Re: Kevin Barrett's TRUTH fest with Jenkins and Bursill (concluded)

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:06:19 -0500 [08:06:19 AM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Kevin Barrett's TRUTH fest with Jenkins and Bursill

Ken,

Why am I not surprised that you would evade the critical question, namely:
whether your performance was honest and candid on the air? Not only did you
allow John Bursill to make a number of high misleading statements himself,
which you did not correct, but you did not acknowledge that the accuracy of
the simulator test had been challenged on multiple grounds, not only by me
but by Rob Balsamo? I am not begging the question by assuming that he and
I are right. I am observing that you left the impression that there was no
debate over the significance of the test itself. You knew it was a matter
of dispute and yet you allowed the impression to stand that it was sound!

That was disingenuous in the extreme. Knowing full well that his simulator
study was subject to possible flaws (as I had explained) and appeared to be
seriously flawed (as Rob had explained), you had an intellectual and moral
obligation to make that point clear to the audience. Regardless of your
understanding of my points, you cannot have failed to grasp that Balsamo,
the founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, had offered a critique that gutted
the simulator test. For reasons of your own, you chose not to share that
information with the audience. That was an extraordinary act of omission,
which appears to be inexcusable. You left a powerful but false impression
that the simulator test was decisive and did not acknowledge the dispute.

I don't quite understand how David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage could let
you off the hook by suggesting you should be doing other things. I find
your performance on Kevin Barrett's radio show extremely revealing, where
my impressions have been reinforced by what you have done since I made a
point of it. You have been evasive and separated your response from mine,
citing differences between us that have nothing to do with the issue that
I have raised. These are signs of culpability in a corrupt act. And that
is my allegation. It would have been fine if you had supported your side
with arguments that were based upon all the available evidence. You did
not do that but conveyed--and apparently deliberately--a false impression.
Alas, it was one that was not only self-serving but profoundly dishonest!

I am not only convinced that the issue of planes/no planes is at the core
of the hoax that was perpetrated on the American people and the world on
9/11 but that there is no more pressing aspect of the entire matter that
is more deserving of exploration and exposure. The use of real videos of
fake planes or of fake videos of real planes is central to understanding
what happened on 9/11. And, in this regard, whether you produce another
video of David or of Gage really pales into insignificance in comparison
with the issues under consideration here. In my opinion, you have acted
in a fashion that was both intellectually corrupt and morally offensive.
I believe anyone who listens here will come to the very same conclusion.

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

You were obligated to point out the debate. The matter speaks for itself.

Jim

Quoting [e-mail]:

Jim,

In a message dated 6/28/09 9:42:29 PM, [e-mail] writes:

> You know that I explained the problems with simulations in general
> and that Rob explained the problems with this one in particular.

Yes, I read those posts. Why would you assume I agree with your opinions
(or that anyone necessarily would)? It seems highly presumptuous and even
arrogant to think that just because you post your opinion, that somehow I
would automatically find them convincing or correct. That Rob adds his
opinion, again, proves nothing, and is just another opinion. Your opinions in
fact did not at all alter my opinion. So therefore my previous statement
stands - I was not being deceptive on the radio because I believed what I was
saying. It's that simple. One has to wonder why such a straightforward
and obvious explanation would not have occured to you, and why instead you
would decend into more personal insults, questioning my integrity and telling
me I should be ashamed. How can such insults have anything to do with
research?

As for the alternative explainations you ask about again, I have addressed
this previously. There is an abundance of explanations for what you claim
makes real planes impossible. As I said prior, those answers make sense to
me. Some explanations I have added to, primarily about the high kinetic
energy explaining the apparent ease with which the planes entered the
buildings, what you call "the fantasy entrance." I see no point in reposting this
material.

And as I mentioned on air, the surreal, "fantasy" appearance of such ease
is explainable by understanding how our brains process unfamiliar
observations, by comparing to known observations.

Finally, I also mentioned prior one of my primary reasons for "moving away"
from this unproductive discussion - that I am neglecting not only David Ray
Griffin's unfinished DVDs, but Richard Gage's as well. Not to mention my
own DVD on the psychological resistances to 9/11 truth. I know of no one
that thinks my time is better spent in this pointless discussion, especially
not David or Richard.

Ken