Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: Steve Jones accepts Jim Fetzer's Radio Appearance Invitation
Prof Steve Jones is currently scheduled to appear on Prof Jim Fetzer's GCN radio broadcast "The Dynamic Duo" on Weds 17th Jan 3-5 PM/CT which I think is 9pm - 11pm our time.
This will be interesting and at the very least Fetzer will give us all a laugh! I wonder if Woods will make a surprise appearance, you know parachute in on the top of a grand piano?
Anyway I hope somebody records it. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
I might miss the first five mins as I'm cooking a piazza.
I hope somebody is going to record it. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Oh I'm so excited... we're on the break and I'm waiting for Steve to ignite the thermite reaction!! Fetzer mentioned the piano as I expected although the speed from the top of the towers has strangely gone from 30secs to 27secs to 13 secs!!
God I wish I didn't have to put up with these crappy ads. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Is this a set-up or what? So why can't Steve get through on the telephone? He may have got pissed off with Fetzer talking over him. The other possibility is that they have locked him out so Fetzer can talk sh*t and try and rubbish Steve's paper! As said set-up and Fetzer is such a shill and an idiot.
So Fetzer is yapping on and on talking complete sh*t. If there was any doubt that he is a shill it has now gone. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Last edited by Patrick Brown on Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Did Jones just say "it's cold out here"? What does that mean?
EDIT: So was Jones forced to drive to a phone box? Perhaps he's outside on his mobile although I wonder why? What's wrong with his land-line?
As I said above I now have no doubt that Fetzer is a shill and probably always has been. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Sorry but all I could hear 99% was the voice of “Fetzer the shill”. For people who don't get it let me spell it out:
1.Divide and conquer.
2.Push dis-info so as to confuse people and keep them guessing.
Bit like what's going on at this site eh?
So here's old "Fetzer the shill" talking about grand pianos (note the times he quotes):
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject:
Link _________________ "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
Albanese is total moron and can't get it thought his skull (and Bones?) that TV-Fakery is already proven fact, and that airplanes don't meld into steel/concrete buildings.
Thers's no crushing, no bending, no twisting. Tail not snapping off. Fuel filled wings and engines not exploding on impact. Wing tips swept back 35 degrees sawing through structural steel. The building self-healing itself before the explosion.
This will be interesting and at the very least Fetzer will give us all a laugh! I wonder if Woods will make a surprise appearance, you know parachute in on the top of a grand piano?
Anyway I hope somebody records it.
That was funny! _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Fetzer was as rude as any msm "interviewer" I have heard. He used the same tactics of asking a question then stopping any reply by talking over the top or interrupting Jones incessantly. How can anyone believe he is genuine after that? He deserves no respect whatsoever!
He did a good job on the Greek telecast, but that interview with Jones was absolutely pathetic, and I think spells the beginning of the end of Fetzer's role as a "leader" in the 9/11 truth movement. That interview is going to get spread around and soon everyone's going to get a chance to listen to it. He dug a hole and then just kept on digging. It was sad. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
Christ, that's difficult to listen to. Fetzer is like some babbling village idiot, I can see where you beamers get your foul attitudes from.
He did play some good songs though... Help!
"Help me if you can I'm feeling down,
and I do appreciate your coming round,
Help me get my feet back on the ground,
Oh won't you please, please help me?" _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
It was bound to be something of a shouting match - just look at the mix of posts in this thread. The tactics have worked - all over again - and on a group of people who should know better by now. _________________ Andrew
I've got the download and will edit out the ads at some point in the future and upload it to my esnips.com account. I'm running just on a laptop at the mo as both my PC's are being modded new: graphics cards, ram, processors + silent fans, case coolers and card readers etc. I might even go for an SATA2 Raid setup on my main PC as I use it to do my music. Just need to rob a bank now to pay for it all! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Even before fetzer started shining energy beams out his arse I was still loath to link vids of him to anyone; all that maniacal shouting and mouth foaming stuff doesn't exactly speak "science" does it.
