouch]

This is a very good example of cyclic reasoning from you TWSU3, you say the fact I proved the planes COULD go through the towers is irrelavent because if they were ghost planes they wouldnt HIT anyway.

This is a flawed argument as half the REASON you THINK they are ghost planes is BECAUSE you say they couldnt go through the tower face!!!!

This is a cyclic argument which is basically using a theory as proof and then referring back to that theory as your origional proof.......

Also my black box research is NOT invaildated because of ghost planes; I`m perfectly aware it is certainly FAKED; however if I can prove that to the world its proof of inside job. Ghost planes are neither here nor there with regards to that.

Media pics are interlaced NOT film negatives, its NOT like looking at a photograph! The grainy low-res videos you parade as some kind of holy grail are just an example of examination of low quality, low speed; low resolution over magnified gibberish.

Ask any media expert....of I forgot your not very fond of professional opinion for some reason best known only to yourself.

C.

[Andrew Johnson]

WOw - busy busy.

Black projects and beam weapon research is real.

Did it destroy SOME of the WTC? That's the question before us.

Both Jones and Wood CAN be RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME. People seem to be missing that.

Calum, you need to look into black projects more and then decide if, like the CD of the WTC, facts and information have been kept from us.

The argument you presented to Fetzer can also be used for CD i.e.

We don't know WHAT explosives were used (even in Jones own paper he says "other explosives"). Thermite is an INCENDURY not an explosive as such.

People therefore say "you can't say what the explosives were, or who might have planted them or how - therefore you have no proof". However, from the freefall nature and squibs, we know that explosives were used.

i.e. Squibs are evidence of explosives
Disappearing steel is evidence of something else....?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Ally]

[flamesong]

[Ally]

[flamesong]

[Ally]

So it only took you ten years to see the light? bwaaaa

[jomper]

These are really very valuable and interesting posts you're making, Ally. You never fail to contribute something useful and constructive to the debate.

Once you get to 1000 posts you become A Really Very Important Person as I'm sure you know. We're all rooting for you - get there soon.