Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:40:50 -0500 [12:40:50 PM CDT]
To: "Anthony Lawson" , email@example.com
Subject: Re: Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths: Is there a better explanantion?
Just for the record, I have been unable to figure out Ace since he pulled
a stunt "fake suicide" on a radio program of mine. I was so concerned that
I contacted the California Highway Patrol, who directed me to the LAPD, who
came out to his home and verified that he was, in fact, still alive. Ace
has attempted to justify this bizarre conduct as "performance art" on his
web site, which, if memory serves me right, is acebaker.blogspot.com. He
seems to be proud of this achievement, so I imagine the post is still there.
This has left me in a quandary about his research. I am committed to the
truth and criticize those who dismiss arguments based upon their source. I
haven't decided what to do in this case, however, not because I don't like
his research--which, right or wrong, is fascinating stuff!--but because I
can no longer trust the source. If I were to include it in my next book
but he claim that he never granted permission, then that would put me and
my publisher in a predicament. If he betrayed me on the air, why not here?
So it is false that I have decided not to publish his article, but I am in
a dilemma and don't quite see my way out of it. Since he is getting it out
and about, as his link to a wiki site indicates, then perhaps it makes less
of a difference. It had always been my intention to include it, but now I
am less sure. I am glad to see Anthony's critique, which I look forward to
reading. Anthony has also reminded me that there are other studies, such as
one by Nick Irving, that I should have included in my list. He's right, but
my memory is more fallible than it used to be. I am sorry for the omissions.
As to Rasga, who is unrelenting, the principal reason that I am not overly
impressed with the rebuttals he has offered is that (a) the plane shown is
flying at an impossible speed, (b) it enters the building in a fashion that
is fantastic, and (c) what we are seeing violates Newton's laws of motion.
I am therefore rather dumbfounded to come to the realization that the only
hypothesis that seems to account for all of the data, including my ten data
points, is that there were no planes on 9/11 and the only images that were
observed appear to have been holograms, just as Jeff Hill has recommended.
If you stop to consider, there is no footage of Flight 93. We also have no
footage of Flight 77. We have lots of evidence that Flight 77 did not hit
the building ("What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", for example). We also
know there is no proof the "hijackers" were aboard any of the planes, that
there were no "envelopes", that the government has yet to produce a single
one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of uniquely identifiable parts from
any of the planes, that the cell phone calls were fabricated, and on and on
and on. If the videos of Flights 11 and 175 are suspect--indeed, if they,
too, are fabrications--then the entire "official account" has been revealed.
Notice, in particular, that while (a), (b), and (c) would be impossible for
a real aircraft, none of them would be impossible for a phantom plane, such
as a holographic projection. It could be moved faster than possible for a
real plane; it could enter the building as though it were melting into it;
and its image could effortlessly violate Newton's laws. I therefore infer
that this thread is focused on the core issue of the cover-up and that some
of the arguments here have been intended to thwart, derail, or distract our
attention from exposing the sham. To put the issue most baldly, if anyone
has an alternative that provides a more adequate explanation of the data,
let them produce it. Otherwise, this discussion is more smoke and mirrors.
Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:44:02 +0700 [03:44:02 AM CDT]
From: "Anthony Lawson"
To: "ace baker"
Subject: Re: Exposing Fetzer
I was wondering why he didn't include my rebuttal of your paper, either.
2009/6/26 ace baker
Golly gee Jim Fetzer -
Why would you list 19 links for evidence of video fakery, and not include my treatise?
You remember, it's the one I WROTE FOR YOU! The one you were GOING TO PUBLISH IN YOUR NEW
You know, the one that tests two hypotheses against the data? Remember?
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
[Hide Quoted Text]
Will you all back me up by insisting that Dr. Fetzer answers the following
question, in the simplest possible manner:
Why did you *gleefully cite* Rob Balsamo's criticism of John Bursill's
Boeing 767 flight simulator methodology, yet* totally ignore* the fact that
Rob Balsamo also wrote the following, in May, 2008?
*I lean towards planes hitting the WTC for the fact i know several crews who
watched it happen while waiting for departure at JFK and EWR and due to the
numerous witnesses and video.
I dont know if the speeds are possible for a stock 767. We are trying to
find out by obtaining data.
I dont know if the 767's were aerodynamically modified. We are trying to
find out by obtaining data. *
**(May 27 2008, 01:22 AM Pilots for 9/11 Truth; thread: "John Lear A No
If Dr. Fetzer trusts Rob Balsamo to the extent that he thinks the simulator
tests carried out by John Bursill would have been invalid, then shouldn't he
put equal trust on his statement that he knows several crews who saw the
plane hit the South Tower?
On another matter regarding Dr. Fetzer's selectivity, I cannot see my
rebuttal of one of Ace Baker's monumental video composite theories in his
attached list. I have a record that the attachment was sent to him, but no
acknowledgment. The title page reads:
*The following is a review, by Anthony Lawson of:
The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites
A 9/11 paper by Ace Baker
I have attached the PDF to this email, and if Dr. Fetzer has any integrity,
he will read it and comment on its specifics, not dismiss it because he
didn't pay enough attention at school, during his science and physics
classes, or because he is inclined to believe a single aviator, John Lear,
over and above the opinions of many others; including Field McConnell and
Rob Balsamo and the flight crews waiting at JFK and Newark, and the other
eyewitness and video and stills cameras which appear to have registered an
event which he doesn't think that they could have.