Re: Kevin Barrett's LIE fest with Jenkins and Bursill (continued)

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:41:21 -0500 [11:41:21 PM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Ken,

With each successive post, my confidence in you sinks lower and lower.
In order for you not to be deceiving your audience, you it would have
to be the case (a) that you did not know what you are saying about the
simulation was false and (b) that you were not intentionally misstating
the case to your intended audience. But you have been participating
here from the beginning. You know that I explained the problems with
simulations in general and that Rob explained the problems with this
one in particular. Therefore, not-(a), because you did know what you
were saying was grossly misleading about the simulations and therefore
not-(b), because, in that state of knowledge, there is no reasonable
alternative than that you were deliberately misleading your audience.

I notice how quickly you moved away from the post in which I laid out
the evidence against you, how much you tried to shift attention from
the simulator test to other issues, and how much you have ignored or
suppressed the repudiation of Bursill's simulator test by Rob Balsamo.
Here is definitive proof that you knew better but suppressed it anyway:
__________________

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:32:19 -0700 [06/05/2009 05:32:19 PM CDT]
From: "Pilots For Truth"
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
"John Lear"
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

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
___________________

Notice, the first name on the "To" list is "[e-mail]", so either
you are not the Ken Jenkins who uses that email address or you knew what
Rob had reported to everyone then on this list. That establishes point
not-(a), because you had to know that what you were saying (or allowing
to stand, by not correcting Bursill) was grossly misleading. And not-(b)
follows from the fact that you not only knew it was false but did nothing
about it (by allowing it to stand and not correcting it when you knew so
much better). Do your best to worm your way out of this one, Ken Jenkins,
but the very fact that you did not respond to my original post about this
"LIE fest" indicates that you wanted to get away from the proof as quickly
as possible, which is evidence of (what is known as) consciousness of guilt.

You have implied that these issues are "cut and dry" and that, of course,
you deny that there is any foundation for the hypothesis of video fakery.
When I have sought to accommodate your insistence that the videos are not
faked by postulating 4 points that have to be accommodated by any theory
in order for it to be taken seriously--(1) that it "looked like" a real
plane, (2) that it did not behave like a real plane, (3) that pilots at
nearby airports reported having observed it hit the South Tower, and (4)
that you insist the videos themselves are authentic, the only hypothesis
that appears capable of explaining those four data points is some kind of
phantom aircraft, such as a cruise missile with cloaking technology that
projects the image of an airplane around the missile, where it turns out
that Tomahawk missiles have the same cruising speed as the phantom plane.

You most certainly have not produce an alternative that can explain them.
No one who has participated in this thread (or series of threads), which
has gone on much longer than a month, sometimes with dozens upon dozens
of posts in a single day, would be remotely inclined to accept your view
that there is no evidence of video fakery. Everyone knows about the im-
possible speed, the fantasy entrance, and the violation of Newton's laws.
So who are you now trying to mislead? No one who has participated here
would be unable to judge your performance on Kevin's radio program. It
not only makes a mockery of your pretensions to the pursuit of 9/11 truth
but undermines his "truth jihad". You really ought to be ashamed. If I
ever questioned your integrity in the past, it is no longer an issue. It
would be bad enough that someone with your background should pull such a
stunt, but that you are David Ray Griffin's videographer compounds it.

Jim

Quoting [e-mail]:

In a message dated 6/28/09 6:44:34 PM, [e-mail] writes:

> You deceived

I was just hours ago you were reminding someone that it is not a lie
(deception) if you believe what you are saying. You said:

> misusing the
> word "lie", which I have repeatedly addressed here and elsewhere. Even if
> someone is saying something that is false, that does not make them "liars"
> unless (a) they know what they are saying is false and (b) they are saying
> it anyway in a deliberate effort to mislead their target audience.

Please be consistent, Jim.

Ken
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:44:09 -0500 [08:44:09 PM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Kevin Barrett's TRUTH fest with Jenkins and Bursill

Bursill's simulator test is a fraud. I explained it. Balsamo cofirmed it.
You promoted it. I know all about radio. You even snookered Kevin Barrett!
You conned your audience. You deceived and mislead the public! BIG TIME!

Quoting [e-mail]:

Jim and All,

In a message dated 6/28/09 5:28:34 PM, [e-mail] writes:
Indeed, if you listen to Jenkins, you would think that this whole
business about "video fakery" is completely without foundation
I thought I had made that abundantly clear in my many postings. Since video and effects
are areas that I have professional expertise in, it was the
specific area I spoke up about years ago, long before you, Jim, were even in
the debate. Dick Eastman may recall, since he was there back then.

What is surprising to me is that since you Jim, due to your respectful
opinions about the pilot's testimony about witnessing the second plane's
approach and collision with the South Tower have moved away from video fakery and towards
holograms (an early theory that was long ago abandoned by others),
that it would even bother you that I reject video fakery. After all,
holograms would explain much more the video fakery, especially as far as the
thousands of eyewitnesses. So you could interpret my rejection of video fakery
as supportive of your own change of mind.
and, if you take his [Jenkins'] silence in the face of Bursill's denigation
of me personally and Scholars generally, ...
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.
As a radio host you must know how hard it is to get a word in edgewise in
such discussions. My lack of protest does not imply support, it implies that there was
neither time or opportunity to step in. Plus, and more
importantly, those issues were off topic. The primary purpose of that interview was for
John to air his new data about the simulator tests.
I was there as an "extra" to deal with related issues, as I did early in
the show before John joined in.

Once John did step in, anyone who listened, or who may now
listen after the fact, will note that I said almost nothing for the entire
remainder of the show. For the record, I think there are many unanswered
questions about both 77 and 93, and do not believe the 93 crashed in
Shanksville, although it is possible some plane parts landed there, maybe one engine,
perhaps after it was hit by a missile from a fighter jet some way was
in the area.

I too was surprised about John's comment about the Pentagon and Shanksville
planes, since he did not add the word "allegedly" or any other qualifier.
I do intend to ask him about that, but as I said, had no opportunity to do
so in that brief and dense show, broken up as it is with many long ads and
long musical intros. And again, Flights 77 and 93 were NOT the topic of the
show.

We know there is a dearth of ear-witness testimony about Flight 175
Not true. There were many video cameras that did pick up audio of the planes colliding
with the towers, with the appropriate time delay due to the
relatively slower speed of sound as compared to the speed of light. The
Naudet footage has the collision sound, for example. A number of the South
tower videos have the sound, although many of them were shot from too far away
for the sound to override the local ambient sound. And of course there
were literally thousands of ear-witnesses close enough to the towers to hear
the sound, including thousands within the towers themselves.

What is also inconsistent with your claim above is that if holograms or
video fakery were used, then something else had to make the holes in the
towers. I am aware that there are various theories - a missile and/or internally placed
explosives, but all of them involve loud sounds that would be
synchronous with the observed phenomenon. So your claiming that there is a
"dearth of ear-witnesses testimony about Flight 175" is inconsistent with even
your own theories.

Ken

[Thoth II]

quoting Ken: "What is also inconsistent with your claim above is that if holograms or
video fakery were used, then something else had to make the holes in the towers."

What holes? My point is, are we even sure there were real physical holes? All I've seen are cartoon cutout shaped holes in videos and these may have been photoshopped. And the towers were destroyed after.