9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

RE: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:27:39 -0500 [07:27:39 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "SHURE Dj" , "ace baker" , "Pilots For Truth" , kenjenkins@aol.com, kbarrett@merr.com, "Jack & Sue White" , "Joseph Keith" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: RE: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill

All,

In working my way through this mountain of posts, I have found one exchange
that bothers me far more than any other. It is that between Jeff Hill and
Ken Jenkins over the interview of Ken Jenkins and John Bursill that occurred
on Kevin Barrett's radio program, which took place on Saturday, 27 June 2009:

Truth Jihad Radio With Kevin Barrett June 27 2009 with guests Ken Jenkins
and John Bursill; link: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1872563/

That, if you check it, is YESTERDAY! We have had an extended discussion on
Bursill's simulator studies here, which I addressed in general in the course
of my long post, "On Simulators, Video Fakery, and Planes/No Planes", dated
30 May 2009, which everyone should have, where I explained why studies like
Bursill's are generally hazardous and should be approached with skepticism.
No one would know that from listening to Jenkins and Bursill on the program.

Indeed, if you listen to Jenkins, you would think that this whole business
about "video fakery" is completely without foundation and, if you take his
silence in the face of Bursill's denigation of me personally and Scholars
generally, you would gain the impression that John Lear, Rob Balsamo, and I
are attempting to DESTROY the 9/11 truth movement! According to them, the
simulator study is rock solid, not only were there planes in New York City
but, according to Bursill, one hit the Pentagon and another crashed into a
field in Shanksville! And Ken Jenkins never uttered a peep of protest to
anything Bursill said, supporting it both explicitly and tacitly. Given
the history of this issue on this thread, I could hardly believe my ears!

We know there is a dearth of ear-witness testimony about Flight 175, which
is the form of evidence--"the dog that didn't bark in the night"--that has
moved Jack White to become a "no planer". The discussion was not simply
biased but grossly slanted against any merit whatsoever in even discussing
the question, where Bursill was quite explicit in asserting that John Lear,
Rob Balsamo, and I are attempting to trash the 9/11 movement, where--even
in relation to his most extreme statements--Jenkins offered no objections.
You would think none of this exchange had taken place! that the Bursill
simulator study was indisputable! that no one has ever raised any doubts
about it! that every red-blooded, all-American 9/11 truth seeker is on
the same page about this! and that Fetzer and Scholars are as dirty as
they can be in advancing phony theories about 9/11, which are intended to
embarrass the movement and bring it to a screeching halt! LISTEN TO IT.

It is difficult for me to even write about this, after hearing the most
dishonest radio interview of my life. And that Kevin Barrett was being
played for a sucker merely compounded the offense. John Bursill even went
after Kevin to get him to say that he had resigned from Scholars because
of disagreements over this issue, where even Kevin never acknowledged any
response from me REBUTTING his insistence on a formal, scholarly research
paper, where the evidence of impossible speed, the fantasy entry into the
building and the violations of Newton's laws could hardly be more obvious.
I even pointed out that, if he wanted mathematical results, Joe Keith had
observed that, when you count the number of frames it takes the plane to
pass through its length through air, it is the same number of frames that
it takes to pass through its length into the building--which is impossible!

I am finding this physically nauseating. Jeff Hill, who has done so much
to confirm that the speed of the airplane is impossible for a Boeing 767,
spoke up in protest about this program, emphasizing that Bursill does not
have credentials that are as imposing as were implied, which I believe is
entirely correct. But it was the completely slanted, lop-sided and biased
presentation by both Jenkins and Bursill that has stunned me. There is no
way around it: they were there together in a joint hit-piece on John and
Rob and me, even questioning whether Rob should be the head of Pilots! It
was an astonishing performance, which, in my mind, raises the most serious
questions about the integrity of John Bursill, which was already in doubt,
and of Ken Jenkins, which was not. Neither of them, for example, bothered
to mentioned that Rob Balsamo had subsequently sent a rather more specific
critique of the Bursill's simulator study to this thread on 5 June 2009:
____________________

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:32:19 -0700 [06/05/2009 05:32:19 PM CDT]
From: "Pilots For Truth"
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, mdmorrissey@t-online.de,
"John Lear"
Cc: kbarrett@merr.com, econrn@suddenlink.net, flegge@iinet.net.au,
rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com

Subject: RE: Double Thinking the Physically Impossible

Its quite clear the sim Bursill used was not calibrated/configured properly
and was only configured to freeze at .86 Mach at any altitude. This is not
real flying. Even those who make excuse for the govt story agree the sim
test is invalid.