Has anyone seen Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (the Jones/Ryan & Co offshoot)? Looks promising. _________________
Also the idea of a “Philosopher of Science” sounds rather stupid. I once said to an Oxford University professor that I figured religion was a synthesis of science and philosophy and he said “you're probably right”. This is not to say that you can philosophise about physical facts but rather that the things that science can't explain can be explained by philosophy. Arnold Toynbee another Oxford University professor suggested that the growth of civilization was intrinsically related to religion.
So when Fetzer tries to argue against the scientific facts that Jones uses to substantiate his hypothesis he just starts to sound like an idiot. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Because Fetzer was hell bent on shouting??? Jones was a voice of reason and calm and it was a shouting match only in the sense that Fetzer did all the shouting. It took till the very end for Jones, in exasperation, to raise his voice, and then only to plead for the chance to be heard.
Because Fetzer was hell bent on shouting??? Jones was a voice of reason and calm and it was a shouting match only in the sense that Fetzer did all the shouting. It took till the very end for Jones, in exasperation, to raise his voice, and then only to plead for the chance to be heard.
Quite, and at that point Fetzer started actually turning Jones' feed down so he could shill on about general beam chicanery over the top of Jones explaining his points and answering Fetzers questions. Do I have some last century view that its traditional for a show host to talk LESS than the guest speaker? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Albanese is total moron and can't get it thought his skull (and Bones?) that TV-Fakery is already proven fact, and that airplanes don't meld into steel/concrete buildings.
Thers's no crushing, no bending, no twisting. Tail not snapping off. Fuel filled wings and engines not exploding on impact. Wing tips swept back 35 degrees sawing through structural steel. The building self-healing itself before the explosion.
As I said, Albanese is a moron and possibly a genuine disinfo agent.
Your post makes no sense at all and as usual you ignore the facts.
The second video clip of a plane crashing looks just like the crashes on 9/11. A huge, glossy, fireball is seen just like the ones witnessed at the twin towers.
The bird strikes prove how the muscle, flesh and bone of a small animal can penetrate aluminium or put it another way, how something you wouldn't expect to see breaking something else doing just that and obviously quite easily. You must have seen images of a someone breaking bricks and wooden boards with their hands?
But oh no, you raise the issue that a bird can impact aluminium (although you fail to mention what has happened to the bird which is convenient, i.e the bird is in pieces inside the aircraft - any similarities?) but you, like all the other shills, refuse to allow for a massive aluminium aircraft travelling with huge momentum impacting a steel lattice wall which was akin to a flyscreen mesh when compared in scale. How many times do I have to say this, the outer wall of the twin towers was constructed using hollow steel tubes being 14" x 14" held together with rivets. Do you know what 14" looks like? Obviously not. Now compare the 14" thickness of wall with the 2113" length of the plane (that's 150 times bigger by the way). This is why your analysis is flawed. And before you go on about the floors, these were constructed of lightweight steel trusses not even 2 foot deep. Do you know what a truss is? These supported a thin corrugated metal deck (a few mm thick) and a 4" concrete slab for people to walk on. In other words, each floor was mostly a lattice work of steel tubes, only the 4" slab being solid. I suggest you look at how big 4" is on a ruler. Now the trusses and slab would have caused resistance and much damage to each aircraft but overall they were very lightweight and not designed to take impact forces side on (just like the outer steel work).
How many times are you, AJ, TTWSU3 and all the other 9/11 distractors going to ignore these facts?
So what did cause the hole below? Whatever it was, the shape it created suggests it had a large central body and thin bits sticking out to the side. Mmmm, I wonder what that could have been!
As far as I am concerned, you are all hampering the efforts of the 9/11 movement. Perhaps should go to Heathrow or any other major airport and have a look at the size of a few Boeings. You could just learn something instead wallowing in the land of fiction. Then again, this would damage your role as a bunch of shills.
Hate to have to say this, but James is brainwashed.
James C wrote:
Your post makes no sense at all and as usual you ignore the facts.
