Re: Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths: Is there a better explanantion? (sic)

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:40:50 -0500 [12:40:50 PM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: "Anthony Lawson" , [e-mail]

Subject: Re: Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths: Is there a better explanantion?

All,

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.

Jim

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:44:02 +0700 [03:44:02 AM CDT]
From: "Anthony Lawson"
To: "ace baker"

Subject: Re: Exposing Fetzer

Ace,

I was wondering why he didn't include my rebuttal of your paper, either.

Anthony

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
BOOK?

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/The_9/11_Airplane_Video_Composites

You know, the one that tests two hypotheses against the data? Remember?

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :

[Hide Quoted Text]
Hello,

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
Planer?")*
*
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.

Anthony

[Rosalee Grable]

"let's just stick to the Harrit-Jones-Ryan nanothermite study" Hahaha.
A Vanity Press published a PAID article saying the UNBURNED nanothermite was found in a WTC dust sample.
All that proves is that someone with access to nanothermite salted the sample, and has a budget for paid placement of a spurious article.
Sticking to such unfounded and false evidence being promoted by a crew who's members all have defense industry backgrounds and connections is just new lie to cover up worn out lies.
See Heavy Watergate, the War on Cold Fusion in the Video's section. Jones cameo is 11 minutes in. He was an Energy Department Shill 20 years ago and hasn't changed

[James H. Fetzer]

Anthony,

Egad! You appear to know even less of my views about JFK than you do about 9/11, which is considerable. Are you unaware that, when I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I invited Steve Jones to be my co-chair? that we eventually split over differences about the scope and nature of scientific studies about 9/11? that I have been a champion of the "big tent" approach to 9/11 research, which is one of the reasons I founded this forum? I think you need to get up-to-speed about my work on 9/11. Try reading the blogs here, which you do not appear to have done. I like the thermite study. I support it. But I do not believe that it is adequate to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center. Take a look at some of my studies of Steve''s work, which are archived at 911scholars.org. Scroll down to "The Science of 9/11", for example, and read some of it. I have no idea where you are coming from, but you have no idea who I am or what I stand for. Try to do better, please.

As for JFK, are you aware that I have also promoted the application of scientific reasoning to the study of the assassination? Take a look at "Reasoning about Assassinations", for example, a paper I presented during an international conference at Cambridge, which was peer-reviewed and published in an international journal. Are you aware that I have published three 500-page books on JFK, in which I bring together experts on different aspects of the assassination: ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZE (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? that i have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on this subject (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, and Duluth 2003)? that I have given hundreds and hundreds of interviews and dozens and dozens of public lectures on this subject? Go to my pubic issues web site, assassinationscience.com, and read, "The Latest on JFK". You're mistaking me for someone else. Jim

[James H. Fetzer]

Anthony, I suggest you read all of my posts about this issue. There are more than ten data points. The only hypothesis that appears to be able to explain all of the data--including eyewitness reports from pilots who were at nearby airports--is something that looked like a real plane but did not behave like a real plane. If you can offer a better explanation for all of the data, then I would like to know. But if you only want to talk about thermite, this is probably not the right forum, because we are trying to solve the complicated problems that have resisted resolution, including what happened at the Pentagon, video fakery, and planes/no planes. Jim

[sandy rose]

hi, anthony! i see we have a couple of new members here! in all the
years i've been a truther i don't remember hearing from you before......
how long have you been a 9/11 truther and what brought you to this group
of fine and sometimes funny truthers? i am always interested in running
into new truthers.
i think speculation is sometimes good. the way i look at it is, if no one
had ever speculated about the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job, where
the heck would we be now?
i see you are up on the possibility of remote controlled planes and/or video
fakery. i always highly recommend web fairy's site for anyone that hasn't
seen it before. are you already familiar with her awesome work?