If Bursill were smart, he would have taken the sim into the flight levels in
order to get an accurate analysis of the sim itself. His first clue would be
when the sim freezes at .86 at altitude. The 767 can exceeed .86 at
altitude. Think Eqypt Air 990. However it cannot reach such mach speeds near
sea level.

I gave Bursill the definitions and terms to look up, hopefully he takes the
adivce before looking more a fool...

Regards,
Rob
___________________

This came against a background of exchanges involving galen, Dick Eastman,
John Bursill, and Anthony Lawson, in which Bursill suggested that John Lear
should be removed from Pilots because he believes no 767 could fly as fast
as seen in the Herzarkhani video, to which Rob Balsamo replied as follows:
___________________

Re: Simulator Proves ?Impossible Speed? was ?probable? for Flt 11 and Flt 175 - by John
Bursill, Aircraft Engineer
Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:25 AM
From: "Pilots For Truth"

To: "news.911blogger" , "Kevin Ryan" , "Frank
Legge" , "Steven Jones" , "Bob Bowman"
, pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org... more

John,

I havent read your full document (but i will). However your misreprestation of our past
discussion of John Lear membership within P4T is not only false, but deceptive as it
appears intentional.

John Lear is listed as a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth because he is more than
qualified to dsiscuss OUR work and analysis (FDR etc..), and supports it. Not the other
way around.

I have made this point clear to you time and time again, but you refuse to either
understand this point, or have an agenda.

Bottom line, Pilots For 9/11 Truth mission statement is clear. We do not practice
discrimination based on personal opinions or research our members may do under their own
name. It appears you prefer to discriminate.

you dont want to be a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth because John Lear is a member.
Fine, we get that and respect it. Others disagree with you as you have seen our list
grows regularly.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

John, how would you feel if someone advocated you get fired from your job due to the fact
you believe "9/11 Was An Inside Job"?? You are doing the same thing in this case with
attempting to get Lear's membership "revoked".

John Lear will remain a member of our organization.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, galen wrote:

From: galen
Subject: Re: Bursill's simulator findings
To: "Dick Eastman"
Cc: "Anthony Lawson" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu, KenJenkins@aol.com,
jwjfk@flash.net, RunyanWilde@aol.com, Zn365@aol.com, politicstahl@hotmail.com,
politicaldavid@charter.net, "galen" , "9-11 NeXuS"
<9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 3:59 PM

Hi Dick, what ever gave you the impression i'm a member of Pilots for 9-11 Truth? Do you
even read my e-mails to you? I've sent you more than one and you never respond to
anything i say. I'm starting to wonder what's up with you.

If Pilots for 9-11 Truth is an organization that espouses "no WTC planes", they should be
loudly and publicly discredited. The fact that Rob allows John Lear to remain a member
in good standing and blocks the valid questions of Anthony Lawson about Lear speaks
volumes to me about the true agenda of Pilots for 9-11 Truth. I smell a rat... a flying
rat!

-- galen

Dick Eastman wrote:
Pilots for9-11 truth is a no-planer group

Rob and John L.

If you are a member Galen, I suggest you resign in protest
________________________

This, of course, was quite a distortion, since Rob had affirmed that it was
his belief that planes were used in New York on 9/11--a matter about which
Pilots has not taken a stand--which Dick Eastman is misrepresenting. What
Rob has rejected is the adequacy of the claims that Bursill has made on the
basis of his "simulator study". Anthony, you may recall, challenged Rob on multiple
grounds, even though he (Rob) had observed that, in his opinion,
there were planes in New York on 9/11, in response to which Rob wrote back:
________________________

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:40:38 -0700 [06/23/2009 06:40:38 PM CDT]
From: "Pilots For Truth"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Bursill's simulator findings

I stopped reading here....

"So I
find it quite odd that you think that the parameters set for this particular
simulator would be unsafe to base such a test on, which also seems to imply
that the pilots who are using this particular simulator are being, in some
way, undertrained (or whatever esoteric term pilots like to use for such
cases.)"

I never said such a thing. Considering Anthony is prone to using multiple strawmans
throughout his diatribes.and we will be covering this topic in full in our next
presentation, I'm not going to waste my time reading through more of his strawmans,
accusations and ignorance of aeronautical knowledge. We'll let our work speak for itself.

If Anthony were smart, he would read through my emails sent during the last round more
throughly.

Someone may also want to inform Anthony "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" have been around for less
than 3 years, not "8 and a half", and have been doing a lot of research on other topics
during such time. We are now getting to the NYC events.

