| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I see Fetzers camp showing their true colours diverting the attention away from the impossibilty of the collapse to ad hominem attacks on Jones. Shame on them!!!
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers - Greg Jenkins
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Direct ed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I personally don't care for some of Fetzer's language. However, I do care for his analsyis of what happened on 9/11, as he more accurately discusses the actual evidence than Prof Jones. I have not seen any specific comments or feedback on the evidence I presented in the articles I wrote about Jones, Jenkins and others:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TheNew9-11Hijackers.htm
You will read that I am somewhat unhappy with the language which Fetzer etc have used to criticise Jones, but the substance of their criticism of Jones is correct and important. Professors Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer reviewed the article before I posted it, and made some corrections. I have not received any comments or real corrections about this article from Steve Jones or anyone "on his side". (Frank Legge argued about the emissivity of Aluminium, but this didn't form a substantial part of the article and I disagreed with him on this anyway).
Similarly, for this article:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/dr_greg_jenkins.htm
I have received no negative comments or corrections. I have, however, received several complimentary messages from people I don't know for the "Hijackers" article.
So, let's stick to specific points of evidence, such as why Jones denies the presence of any fine powder after the destruction of the WTC.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Steve%20Jones%20-%20Denies%2 0WTC%20Fine%20Powder%20-%2017%20Jan%202007.mp3
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thing is Jones only proposes Thermate as a theory, unlike Judy wood's Beam of truth. Her correction request to NIST has done nothing but harm the camapign. I agree that the Thermate story is still debunkable in many areas to do with the testing but at least he is testing. Woods, Fetzer, reynolds and siegel needs to disowned before any more damage can be done.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | Thing is Jones only proposes Thermate as a theory, unlike Judy wood's Beam of truth. Her correction request to NIST has done nothing but harm the camapign. I agree that the Thermate story is still debunkable in many areas to do with the testing but at least he is testing. Woods, Fetzer, reynolds and siegel needs to disowned before any more damage can be done. |
I am again puzzled by this statement from you. Again, I think you have coined the "beam of truth" term here, for some (unknown?) reason. I would prefer to say "the DEW hypothesis explains a good deal more of the physical evidence than the use of thermite + explosives"
Can you say the ways it has "damaged the campagin" e.g.
1) Name people who have said it is "bad for the campaign"
2) Describe how it is "bad for the campaign"
3) Define who or what is the campaign, as clearly as possible.
And, what points of evidence or analysis of Prof Wood would you specifically take issue with? Or, can you *specifically* describe the problems with her general approach?
Without such information, this seems like yet another "attack" on the research of a very well-qualified individual, into a what happened on 9/11.
As I have suggested before, NIST postal and e-mail addresses are public, so if you care about "the campaign" I think you ought to write to them, expressing your concerns. To build support for your position, post your letters and responses here, so that people can review them - just as Prof Wood has posted her research, letters and responses (the ones that don't fall under a legal umbrella) so that everyone can review and critique them.
Or would that "damage the campaign" too?
PS: To see evidence of the LITERAL cover-up at the WTC GZ on 9/11, start here, if you're interested:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html
or should we should just post it on a new site called www.911truthcampaigndamage.com? Would that make you happy?
Also: Please post a detailed critique of Reynolds/Siegel and describe their "campaign damage".
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I`m not getting involved in the "mechanics" of all this but personally I think we could all be making better use of our very limited time and resources than trying to debunk eachother.
There are people with loads of money and time already desperately trying to do just that 24/7.
C.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | I`m not getting involved in the "mechanics" of all this but personally I think we could all be making better use of our very limited time and resources than trying to debunk eachother.
There are people with loads of money and time already desperately trying to do just that 24/7.
C. |
Spot on SG - if all of these sideshows aren't disinformation designed to distract and divert then why do they behave like they are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
