Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:07:07 -0500 [08/18/2009 03:07:07 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, "Big Guy" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
Lest there be any doubt, I ultimately did not feature John Bursill and
Ken Jenkins on "The Real Deal", but it has puzzled me since then that
he would be willing to appear on behalf of fabricated evidence. This
leads me to believe he should not be taken seriously, not just here,
but anywhere, in relation to 9/11, period! His credibility is spent.
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
[Hide Quoted Text]
All,
When I become involved in other projects, especially completing papers
or articles for publication, I tend to neglect email exchanges, even if
they are important ones, as in the present case. This response from Ken
Jenkins bothers me tremendously on multiple grounds. In the first place,
he did not reply with the original post attached, for the obvious reason
that his response is "non-responsive". He shows no awareness of the new
video that reaffirms the "impossible speed" argument and with it Anthony's
pretensions to have a serious alternative. He claims to have a background
in physics ["I got straight A's in physics at Carnegie-Mellon University
and I see nothing unusual about how the planes penetrated the towers, given
the E=1/2MV^2 of 550+ MPH. So the primary assumption Jim and others make
[that the planes could not have penetrated the walls of the Towers in the
manner that they appear to have done] has no reality to me." This claim,
in my opinion, is far more damning of his credibility than anything else.
He advances the misleading argument that the situation calls for "a learned
disquisition by a reputable physicist" as if any reputable physicist would
side with him. Only the most elementary knowledge of physics is required.
"The manner that they appear to have done" is that Flight 175 passes into the
buildings as effortlessly as if it were impacting with a 110-story cube of
butter instead of crumpling and breaking apart, where its tail should have
broken off, even though the tower's design demonstrates that it is impacting
with eight (8) floors of 4" thick concrete on steel trusses that are welded
to the core columns at one end and to the external support columns as the
other, as diagrams I cited that killtown has archived display as follows:
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#1-2Draft;
And we all know that the "cut outs" to the buildings do not appear until
after the planes have passed into them, which is a bizarre effect indeed.
Now you don't have to have earned "straight A's" in physics at Carnegie-
Mellon to know that this is a fantasy. That Ken Jenkins would cite his
competence in support of a physically-impossible scenario speaks volumes
about his credibility as a student of 9/11. And yet this man is in the
incredible sensitive position of serving as David Griffin's videographer!
My concerns about Jenkins extend beyond his endorsement of physically im-
possible events but he was willing to come on "The Real Deal" with John
Bursill to defend his faux "simulator study" that purportedly showed the
impossible speed was in fact possible. Not only did I raise questions
about verifying the simulator was in the proper mode but Rob Bolsamo,
even more pointedly, rejected and repudiated Bursill's pretensions to
have conducted a serious study. From his willingness to appear with
Bursill, I infer that he not only stands with Anthony (in his absurd
attempts to explain-away the impossible speed but also concurs with
Bursill in his phony attempts to use a flawed simulation as evidence.
Neither Anthony nor Bursill should be taken seriously, and yet Ken
Jenkins "stand with them". I find that more than simply curious.
He also resorts to a kind of blanket dismissal of the issues involved:
"This final point is yet another reason I have not, and will not be
participating any further n these discussions. I think Anthony's
characterization of "quasi-religious" is fair. There is a zealous
nature to those that adhere to the no planes/fakery theory that
cancels rational and scientific debate, IMO."
Here, I think, he reveals himself most glaringly. Recall I observed
that he had not replied with the original post attached to conceal
that is response were "non-responsive"? What could be more damning
(again) than for him to so grossly misrepresent the arguments that
have emerged during the course of this discussion. If anyone can
find the least hint of an appeal to faith that could even remotely
qualify as "quasi-religious", I would like to know. Like his phony
appeal to his own competence in relation to physical impossibilities,
he shys away from engaging the issues by suggesting that they are
"quasi-religious" when in fact the opposite is the case, where, if
he were to taken the evidence seriously, it would be apparent that
he cannot cope. It demonstrates, objectively and decisively, that
he is wrong. If he has a reply based on logic and evidence, then I
would like to hear it, because self-serving appeals to his personal
authority as a student of physics cannot overcome the weight of the
evidence that I have outlined here. He has not shown that he has
the ability to learn from evidence. Which is why I believe that he,
Ken Jenkins, has forfeited his entitlement be taken seriously here.
Jim
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
Jim,
In a message dated 8/8/09 6:11:44 AM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
Ken Jenkins, on the other hand, whose position is even less
tenable than Anthony's, simply remains silent.
I remain silent for a list of reasons. One is that I have a commitment to a number
of responsibilities to produce and release DVDs by David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage,
Steven Jones, and others.
- I also am a major part of the SF 9/11 Truth Alliance. We are producing
a 2 day event in Sept with Griffin, Gage, Dylan, and lots of films,
including several premieres.
- Another reason is that I have a life!
- I also don't see any serious research or productive discussion here, but
rather angry, hostile, and mean exchanges defending entrenched positions.
Thus my participation would be nonproductive.
- Finally, for the most part I support the positions and opinions of Anthony
Lawson, so would only say "I agree with Anthony" over and over, which adds
little.
To illustrate that last point, let me adds some specific support for this
latest post by Anthony:
In a message dated 8/8/09 6:51:07 AM, lawson911@gmail.com writes:
One other thing you might like to address, is a statement I made in an
email to you, on July 14, 2008:
The entire edifice of your stance on video fakery (in some form or another),
is constructed out of your conviction that the planes could not have penetrated
the walls of the Towers in the manner that they appear to have done, in several
distinct and separate videos. Yet you have introduced absolutely no support
for this theory—in the form of a learned dissertation by a reputable physicist—
to the discussion.
I think this is a fair and accurate assessment. I got straight A's in physics at
Carnegie-Mellon University and I see nothing unusual about how the
planes penetrated the towers, given the E=1/2MV^2 of 550+ MPH. So the
primary assumption Jim and others make has no reality to me.
If you continue to ignore either or both of these issues, I can see no
reason to continue discussing anything else with you, because all you do is keep
repeating what you believe in a quasi-religious manner.
Anthony
This final point is yet another reason I have not, and will not be participating any
further [i]n these discussions. I think Anthony's characterization of
"quasi-religious" is fair. There is a zealous nature to those that adhere to the no
planes/fakery theory that cancels rational and scientific debate, IMO.
Ken
---- Original Message ----- From:
To: ; ; ;
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: TV fakery
2nd try (with address corrections)
Ron,
Thanks for bringing video fakery back to the front burner. I'm not sure
there is an issue here, since she is standing in front of a screen, where
the image has clearly been shot from another location. I may be missing
something, but I doubt that there is a real issue here. Nevertheless, I
think there are a few loose ends that deserve to be tied up regarding our
extended discussions of video fakery, where I summarized what I take to be
three of the key issues in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", OpEdNews
(29 July 2008). Since we have discussed them extensively on this thread,
I will only review them briefly for the sake of laying out the argument.
My interest is in eliciting the present positions of the two members of
this thread who have shown the strongest disposition to believe that we
are dealing with real planes and with real videos, Anthony Lawson and Ken
Jenkins. Jeff Hill, for example, believes in real videos but a fake plane.
The three key issues, of course, are (1) impossible speed, where the plane
shown in the video has been measured traveling faster than aerodynamically
by multiple sources, up to and including FEMA, as a new video study of the
speed displays as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU; (2)
fantasy entrance, where the plane passes into the building as effortlessly
as if it were impacting with a 110-story cube of butter instead of crumpl-
ing and breaking apart, where its tail should have broken off, even though
the tower's design demonstrates that it is impacting with eight (8) floors
of 4" thick concrete on steel trusses that are welded to the core columns
at one end and to the external support columns as the other, as diagrams
killtown has archived display as follows:
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#1-2Draft; and (3) the
violation of Newton's laws of motion, where the building poses no more
resistance than air alone, as Joe Keith has lucidly explained in "Joe's Law",
where the plane passes through its own length in air in the same number
of frames it passes through its own length into the building as follows:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=joes_law. These
are the three key issues, as I see it.
Now Anthony has offered the imaginative hypothesis that the plane we are
observing in the videos might be a "souped up" aircraft with more powerful
engines and a coating of depleted uranium on the edge of its wings, which
enabled them to cut through steel. As John Lear has explained during his
recent interview on "The Real Deal" (radiofetzer.blogspot.com), however,
this is a fantasy scenario, since a plane of this kind would have to have
been completely reconfigured from scratch. You cannot just increase the
power of the engines without a redesign. And the immense density of DU
would mean that its aerodynamic characteristics would be quite different
than an ordinary 767 because of their weight. While Anthony's position
appears to be a stretch, compared with that espoused by Ken Jenkins, who,
as I understand it, wants to insist, in spite of the evidence outlined
here, that we are still dealing with a real 767 and real videos (which
is his expertise), he (Anthony) appears to be a paradigm of rationality.
It seems to me that Jenkins has shown very poor discerning skills on any
number of issues, where, if it remains the same, this is a prime example.
Think of this as a kind of IQ test to see if they are capable of learning.
Jim
Quoting "Big Guy" :
[Hide Quoted Text]
In an earlier post dealing with the CNN early announcement regard
WTC7 and the BBC late announcement
I referred to potential fakery of the scene shown in the screen
behind the lady correspondent.
You can see buildings common to both images which, of course you should.
There is a building below the "date" [in the top image] which is not
present in the one below that or otherwise
it is totally obscured by smoke.
But the "main attraction" is the building in front of WTC7 and to
the left. This is shown in the one below with a
perspective showing the height of WTC7 in relation to the height of
the aforemented building.
There has got to be a location which is level with most of the roof
tops that puts the height of WTC7 roughly
the same height as this building obscuring it. The only way that
this building can appear the same height
as WTC7 is if the camera was at a much lower position and much
nearer to this building. It is nearer in the
image below but it is a roof top level. It is a question of
perspective. Alas, there can always be optical illusions
but there is also things like Future Combat Systems. Anyone like to
further research this?
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, "Big Guy" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
Lest there be any doubt, I ultimately did not feature John Bursill and
Ken Jenkins on "The Real Deal", but it has puzzled me since then that
he would be willing to appear on behalf of fabricated evidence. This
leads me to believe he should not be taken seriously, not just here,
but anywhere, in relation to 9/11, period! His credibility is spent.
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
[Hide Quoted Text]
All,
When I become involved in other projects, especially completing papers
or articles for publication, I tend to neglect email exchanges, even if
they are important ones, as in the present case. This response from Ken
Jenkins bothers me tremendously on multiple grounds. In the first place,
he did not reply with the original post attached, for the obvious reason
that his response is "non-responsive". He shows no awareness of the new
video that reaffirms the "impossible speed" argument and with it Anthony's
pretensions to have a serious alternative. He claims to have a background
in physics ["I got straight A's in physics at Carnegie-Mellon University
and I see nothing unusual about how the planes penetrated the towers, given
the E=1/2MV^2 of 550+ MPH. So the primary assumption Jim and others make
[that the planes could not have penetrated the walls of the Towers in the
manner that they appear to have done] has no reality to me." This claim,
in my opinion, is far more damning of his credibility than anything else.
He advances the misleading argument that the situation calls for "a learned
disquisition by a reputable physicist" as if any reputable physicist would
side with him. Only the most elementary knowledge of physics is required.
"The manner that they appear to have done" is that Flight 175 passes into the
buildings as effortlessly as if it were impacting with a 110-story cube of
butter instead of crumpling and breaking apart, where its tail should have
broken off, even though the tower's design demonstrates that it is impacting
with eight (8) floors of 4" thick concrete on steel trusses that are welded
to the core columns at one end and to the external support columns as the
other, as diagrams I cited that killtown has archived display as follows:
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#1-2Draft;
And we all know that the "cut outs" to the buildings do not appear until
after the planes have passed into them, which is a bizarre effect indeed.
Now you don't have to have earned "straight A's" in physics at Carnegie-
Mellon to know that this is a fantasy. That Ken Jenkins would cite his
competence in support of a physically-impossible scenario speaks volumes
about his credibility as a student of 9/11. And yet this man is in the
incredible sensitive position of serving as David Griffin's videographer!
My concerns about Jenkins extend beyond his endorsement of physically im-
possible events but he was willing to come on "The Real Deal" with John
Bursill to defend his faux "simulator study" that purportedly showed the
impossible speed was in fact possible. Not only did I raise questions
about verifying the simulator was in the proper mode but Rob Bolsamo,
even more pointedly, rejected and repudiated Bursill's pretensions to
have conducted a serious study. From his willingness to appear with
Bursill, I infer that he not only stands with Anthony (in his absurd
attempts to explain-away the impossible speed but also concurs with
Bursill in his phony attempts to use a flawed simulation as evidence.
Neither Anthony nor Bursill should be taken seriously, and yet Ken
Jenkins "stand with them". I find that more than simply curious.
He also resorts to a kind of blanket dismissal of the issues involved:
"This final point is yet another reason I have not, and will not be
participating any further n these discussions. I think Anthony's
characterization of "quasi-religious" is fair. There is a zealous
nature to those that adhere to the no planes/fakery theory that
cancels rational and scientific debate, IMO."
Here, I think, he reveals himself most glaringly. Recall I observed
that he had not replied with the original post attached to conceal
that is response were "non-responsive"? What could be more damning
(again) than for him to so grossly misrepresent the arguments that
have emerged during the course of this discussion. If anyone can
find the least hint of an appeal to faith that could even remotely
qualify as "quasi-religious", I would like to know. Like his phony
appeal to his own competence in relation to physical impossibilities,
he shys away from engaging the issues by suggesting that they are
"quasi-religious" when in fact the opposite is the case, where, if
he were to taken the evidence seriously, it would be apparent that
he cannot cope. It demonstrates, objectively and decisively, that
he is wrong. If he has a reply based on logic and evidence, then I
would like to hear it, because self-serving appeals to his personal
authority as a student of physics cannot overcome the weight of the
evidence that I have outlined here. He has not shown that he has
the ability to learn from evidence. Which is why I believe that he,
Ken Jenkins, has forfeited his entitlement be taken seriously here.
Jim
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
Jim,
In a message dated 8/8/09 6:11:44 AM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
Ken Jenkins, on the other hand, whose position is even less
tenable than Anthony's, simply remains silent.
I remain silent for a list of reasons. One is that I have a commitment to a number
of responsibilities to produce and release DVDs by David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage,
Steven Jones, and others.
- I also am a major part of the SF 9/11 Truth Alliance. We are producing
a 2 day event in Sept with Griffin, Gage, Dylan, and lots of films,
including several premieres.
- Another reason is that I have a life!
- I also don't see any serious research or productive discussion here, but
rather angry, hostile, and mean exchanges defending entrenched positions.
Thus my participation would be nonproductive.
- Finally, for the most part I support the positions and opinions of Anthony
Lawson, so would only say "I agree with Anthony" over and over, which adds
little.
To illustrate that last point, let me adds some specific support for this
latest post by Anthony:
In a message dated 8/8/09 6:51:07 AM, lawson911@gmail.com writes:
One other thing you might like to address, is a statement I made in an
email to you, on July 14, 2008:
The entire edifice of your stance on video fakery (in some form or another),
is constructed out of your conviction that the planes could not have penetrated
the walls of the Towers in the manner that they appear to have done, in several
distinct and separate videos. Yet you have introduced absolutely no support
for this theory—in the form of a learned dissertation by a reputable physicist—
to the discussion.
I think this is a fair and accurate assessment. I got straight A's in physics at
Carnegie-Mellon University and I see nothing unusual about how the
planes penetrated the towers, given the E=1/2MV^2 of 550+ MPH. So the
primary assumption Jim and others make has no reality to me.
If you continue to ignore either or both of these issues, I can see no
reason to continue discussing anything else with you, because all you do is keep
repeating what you believe in a quasi-religious manner.
Anthony
This final point is yet another reason I have not, and will not be participating any
further [i]n these discussions. I think Anthony's characterization of
"quasi-religious" is fair. There is a zealous nature to those that adhere to the no
planes/fakery theory that cancels rational and scientific debate, IMO.
Ken
---- Original Message ----- From:
To: ; ; ;
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: TV fakery
2nd try (with address corrections)
Ron,
Thanks for bringing video fakery back to the front burner. I'm not sure
there is an issue here, since she is standing in front of a screen, where
the image has clearly been shot from another location. I may be missing
something, but I doubt that there is a real issue here. Nevertheless, I
think there are a few loose ends that deserve to be tied up regarding our
extended discussions of video fakery, where I summarized what I take to be
three of the key issues in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", OpEdNews
(29 July 2008). Since we have discussed them extensively on this thread,
I will only review them briefly for the sake of laying out the argument.
My interest is in eliciting the present positions of the two members of
this thread who have shown the strongest disposition to believe that we
are dealing with real planes and with real videos, Anthony Lawson and Ken
Jenkins. Jeff Hill, for example, believes in real videos but a fake plane.
The three key issues, of course, are (1) impossible speed, where the plane
shown in the video has been measured traveling faster than aerodynamically
by multiple sources, up to and including FEMA, as a new video study of the
speed displays as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU; (2)
fantasy entrance, where the plane passes into the building as effortlessly
as if it were impacting with a 110-story cube of butter instead of crumpl-
ing and breaking apart, where its tail should have broken off, even though
the tower's design demonstrates that it is impacting with eight (8) floors
of 4" thick concrete on steel trusses that are welded to the core columns
at one end and to the external support columns as the other, as diagrams
killtown has archived display as follows:
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#1-2Draft; and (3) the
violation of Newton's laws of motion, where the building poses no more
resistance than air alone, as Joe Keith has lucidly explained in "Joe's Law",
where the plane passes through its own length in air in the same number
of frames it passes through its own length into the building as follows:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=joes_law. These
are the three key issues, as I see it.
Now Anthony has offered the imaginative hypothesis that the plane we are
observing in the videos might be a "souped up" aircraft with more powerful
engines and a coating of depleted uranium on the edge of its wings, which
enabled them to cut through steel. As John Lear has explained during his
recent interview on "The Real Deal" (radiofetzer.blogspot.com), however,
this is a fantasy scenario, since a plane of this kind would have to have
been completely reconfigured from scratch. You cannot just increase the
power of the engines without a redesign. And the immense density of DU
would mean that its aerodynamic characteristics would be quite different
than an ordinary 767 because of their weight. While Anthony's position
appears to be a stretch, compared with that espoused by Ken Jenkins, who,
as I understand it, wants to insist, in spite of the evidence outlined
here, that we are still dealing with a real 767 and real videos (which
is his expertise), he (Anthony) appears to be a paradigm of rationality.
It seems to me that Jenkins has shown very poor discerning skills on any
number of issues, where, if it remains the same, this is a prime example.
Think of this as a kind of IQ test to see if they are capable of learning.
Jim
Quoting "Big Guy" :
[Hide Quoted Text]
In an earlier post dealing with the CNN early announcement regard
WTC7 and the BBC late announcement
I referred to potential fakery of the scene shown in the screen
behind the lady correspondent.
You can see buildings common to both images which, of course you should.
There is a building below the "date" [in the top image] which is not
present in the one below that or otherwise
it is totally obscured by smoke.
But the "main attraction" is the building in front of WTC7 and to
the left. This is shown in the one below with a
perspective showing the height of WTC7 in relation to the height of
the aforemented building.
There has got to be a location which is level with most of the roof
tops that puts the height of WTC7 roughly
the same height as this building obscuring it. The only way that
this building can appear the same height
as WTC7 is if the camera was at a much lower position and much
nearer to this building. It is nearer in the
image below but it is a roof top level. It is a question of
perspective. Alas, there can always be optical illusions
but there is also things like Future Combat Systems. Anyone like to
further research this?
Views: 338
Comment
-
Comment by Thoth II on August 19, 2009 at 1:04pm
-
@Ken "So I am only left to wonder why at this time you singled me out of the
thousands who share my opinions?
What have I done to be dredged out of the past for yet one more ceremonial
flogging?"
Because you're wrong, that's why. Why should leaders be allowed to spread obviously incorrect information?
-
-
"I got straight A's in physics at Carnegie-Mellon University
and I see nothing unusual about how the planes penetrated the towers, given
the E=1/2MV^2 of 550+ MPH. So the primary assumption Jim and others make
[that the planes could not have penetrated the walls of the Towers in the
manner that they appear to have done] has no reality to me."
We've heard this argument over and over. It just ain't so. What would happen to a relatively flimsy Al fuselage like in a Boeing is that as soon as it contacted the WTC, an equal force would propagate at the speed of sound (travels to midpoint of jet within 1/10 second) and this force wave would compress and shear the rear of plane. No doubt, the rear half would have broken off and I even doubt much of the front would have penetrated that far into tower. That Purdue simulation must have been compromised. It's amazing how NOVA, Popular Mechanics, and govt. standard orgs. have been compromised.
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 19, 2009 at 12:09pm
-
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:03:35 -0500 [08/18/2009 06:03:35 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, ron_winn@lineone.net, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
OK, Ken. Here are three reasons I believe you should not be entrusted with
a sensitive position in the 9/11 movement in relation to its leadership, all
of which derive from your conduct on this specific exchange of posts today:
(1) You have repeatedly detached your responses from the original emails,
making it difficult to track the exchange. That is intellectually dishonest.
(2) Your positions actually been refuted by the content of my posts, which
you seek to defect by an appeal to your own authority, which is fallacious.
(3) You have been so shoddy and slipshod in this exchange that you did not
even bother to read the post FROM YOU that included your quote of Anthony.
I would be very pleased not to hear from you again. But your behavior here
has been intellectually dishonest, based upon fallacies we teach freshmen to
avoid, and shoddy and slipshod research about your very own previous posts.
This is not a record to be proud of and confirms my lack of trust in you. I
can't imagine why you would not trust me--except that I am unwilling to take
you at your word and have confronted you with the weakness of your positions.
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
Jim,
In a message dated 8/18/09 3:02:51 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
> No, it's because you are the only one holding these indefensible views
> who is also the videographer for David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, etc.
I already addressed this. The videos I make for these folks are of them and
their opinions. Any edits (which are vitually non-existent in Griffin DVDs)
are under their control. My opinions on your no-planes theories are
not a part of any of those videos.
> You are in a highly sensitive position, yet your opinions about video
> fakery have been refuted without phasing your outlook whatsoever. I
> find that extremely suspicious and, frankly, I no longer trust you.
I was unaware you ever did trust me. But it's fine either way and also balanced,
since I have never trusted you.
> If you are willing to abuse logic and evidence in this forum, what
> are you willing to abuse to affect David Ray Griffin, Gage, etc.?
