9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Fwd: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:48:04 -0500 [08:48:04 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Joseph Keith" , "Rasga Saias" , "SHURE Dj" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Fwd: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction


My apologies for my absence. This weekend my family and I are at the
lake and I only have email access a couple of times a day. That's why
you are not hearing more from me. I am fascinated by the blizzard of
new posts, which I have not begun to read through. There are several
dozen, which I will no doubt find highly informative. But since I was
here last, I have been thinking about Joe's complaint, Jeff's observa-
tion, and Rasga's challenge. I want to comment on them before I begin
to read through and reply as appropriate to this latest series of new
posts. I would like to make three points and hope that what I have to
say is still relevant, which I will discover when I go through them.

(1) Joe makes an unexceptionable point if we base our reasoning on the
state of holographic technology AS WE KNOW IT. So if there cannot be
any projection of a hologram into empty space--if that is a technical
impossibility at present or a physical impossibility for all time--we
need to take that seriously. I have followed John Lear's lead in his
observation that military technology is characteristically decades in
advance of what is known, with which I agree. But if Joe has hit on a
deeper truth--if the laws of nature preclude it--then there is a real
obstacle to overcome in relation to my argument that we are forced to
conclude that what hit the building must be a holographic projection.

(2) Here I like Jeff's suggestion that it might have been a missile
that was cloaked in a holographic projection. That, I think, would
cover the base with respect to Joe's complaint and raise the prospect
that contemporary technology (to the extent to which we understand it)
may have been sufficient. I therefore hope that research will be done
in both directions: (a) about holograms and the current state of that
technology; and (b) about missiles and the current state of that tech-
nology. If, for example, the speed of a Tomahawk cruise missile just
happens to be about 560 mph, that would tend to support the hypothesis.

(3) With regard to Rasga, several aspects of his contributions tend to
trouble me. He appears to be overly committed to his hypothesis that
the engine on Church & Murray came from a plane. Jack, in particular,
has dug out FEMA records showing that there was no external damage to
the building, which strongly suggests to me that at least some of the
photos Rasga has been promoting are doctored. I am also troubled that
he has attacked Jack so often with great venom. Jack is a very mild-
mannered guy who only responds when provoked. I know him very, very
well and have found that attacks on Jack are symptomatic of something
not being quite right, not with Jack but with those who attach him.

I should not be the only one willing to change his mind. I hope that,
in going through this flurry of new posts, Rasga does not continue to
attack Jack but acknowledges the force of Jack's observations about
the lack of external damage to the building. I suspect that, if this
was a cruise missile, then several other perplexing aspects of all of
this may succumb to analysis, including, for example, the "nose out"
phenomenon, which have been caused by a depleted uranium nose cone--
and, contrary to Anthony's contentions, does not have to be a perfect
fit to the nose of the "plane", especially if it was a holographic
projection--and perhaps the "flash" as the image contacts the South
Tower, which might have been an ignition for initiating the "cut out"
of the building to create the impression of a plane's impact, where
the timing was slightly too slow and the image just a bit too exact.

These are my current thoughts, where I am looking forward to reading
what all of you have had to say in the meanwhile. This, I believe,
is an excellent example of pooling thoughts from multiple minds in a
common endeavor to discover truth (at least, for most of us, if I am
correct in my assessment). I would add in closing, since I am quite
certain Anthony is not going to take any of this lying down, that the
idea of a cruise missile cloaked in a hologram is not all that differ-
ent than Anthony's claims that it might be a "special plane" which has
souped up engines and all of that. In this case, we would be dealing
with a "special flying object" that has highly unusual properties. I
also conjecture that, if we take another look at the Naudet brothers
film, it may be that we are witnessing a cruder version of the above.

Many thanks for your patience as I wade through your latest emails.
Do not be surprised, however, if I am unable to respond to them until
this evening. The family is taking in a minor league ball game this
afternoon and that should preoccupy most of the rest of my day. But I
am very happy to see so much activity on these crucial issues, even if
a lot of flack is going to come our way because we are figuring it out.


P.S. Just to test my conjecture about the Tomahawk, look what I found
at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, AZ.
Date Deployed: Block II TLAM-A IOC - 1984
Block III – IOC 1994
Block IV – IOC expected 2004.
Unit Cost: Approximately $569,000 (FY99 $).
Propulsion: Block II/III TLAM-A, C & D - Williams International F107 cruise turbo-fan engine; ARC/CSD solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters).
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm).
Wingspan: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters).
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster.
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h).
Range: Block II TLAM-A – 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Block III TLAM-D - 700 nautical miles (800 statute miles, 1250 km
Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Guidance System: Block II TLAM-A – INS, TERCOM, Block III TLAM-C, D & Block IV TLAM-E – INS, TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS.
Warhead: Block II TLAM-N – W80 nuclear warhead
Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead
Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.

Views: 35


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service