Some people have this notion that once an organization or researcher is established in
the "community", they are omnipresent, have unlimited resources and immediately have all
the answers. They need to come back to reality.

Feel free to forward the above to whoever you wish....
____________________

Now I remind everyone here of this exchange, since the guests who were on
the air with Kevin Barrett not only knew of my general critique of Bursill's
simulator studies but also knew of Rob Balsamo's more specific criticisms,
which, in my view, not only indicate serious problems with his simulation
but suggest it is entirely invalid. None of this was mentioned and, alas,
only my old friend of many years, Kevin Barrett, raised any questions that
suggested there might be just the least more involved here than they were
allowing, where Jenkins, in particular, suggested that, if only the videos
were of "higher resolution", they would not support the video fakery claim,
as if it could be so casually dismissed. I have been involved in a lot of
controversies in my lifetime, many extended over years and years, but this
performance takes the cake. Listen to the program and ask yourself if the
participants met minimal standards of honesty and fair play in dealing with
one of the most controversial issues about 9/11 and, if not, then why not?

Jim

P.S. This reinforces my belief that the issue of planes/no planes is at
the very core of the cover-up and that its exposure would wreak
havoc with the official account. For that reason, it has to be
defeated AT ALL COST, no matter whose reputation must be savaged!
Don't take my word for it. Review the record. Listen to the show.

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:42:17 EDT [06/27/2009 09:42:17 PM CDT]
From: KenJenkins@aol.com
To: shure_dj@hotmail.com, joseph_keith@att.net, rasgasaias@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Kevin Barrett's truth fest with Jenkins and Bursill

In a message dated 6/27/09 5:36:58 PM, shure_dj@hotmail.com writes:
on this show Kevin Barrett kept referrring to John Bursill as an aeronautical engineer
or expert. John Bursill is nothing of the sort and has no qualifications to make the claims he did.
Having talked to John at length, I can say as an engineer that he is quite knowledgable.
All qualified aeronautical engineers that I have ever talked to agree on the
impossible speed.
Then you need to sample wider. There certainly are those that say it is possible,
including Bob Bowman.
John Bursill is as qualified as the people who go to the community college in Sault
Ste Marie and after only six months have a diploma as an Aircraft Structural Repair
Technician which amounts to what John Bursill is!!!
He is qualified to get the data from the flight simulator, with the help of the
technician there. That is his primary point - the simulator says the 767 can go that
speed at sea level, with margin to spare.

Ken


----- Forwarded message from shure_dj@hotmail.com -----
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:07:48 -0400
From: "SHURE Dj"
Subject: RE: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill
To: "Joseph Keith" , "Rasga Saias"

I didn't like how Kevin Barrett kept referring to John Bursill as an aeronautical expert
when hes not. John was claiming the speed of 570mph was possible and Barrett based it on
Johns "aeronautical expertise". Basically the whole show was just a bunch of lies and
attacks to say anyone saying no planes are part of a disiformation campaign.

From: joseph_keith@att.net
To: shure_dj@hotmail.com; rasgasaias@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:01:05 -0700

I don't understand, what are you trying to say?

----- Original Message -----
From: SHURE Dj
To: Joseph Keith ; Rasga Saias

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill

Among all the deceptions, lies and belittlement on this show Kevin Barrett kept
referrring to John Bursill as an aeronautical engineer or expert. John Bursill is nothing
of the sort and has no qualifications to make the claims he did. All qualified
aeronautical engineers that I have ever talked to agree on the impossible speed. John
Bursill is as qualified as the people who go to the community college in Sault Ste Marie
and after only six months have a diploma as an Aircraft Structural Repair Technician
which amounts to what John Bursill is!!!

Truth Jihad Radio With Kevin Barrett June 27 2009 with guests Ken Jenkins and John Bursill
link to mp3:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1872563/

----- End forwarded message -----

Views: 116

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on June 29, 2009 at 12:37pm
quoting Jim: "P.S. This reinforces my belief that the issue of planes/no planes is at
the very core of the cover-up and that its exposure would wreak havoc with the official account. For that reason, it has to be defeated AT ALL COST, no matter whose reputation must be savaged!"

Yes, it is, because the whole phony war on terror depends on having planes. I think it is similar to the debate over Z-film because there the film was the backbone of the coverup in the sense that "seeing is believing" and once people saw the Groden film in 1975, they had a set view in their minds of events; trouble is, I've listened to Rich DelaRosa, and the film he saw depicts totally different events. So here, people like me had friends that said on 911: "go right to CNN, we're under attack!" and that formed the picture in people's heads.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service