I have little more effect on what they say and write than anyone else in
the movement that has their ears. I am part of AE911Truth, so I am one
voice of many hundreds.
Do you also perform routine ritual abuse on Griffin and Gage in a similar
way? Do you also send them your opinions when you do? If not, why single
me out, I'm in a FAR less sensitive position than they are. If so, how do
they respond (assuming they haven't long since blocked your email address)?
You have made your points very clear. I have responded. What say we drop
it and move on to more productive activities?
Ken
-
-
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:02:29 -0500 [08/18/2009 05:02:29 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, ron_winn@lineone.net, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
No, it's because you are the only one holding these indefensible views
who is also the videographer for David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, etc.
You are in a highly sensitive position, yet your opinions about video
fakery have been refuted without phasing your outlook whatsoever. I
find that extremely suspicious and, frankly, I no longer trust you.
If you are willing to abuse logic and evidence in this forum, what
are you willing to abuse to affect David Ray Griffin, Gage, etc.?
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
Jim,
In a message dated 8/18/09 2:33:57 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
> Apparently, I was quoting Anthony being cited by Jenkins, for all the
> difference it makes. Since he was quoting him with approval, it is
> apparent he endorses the point, in any case. So give this trivial
> point to Ken.
Yes, you are correect, my quoting means I endorse the point.
> I am not going to criticize someone without doing so to their face.
That is very considerate of you Jim, so for that I thank you.
> So I sent my critique to him that he would know what I think about the arguments
> he has presented on this forum,
I saw nothing new there. You have made your positions and opinions very clear more than a few times.
So I am only left to wonder why at this time you singled me out of the
thousands who share my opinions?
What have I done to be dredged out of the past for yet one more ceremonial
flogging?
Ken
-
-
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:33:26 -0500 [08/18/2009 04:33:26 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, ron_winn@lineone.net, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Why I am still worried about Ken Jenkins . . .
All,
Apparently, I was quoting Anthony being cited by Jenkins, for all the
difference it makes. Since he was quoting him with approval, it is
apparent he endorses the point, in any case. So give this trivial
point to Ken. I reiterate my arguments against his position, where,
once again, he does not reply in conjunction with the original. I
could care less if he wants to participate here, but I am not going
to criticize someone without doing so to their face. So I sent my
critique to him that he would know what I think about the arguments
he has presented on this forum, which are not merely flawed but, in
my opinion, even hopelessly inadequate, for reasons I have explained.
Jim
P.S. Ken, don't bother to reply to tell us why you are not going to
reply. And, yes, we are all impressed by your work efforts.
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
Jim,
In a message dated 8/18/09 12:41:55 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
> He advances the misleading argument that the situation calls for "a
> learned disquisition by a reputable physicist"
Those are not my words. I don't recall quoting someone else, like perhaps
Anthony, but maybe I did. But for sure I did not write those words.
> as if any reputable physicist would side with him.
We can argue over our opinions of "reputable", but many physicists side with me.
> And yet this man is in the incredible sensitive position of serving as
> David Griffin's videographer!
And I also serve as videographer for Richard Gage and others, including
sometimes Steven Jones as well. But those videos contain their work and
their opinions. Any editing is with their approval. I happen to agree with
those I serve as videographer for, or I wouldn't so serve. But the point is
your concern here is misplaced.
>I have not, and will not be participating any further in these discussions.
Why isn't this OK with you, Jim? Why can't you respectfully leave me out
of your discussions? There are many thousands who share my opinions, why
single me out for ritual abuse?
> Which is why I believe that he, Ken Jenkins, has forfeited his
> entitlement be taken seriously here.
I don't want to be considered here at all, seriously or otherwise, in this tiny
subculture. Please leave me out entirely. And if you won't, please tell me
why. I have defused the "sensitive position" rational, so hopefully there is no
further excuse for denying my request to be left separate from these discussions.
Ken
About
© 2025 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum