Yoy all,
My last word on Fetzer's hypothesis. I am a relative new comer to this
forum--although I
have been reading the emails and listening to the arguments over the
last 2 years. I am
not a scientist but do have a degree in architecture and also an MBA in
business. I have
to say--that from my perspective [I started researching and writing upon
the initiation
of Desert Storm--long before the ubiquitous of the internet] Fetzer
offers-up the most
rational analysis of what went down--really filling in what has been a
gaping conundrum
for me--for some time. While I sense his analysis to be key in
understanding what went
down on that fateful day--his is only a piece [perhaps the keystone] of a
much grander
strategy. I believe that his theory is what might enable the encoding
of this global
conspiracy and that we should utilize it [no matter where it takes us]
as a means of
uncovering the truth. He is maybe the Copernicus of the 9/11 truth
movement--and I think
it important that we open ourselves up to that possiblity.
In love and unity,
Gary Schofield
----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
To: "Ed Kendrick"; <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: We all have an obligation to tell the truth, (corrected)
Ed seems to have a short fuse these days, no doubt because he is wrong
in his charges against me. Video fakery is not "up front" in my public
presentations, which are overwhelmingly devoted to the destruction of
the Twin Towers and what happened at the Pentagon. He is simply wrong.
No one with knowledge of physics would endorse the impossibilities we
find in the videos: (a) the impossile speed, (b) the impossible entry,
and (c) the plane passing through its own length in the same number of
frames it passes through its own length in air. They is not possible.
Which means that the video has to be faked. I have offered John Lear
as a highly qualified source how has explained why even a special plane
could not have flown that fast at that altitude. Ed is dismissing the
crucial evidence of video fakery, which is a very unscientific attitude.
I have no idea why a dentist would think he has privileged access to the
truth about these matters. I am not a physicist, but I hold a Ph.D. in
the history and the philosophy of science, where the history of science
is dominated by the history of physics: (a), (b) and (c) are impossible.
So I respectfully request that he cease misrepresenting my views about
these things, especially by distorting them beyond recognition. In my
public presentations, I simply point out that some students of 9/11 are
troubled by problems like (a), (b) and (c) and tend to let it go at
that.
But the vast majority of my presentations is devoted to the destruction
of the Twin Towers, the damage to the WTC, and alternative explanations
that have been advanced, as well as to what happened at the Pentagon. I
dare say there is nothing here that should be any source of real
concern.
Quoting "Ed Kendrick":
I don't concede the events seen (in the many videos which all are consistent in what
they show) is physically impossible.
The many points I listed under each of your points will be seen by
others as to whether
they are "irrelevant and fabricated claims about my [Fetzer's] views".
Instead of sweeping dismissals, a scientist would engage cogent
rebuttal arguments.
You don't have scientific backing and the video fakery hypothesis
should not be put up
front in any 9/11 truth conference. It is not ready for prime time.
Spend your
energies on research and in enrolling experts who will support your
contentions of
physical impossibility. Bring in some real video experts who can
assist you in
putting up front the 'smoking gun' that proves video fakery.
Or, abandon this video fakery hypothesis which is, in my view, clearly
disproven.
Scientists are known to abandon what they find is disproven by the
evidence.
Ed Kendrick
On Jun 27, 2010, at 12:01 PM,
jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:
NOTE: I corrected a key sentence in the third paragraph for clarity.
All,
Ed seems to be confused on several points. Most significantly, he seems
to think that Steve Jones and I had some difference over video fakery in
late 2006. The fact is that I was not interested and did not believe in
video fakery until some time later. The differences I had about video
fakery at that time were with Morgan Reynolds and others, who thought I
was holding out because I didn't believe in it for reasons like those we
have been hearing from you and Anthony. You are once again far off
base.
As for Shanksville and the Pentagon, who suggested that they have to do
with video fakery? Certainly, not I. What they have to do with is the
authenticity of the planes and flights alleged to have occurred as part
of the official account. I think Ed is displaying the tendency that I
have also observed in Anthony in exaggerating my position in order to
make it easier to attack. That is known as "the straw man". Of course,
false claims about my views of Shanksville and the Pentagon don't help.
So I am at a bit of a loss as to why Ed is making these allegations. I
think it would be a really good idea for him to concede that, if these
videos--most of which are consistent, as he claims--are showing events
that are physically impossible, such as (a) the impossible speed, (b)
the impossible entry, and (c) that this 500,000-ton building is posing
no more resistance to the plane passing through its own length than in
the case of air, then they are fake. They should be focusing on them
rather than introducing irrelevant and fabricated claims about my views.
Jim
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum