Epistemic Aspects of 9/11 Research (about the absence of plane crashes on 9/11)

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:42:42 -0500 [10:42:42 PM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: "ace baker" , "Ken Bell" , [e-mail]
Cc: [Show addresses - 25 recipients]
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

Coherence is the criterion (standard, measure) of what is true, but it
does not define truth (which is correspondence to reality or how things
are). We have massive evidence demonstrating that the official account
is not true; indeed, since it involves violations of laws of nature, it
cannot possibly be true (unless, of course, our beliefs about specific
laws is mistaken, which is possible but, in these cases, not probable).
The laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics involved here
are not infallible, but we have no reason to believe they are mistaken.

We are looking for the hypothesis (theory, conjecture) that provides
the best explanation of the data (when we have separated the authentic
from the fabricated, and all that). Then the hypothesis that explains
the data with the highest likelihood--where that data has the highest
probability, if that hypothesis were true--is the best supported. When
there is enough evidence--it has "settled down"--then we are entitled
to accept it as true, in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.
That no commercial planes crashed on 9/11 seems to fit in that category.

The studies by Elias Davidsson (about the hijackers), John Lear (about
the envelopes), and Col. George Nelson, USAF ret. (about the missing
debris) all support the absence of support for plane crashes on 9/11.
In addition, John Lear has demonstrated why the absence of evidence in
these cases--the missing aluminum rubble, the missing wings, engines,
seats, bodies, luggage, and tail--provides proof of the absence of any
crashes on 9/11. That the videos do not show real planes is essential
to that proof. For these reasons, the hypothesis appears to be true.

Subjective degrees of conviction track the strength of objective proof
when we are rational. In this case, the strength of the objective evi-
dence makes this conclusion very difficult to deny. Although it hasn't
been proven conclusively because empirical claims cannot be established
conclusively, it does appear to have been established beyond reasonable
doubt, since no alternative explanation appears to be reasonable. But
we have to test and probe our reasoning and our evidence to make sure
that new evidence and new alternatives do not undermine our conclusion.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard appropriate for convic-
tion in criminal proceedings. That we have established the existence
of criminal acts and shredded the cover-up, that does not mean we have
also established who was responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. There
are excellent reasons to infer that Bush, Cheney, and various neo-cons,
together with other obvious suspects, including elements of the Mossad,
were culpable for these criminal acts, but that does not mean that we
are in the position to bring an indictment, which remains to be seen.

Quoting "ace baker" :

[Hide Quoted Text]

They needed a strategy to protect the criminals. You know, the actual guilty persons,
rather than just a generic "the government". First they reinforced the idea that we must
not wonder who did it, until we first understand what happened. Of course, we're not
allowed to ever figure out what happened. No matter how certain you are that the
official story is false, you must never ever prove an alternative theory true.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about
answers". - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow".
________________________________

From: "[e-mail]"
To: ace baker ; [e-mail]
Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 6:13:52 PM
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

Unless, of course, Ace was actually citing my post approvingly and making
the point that, by fabricating evidence, faking videos, and phony reports
by "witnesses", the conspirators created a clever ruse, which has to be
taken apart piece by piece, as we have been doing here. They created a
kind of "semi-coherence of disparate parts", as we know. In which case,
of course, I agree with him completely and accept the compliment. I do
not take for granted that I appreciated his post properly the first time,
but I would submit that, given his track record, I probably had it right.

Quoting [e-mail]:

More moronic drivel from Ace Baker. There is a difference between truth
and belief. Our beliefs are true when they correspond to the way things
are (reality). That we can never be CERTAIN does not mean that we have
no access to TRUTH, only that the truth is tentative and fallible, which
means that new evidence and alternative hypotheses may sometimes lead us
to revise our previous convictions, accepting some we had rejected and
rejecting some we had accepted, because of their impact on our reasoning.
There is nothing inappropriate about understanding this and only a child
would resist acquiring an appropriate grasp of the nature of knowledge.

Quoting "ace baker" :

The true brilliance of the 9/11 military op was to commit a crime so huge and so evil
that everyone had to support it.

The true brilliance of the 9/11 coverup was to destroy the concept of truth. (Karl
Rove "we create our own reality"; Jim Fetzer - see below; et al.)