The second video clip of a plane crashing looks just like the crashes on 9/11. A huge, glossy, fireball is seen just like the ones witnessed at the twin towers.
If you're gonna say that this looks like this then you've got some kind of serious thinking disorder. Since you seem to not be able to think properly I'll explain it step by step, so you should have little trouble (although I do recommend you get an eye exam):
The REAL plane crashed against the ground.
The 9/11 CGI glided through the building creating a cartoon cutout of itself.
The REAL plane exploded on impact.
The 9/11 CGI did not explode until after it was completely inside the building.
The REAL plane was visible on the ground after the crash.
The 9/11 CGI completely disappeared inside the building.
James C wrote:
The bird strikes prove how the muscle, flesh and bone of a small animal can penetrate aluminium or put it another way, how something you wouldn't expect to see breaking something else doing just that and obviously quite easily. You must have seen images of a someone breaking bricks and wooden boards with their hands?
Sounds like you're saying it would only happen if you wouldn't expect to see it. That's faulty logic and makes no sense.
The bird hit the wing. The bird got killed and the wing got damaged. Possible.
Someone breaks a board. The person is not harmed but the board is. Possible because person's hand has much smaller surface area.
An aluminum plane slicing through structural steel. Plane is destroyed and steel is destroyed. NOT Possible as it violates Conservation of Energy.
James C wrote:
But oh no, you raise the issue that a bird can impact aluminium (although you fail to mention what has happened to the bird which is convenient, i.e the bird is in pieces inside the aircraft - any similarities?) but you, like all the other shills, refuse to allow for a massive aluminium aircraft travelling with huge momentum impacting a steel lattice wall which was akin to a flyscreen mesh when compared in scale. How many times do I have to say this, the outer wall of the twin towers was constructed using hollow steel tubes being 14" x 14" held together with rivets. Do you know what 14" looks like? Obviously not. Now compare the 14" thickness of wall with the 2113" length of the plane (that's 150 times bigger by the way). This is why your analysis is flawed. And before you go on about the floors, these were constructed of lightweight steel trusses not even 2 foot deep. Do you know what a truss is? These supported a thin corrugated metal deck (a few mm thick) and a 4" concrete slab for people to walk on. In other words, each floor was mostly a lattice work of steel tubes, only the 4" slab being solid. I suggest you look at how big 4" is on a ruler. Now the trusses and slab would have caused resistance and much damage to each aircraft but overall they were very lightweight and not designed to take impact forces side on (just like the outer steel work).
Now you really sound like a nut. You don't seem to understand that there is no sign of a plane in the building after the "crash". It completely disappeared.
Aside from that, your version violates Newton's Laws of Motion. An aluminum airplane will not react that way with steel and concrete.
James C wrote:
How many times are you, AJ, TTWSU3 and all the other 9/11 distractors going to ignore these facts?
So what did cause the hole below? Whatever it was, the shape it created suggests it had a large central body and thin bits sticking out to the side. Mmmm, I wonder what that could have been!
Are you an idiot? Obviously explosives made that hole after the CGI completely disappeared inside the building. Did I really need to type that out? My God.
James C wrote:
As far as I am concerned, you are all hampering the efforts of the 9/11 movement. Perhaps should go to Heathrow or any other major airport and have a look at the size of a few Boeings. You could just learn something instead wallowing in the land of fiction. Then again, this would damage your role as a bunch of shills.
AFA I'm concerned, you are too afraid to see the reality of the CGI plane on 9/11. May I ask... what expertise do you have to counter the following people?
Joseph Keith - retired Aerospace Engineer
Judy Wood - former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. BS in Civil (Structural) Engineering, MS in Engineering Mechanics, PhD in Materials Engineering Science
Rick Rajter - graduate (PhD) student at MIT in Materials Science and Engineering
Jeffrey King - former MIT Electrical Engineer
The four educated people above have written papers on how the 9/11 "plane" defies physics. And if you read their papers, you won't find ramblings like in your post.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