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about
answers". - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow".
________________________________

From: "[e-mail]"
To: Ken Bell ; Jack & Sue White ;
[e-mail]
Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 5:23:05 PM
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

Ken,

It's a technical thing. Most of what we think we know is based upon
the coherence of the information available to us. You do not KNOW in
the strictest sense of the term your own paternity. You think you know
lots of things that could still be false. Everything we know about 9/11
is second-hand and, if the study Morgan has produced is right--and I am
inclined to think that it is--even those who claim to have seen these
events may be sincerely mistaken! So I don't doubt your sincerity and
I can't imagine why you should doubt mine. I agree with the conclusion
you are promoting, but I may express my position somewhat differently
than do you. Well, that's great! We are converging on (what seems to
be) a core truth about 9/11: no commercial planes crashed that day!

Jim

Quoting "Jack & Sue White" :

Ken...PHILOSOPHY is the basis for ALL CRITICAL THINKING. Listen to Jim and learn how
to sell your mantra, instead of just repeating it.

Repeating it gets boring to those who already believe. Facts are better.

Jack

On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:04:30 PM, Ken Bell wrote:

JF: "There are reasons why I am not going to endorse statements that are as
completely unqualified as the simple slogan you prefer."

kb: Then just say that!!! Why waste my time thinking that you agree with the
sentence there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11? Just say no because it is
simple and "unqualified". Great. Just as I added words to my "mantra" for
Ace....it appears I need to add more words for you to help you "qualify". Fine.

A philosopher will ask "if and why" a plane crashed. An NTSB investigator will ask
where the verifiable debris is. Try thinking more like an investigator and less
like a philosophy professor?

Fetzer: "All claims about 9/11 are synthetic and cannot be known with certainty."

kb: You may be right....though we sure have killed alot of people in the never
ending global US war based on the CERTAINTY of those commercial planes and
terrorists?

----- Original Message ----- From:

To: "Ken Bell" ; ;
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

If you knew anything about philosophy and the theory of knowledge, which
you clearly do not, you might understand that no empirical knowledge is
objectively certain, not even the existence of the physical world, since
(a) you might be dreaming, (b) you might be in a drug-induced state, or
(c) the evidence might be being manipulated to deceive you. Go back to
Descartes, if you like, and gain some insight as to why a professional
philosopher might not take the kind of definitive stand that someone
who is a philosophical ignoramus might take. I am sorry, Ken, but you
are simply off-base. There are reasons why I am not going to endorse
statements that are as completely unqualified as the simple slogan you
prefer. And I think it is pointless to make an issue out of it. There
are profound differences between (what is known as) analytic and synthe-
tic knowledge, when the former is certain but has not content about the
world, while the second has content about the world but is not certain.
All claims about 9/11 are synthetic and cannot be known with certainty.

Quoting "Ken Bell" :
Fetzer: "There is no doubt that the hypothesis that no commercial planes crashed
on 9/11 is the best supported among alternatives."

kb: WOW. When you read the truth that there were no commercial plane crashes
on 9-11......you actually think "doubts" about a "hypothesis" of a "support" among
"alternatives"??!!! No wonder you could never say that sentence and mean it?

JF: " I happen to agree with you about what appears to be the case......."

kb: No you don't. You do NOT agree with me. Stop saying that. I said there
were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. You do not agree with that sentence!
Who cares about what "appears" to be the case. Appearances are anything you want
at any time. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. You either agree or
disagree.

STOP DOUBTING Dr. Fetzer! AND LEARN! There were no commercial plane crashes on
9-11. It's no longer a hypothesis. Its alternatives are meaningless. There were
no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. Stop fighting it?

It's been 9 years and there's no verifiable evidence. We need to let go. We need
to let go of the idea that maybe, just maybe, our government and military didn't
do this......but they did. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. The
war on terror is a fraud.

----- Original Message ----- From:
To: "Ken Bell" ; ;
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

Ken,

I am a professional philosopher. There is no doubt that the hypothesis that
no commercial planes crashed on 9/11 is the best supported among alternatives.
It is the hypothesis that explains more of the data than any other possibility.
I certainly believe it. I have invited you into this list, posted some of
your stuff on the Scholars Forum at 911scholars.ning.com, and have invited
you to be my guest on "The Real Deal" for two hours on Monday, 19 October.
So I really think you can lay off this manta thing. I don't like being told
what to think or what to say. I happen to agree with you about what appears
to be the case and have a keen interest in the mass of evidence that supports
it. I also think that Ron and others are going to continue to toss new stuff
this way. So, if you think that means we "COMPLETELY DISAGREE", who cares?

Jim

[e-mail] wrote:

Ken,

No, do not believe any of the alleged flights on 9/11 actually crashed.
But proving that involves eliminating many lines of alleged proof. I
have already pointed out that John Lear has done a nice job of support-
ing that proposition. But we want to cope with any other arguments we
might encounter, if we want to be thorough. Your repeating this mantra
and not doing much to support it does not enhance your credibility. I
think most of us BELIEVE these flights were faked and we are doing what
we can to PROVE IT. You keep talking about everyone else doing their
own research--well, that is what we are doing. You are acting rather
strangely, in my view. Most of us agree with you and want to prove it.

Jim

Quoting "Ken Bell" :

Fetzer: "Just because we agree with you is no reason to stop testing, probing,
and all that. And you don't have to be a philosopher to appreciate this point."

kb: Even after reading these past few posts....I still have yet to see you
write: "There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11". If you are unable to
say and write that sentence, AND MEAN IT, then you and I COMPLETELY dissagree.
If you are still thinking and believing about the commercial planes of
9-11....then that means that YOU do not know?!!

There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. How would you verify the
planes? Would you go talk to witnesses? Go look at video? Look at some film?
Look at what the military corporation owned US media outlets showed you? Or
would you look at debris which is the only way to physically verify a plane
crash?

Even many within the "truth movement" will have a difficult time coming to terms
with knowing there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. (I'm not talking
about shills and trolls). There are many who will flat out say the military are
killers....though will never say that the military killed its own on 9-11. This
helps with the cover-up. Many will just accept that their situation is corrupt
and "get on with their lives". This causes the least pain and is easier for
many rather than learning or researching ones self.

----- Original Message ----- From:
To: "Morgan Reynolds" ; "Ken Bell" ;

Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and video fakery

Good find, Morgan! Ken seems to be hung up on the word "believe". Consider:

kb: There's that word again....."believe"? So what your saying is to
sit around and wait for "more objections" so that we can "prove what
we believe"?!!! Dr. Fetzer.....there were no commercial plane crashes
on 9-11. The truth will neve care what you believe or what someone's
objections are. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

Dr. Fetzer......Do YOU think a commercial plane crashed on 9-11 and if
so where?

Ken, I have already said that I do not believe a commercial plane
crashed on 9/11. Since believing is one kind of thinking, it follows
that I also do not think a commercial plane crashed on 9/11. Knowing
is the state of having a belief that you can support with good reasons.

Believing without good reasons is a form of faith. I think you are confounding
beliefs based on faith with beliefs based upon good reasons. I have plenty of
good reasons for believing that no commercial plane crashed on 9/11. But
if these reasons could be shown to be false--based on mistaken assumptions,
fabricated evidence, video fakery, or whatever--then they could be shown to be
bad reasons rather than good ones.

So we are testing, probing, debating, assessing, etc., the evidence and proofs
available to us to make sure we are not overlooking anything. I hope that is
OK with you because that is what we are doing, which you do not seem to under-
stand. Just because we agree with you is no reason to stop testing, probing,
and all that. And you don't have to be a philosopher to appreciate
this point.

Quoting "Morgan Reynolds" :

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that
almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first
hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they
actually saw... Dr Wade said: ³Over the previous decade we have seen rapid
advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can
create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows
that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to
testify about something they never witnessed.²

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

On 10/12/09 12:28 PM, "Shallel Octavia" wrote:
You have changed your tune?

kb: "There were no commercial planes on 9-11. SAY IT!

kb: "There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

kb: "CGI...sure. Dressed up drones....sure. I dont know."

While I look forward to your "upcoming books and films",
Ace has a well presented, well researched theory of composited planes on
real footage, that has been standing for all to see.

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

This is what real science looks like, not slogans.

On Oct 12, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Ken Bell wrote:
RG: "I was objecting to the word "commercial" in there, even, cos no
NonCommercial planes hit any buildings or made any empty holes either."

kb: Here's my explanation: the reason I use commercial is because the
military and government "MAY" have used something that "looked" like an
airplane. CGI...sure. Dressed up drones....sure. I dont know. I dont know
how these murders have killed so many. Never want to know "how" they killed
so many. Though the world was told they were "commercial" planes. You
know...the ones with luggage, paying people, 2 million ID parts, wings, and
tailsections?!! Were there "military planes" on 9-11? Yeh...they were all
over the place on 9-11. Was that what people "witnessed"? I dont know. Its
just that based on the ONLY thing which can physically verify a commercial
plane crash......DEBRIS......there isn't any. A plane could have crashed
anywhere on 9-11....its just that they werent the ones which instigated the
never ending global US war on terror based upon verifiable debris....in other
words no commercial planes.

RG: "I say Ken Bell is trying to give us a semantics lesson."

kb: In many respects....yes. I am unifying ALL of your work into one
sentence. That one sentence also shows huge problems with respect to many's
focus and energies. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. Why
focus on demolitions? Of course there were demolitions....there was no jet
fuel because there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11. Over the last
few years I have been down all these roads and rabbit holes. The semantic
rabbit hole is one of them. That's why I say the same thing..........its to
keep you focused....and to indentify the trolls. You will never again ask a
question about Flight 77....because there were no commercial plane crashes on
9-11. Flight 77 is a rabbit hole.....as is ALL 4 fligths from 9-11. If
there were no WMD's in Iraq.....why still focus on brand number 8 WMD model
number 4.33 with regards to the WMD's???? There were no WMD's in Iraq which
was the basis for a pre-emptive invasion. There were no commercial plane
crashes on 9-11. That sentence will take a long time to understand and
comprehend all its implications.

RG: "How can we use what we know to change the effect of this big lie on our
fate as a species?"

kb: That comes through time when trying to understand the implications and
solutions from 9-11. Rosalee's question really is the big question. Will
even the worldwide knowledge that there were no commercial plane crashes on
9-11 make a difference? The whole world knows there were no WMD's in
Iraq....ARE WE STILL THERE? Will the US ever end its never ending war even
though the whole world knows is was based on a muderous lie?

RG: "But I would rather just hear more about Ken Bell's ideas of how to
harness our knowledge".

kb: I like the word "unify" your knowledge. You guys have risked your lives
talking and researching about this information. I do not take that lightly.
You guys have all the data, "facts, reports, conferences, debates,
presentations, awards, grants, video, film, research staffs, threads, TV
appearances, information, "debris", thermite.....what has all that done? You
have argued and presented for 8 years......what has it done? My personal
tactic and agenda for lack of better words, is to stop arguing and
presenting.......and start telling and demanding. There's actually a big
difference and I hope I am successful with my "agenda" from my upcoming books
and films. We'll see.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosalee Grable"

To:
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: "I am absolutely certain that no commercial planes crashed on 9/11."

No Planes Hit Any Buildings, or Made Any Empty Holes
is how I phrased it. I was objecting to the word "commercial" in there,
even, cos no NonCommercial planes hit any buildings or made any empty holes
either.

B

I say Ken Bell is trying to give us a semantics lesson.

Mental Hygiene, I'll call it.

I think Ken thinks that we are letting our our habitual ways of thinking
weaken us.

I already had my arguement with Ken about this, and he won fair and square.

Gerard Holmgren was a stickler for semantics too.

Ace Baker made the best response,

"I am absolutely certain that no commercial planes crashed on 9/11."

but than called for a round of Spook Calling Circles instead of focusing
usefully.

Spook Calling Circles have wasted more time than drawing lines on pentagon
cartoons.

If Ace wants Spook Calling Circles, I want to present the evidence on him.
But I would rather just hear more about Ken Bell's ideas of how to harness
our knowledge.

Even spooks are not eager for the results of the unacknowledged aftermath of
the fact No Commercial Planes on 911.

Cognitive Dissonance makes people numb or scattered.

I've always considered the fact they didn't really use planes "The Dagger to
Pierce the Veil" even when I had to stand all alone.

Enough people are catching on that nowadays I get to learn from them.

What we have discovered is really one of the most awful secrets in all of
history.

How can we use what we know to change the effect of this big lie on our fate
as a species?

[e-mail] wrote:
Ken,

No, do not believe any of the alleged flights on 9/11 actually crashed.
But proving that involves eliminating many lines of alleged proof. I
have already pointed out that John Lear has done a nice job of support-
ing that proposition. But we want to cope with any other arguments we
might encounter, if we want to be thorough. Your repeating this mantra
and not doing much to support it does not enhance your credibility. I
think most of us BELIEVE these flights were faked and we are doing what
we can to PROVE IT. You keep talking about everyone else doing their
own research--well, that is what we are doing. You are acting rather
strangely, in my view. Most of us agree with you and want to prove it.

Jim

Quoting "Ken Bell" :
kb: Dr. Fetzer.....you didn't answer the question. I'll try
again..........do YOU think a commercial plane crashed on 9-11 and if so
where?

Fetzer: "We might all BELIEVE that no commercial planes crashed on
9/11"......" I in fact believe that there
are multiple proofs"........"in order to prove the conclusion we
believe"..........

kb: This is not a ghost sighting. We are not at church studying big
foot, loch ness monster, santa clause, and unicorns. These are massive
multi-tonned objects with millions of physically verifiable parts. Belief,
believing, or any belief systems are irrelevant during an airliner crash
scene investigation. All you must do is go over to the debris. No
verifiable debris....no plane. After 8 years.....NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF
VERIFIABLE DEBRIS FROM ANY OF THE 4 PLANES FROM ANY OF THE 4 LOCATIONS ON
9-11 HAS EVER BEEN VERIFIED IN ANY WAY BY ANYONE!!!!!!! Who cares what
you believe during an airliner crash.....only debris verification matters.

Fetzer: "But we want to be sure we have covered all the bases."

kb: You will never cover all the bases. You are dealing with mass
murderers on a global scale with an unlimited budget, legal, power,
military, media, and time on their side. The minute you "cover one base"
they will create a 100 more.

Fetzer: "More proofs by defeating objections in order to prove the
conclusion we believe."

kb: There's that word again....."believe"? So what your saying is to sit
around and wait for "more objections" so that we can "prove what we
believe"?!!! Dr. Fetzer.....there were no commercial plane crashes on
9-11. The truth will neve care what you believe or what someone's
objections are. There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

Dr. Fetzer......Do YOU think a commercial plane crashed on
9-11 and if so where?

----- Original Message ----- From:
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: "confetti"

Kevin,

Believing and knowing are different epistemic states. We might all
BELIEVE that no commercial planes crashed on 9/11 but not KNOW IT IS
TRUE because we haven't proven it yet. I in fact believe that there
are multiple proofs that support this conclusion. John Lear, in my
opinion, has provide the most convincing proofs. But we want to be
sure we have covered all the bases. When Big Guy comes up with his
objections, we need to defeat them. That's the point. More proofs
by defeating objections in order to prove the conclusion we believe.

Jim

Quoting "Ken Bell" :

kb: Dr Fetzer......its been 8 years....have you personally been able
to come to a conclusion about whether there were ANY commercial plane
crashes on 9-11? And if so which locations?

Why are you now just trying to "prove that conclusion true" after 8
years? You would think this would be the FIRST thing to ever prove? No
commercial planes....no terror. That's the big picture. Who cares what
the military, government, and military corporation owned US media outlets
say about what happened. These are the perpatrators.

Who on this thread is unable to 100% agree with "there were no commercial
plane crashes on 9-11"? You say that most agree with this conclusion
that means some are unable to understand the truth. Who would that be?
And why? 4 commercial planes and 6-10 million pieces to ID them within
seconds......and after 8 years there is nothing. Why? twncpcone

The reason that any honest research and investigation will support this
conclusion is because there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

Dr. Fetzer.....do YOU think a commercial plane crashed on 9-11 and if so
where?

----- Original Message ----- From:
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: "confetti"

Ken,

I think most of us--certainly, including John--agree with your (oft-
stated) conclusion that no commercial carriers crashed on 9/11. We
are interested in the premises that support it, that is, the grounds,
reasons, or evidence that prove this conclusion is true. You have a
lot to contribute, but you need to appreciate that we are interested
in PROVING THAT CONCLUSION IS TRUE, part of which is disproving the
official account. So take a deep breath and accept that a rational
investigation, to be complete, entails taking each element of proof
on either side apart to explain how it fits into "the big picture",
which most of us agree supports the conclusion that you've advanced.

Jim

Quoting "Ken Bell" :
RE: "confetti"Mr. Lear says: "Just a small point here but if the wing
of a Boeing 77........."

kb: I know I'm new here to this thread. Though I will once again say
it as gently as I can without insulting. There were no commercial
plane crashes on 9-11. Why are you using the word "if"???!!!! There
were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

The entire never ending global US war on terror is a murderous lie.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Lear
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: "confetti"

Just a small point here but if the wing of a Boeing 77 were to hit a
lamp post at 400 to 500 mph the wing would instantly explode because
the lamppost at that speed would pierce the leading edge of the wing
behind which is all the fuel. The leading edge of the wing is not
designed to hit lamposts'.

The Boeing 757 wing construction is what we call a 'wet wing' and does
not have a bladder which holds the fuel like in the old days. The fuel
is located directly located behind the leading edge of the wing and is
no competition for a tall metal lamppost.

Each successive hit of a lamppost would cause the same damage and by
the time the airplane got to Pentagon the entire wing would be in
flames.

(Please see attached) The gray area is where the fuel is.

...>>

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Big Guy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:20 AM
To: Rosalee Grable
Subject: Re: "confetti"

Who was the first to claim they were lime green?

These things often get into the story and no one really knows where they
came from in the first place.

In the first place they were described as "bits of silver" or "white".

Hey, not the green used on that year's model !!! Cripes we are entering
the realms of CSI.

Did someone do a forensic analysis of the paint and after finding it
was not the right shade to match that year everyone then dropped
the whole idea it was a boeing?