[B]An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"[/B]

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

Re: "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory"

Anthony,

Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years--where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn't actually cite the most important among them,

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as brakes.

"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about "special planes". But no matter how "special", no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum "flying beer can".

Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots' study,

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"

You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists--and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions--are without merit. See, for example,

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"

But most of all,

" from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which shows that a Boeing 767 would have been unmanageable and fallen apart at the speed shown in those videos.

How many of these studies have you actually read, Anthony? Because they provide a framework and background for understanding video fakery:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"

"Flight 11" approaching the North Tower

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"

Jim Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Killtown, What didn't happen at Shanksville

(continued)

Edited August 5, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

(continued)

Your article and

are full of partial evidence and half-truths, which I fear is a form of deliberate misinformation. The number of those who would have have to be "in on it" regarding the Naudet video, for example, is grossly exaggerated. Most of those involved in something like this have no idea that what they are doing is not on "the up and up".

I notice you do not mention a study by Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged", which supports the opposite conclusion, where I have already explained to you why it was important that the shot be OUT OF FOCUS to not give away the missing plane. Something was flying by, but it does not appear to have been a Boeing 767.

Your reliance upon the Eric Salter study is especially revealing. Whether what Salter is alleged to have found is 8% or even 18% deceleration, that is not going to explain why it the plane's velocity did not fall to zero. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which, of course, were also filled with 4-8" of concrete, which, at 208' x 208', represents an acre of concrete apiece.

As I explain in "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" (with a diagram), they would have created enormous horizontal resistance. The windows were only 18" wide and the support columns were a meter apart. There were no windows between floors, so most of the facade was steel, which is far more dense than aluminum. The video is a fantasy.

As I have challenged you before without receiving any response, how would it be possible for the plane--in both Hezarkhani and Faribanks' videos--to pass through their own length into the building in the same number of frames they pass through their own length in air? This is a perfect example of how you skip over and exclude evidence you don't like.

That result proves that the videos are fake (because it would be impossible unless those 500,000 ton buildings provided no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air) but also demonstrates that there was no deceleration and that Stalter's study is wrong. And of course you ignore that it was necessary to fake the plane

(1) to insure that it actually hit the building, which many members of Pilots were unable to accomplish with repeated trials;

(2) that it penetrate completely inside of it in order to create the false impression of a cause for the buildings' collapse; and,

(3) only then "exploded", which had to be precisely coordinated in time to account for the explosions in the sub-basements.

Those occurred 14 and 17 second BEFORE reverberations from those alleged impacts, as I have explained in "Seven Questions about 9/11" and "9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job", in case you missed it, which is easily accessible and includes the following data table:

Which raises obvious questions about what you think you is doing here and why you commit so many straw man, special pleading, and ad hominem arguments. But on this point we can agree: There certainly is a lot of disinformation out there!

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Edited August 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing's "shaker" system to determine when plane's will fall apart. This article is at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/

Joe’s Law

Posted on June 13, 2008 by Morgan Reynolds

Joe’s Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.” The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact.” Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth.”

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job.” Well, here’s what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers(2) are: Michael Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and Luc Couchesne. The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI

A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.

(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4XGnqtm-E

Freelancer’s videos in real time and slow motion

[Peter McKenna]

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

Re: "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory"

Anthony,

Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years--where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn't actually cite the most important among them,

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as breaks.

"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about "special planes". But no matter how "special", no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum "flying beer can".

Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots' study,

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"

You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists--and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions--are without merit. See, for example,

As usual Jim Fetzer, you qualify your theories with false analogies, apply misleading terms (eg "flying Beercan"), use bad scientific method (stating that the planes' striking the WTC violate Newton's Laws, which you do not establish using any form of scientific method), then call it Fact.

The reason the planes actually penetrate the World Trade Center is really quite similar to the way a simple human hand can break greater than 8 inches of concrete using Karate. An object with sufficient momentum creates a force sufficient to break objects seemingly impenetrable.

Look at this video if you would like an example. Unless you believe this is staged as well. The long and the short of it is the the WTC was not sufficiently strong to withstand the planes' mass and momentum. Just like a hand breaking bricks, the velocity of the planes would NOT slow as the building gives way. That would result in broken bones, obviously. A plane has a center keel and reinforced connections at the wings (I defer to Bill Sherwood's knowledge of plane design, please refer to his prior posts on this subject).

http://tpt.org/newtons/video.php?id=1297

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Edited August 3, 2011 by Peter McKenna

[Duane Daman]

When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

"This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Without suggesting that you have difficulty with scientific reasoning, but how can a plane--any plane, no matter how special, as long as it is real--pass through its own length into a massive 500,000 ton building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? Since I have now added "Joe's Law" to this thread and posed the problem in the post that initiates it, I am more than a bit perplexed that you have not addressed it. Perhaps that's because, parallel to the plane's performance, you can't?

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

Re: "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory"

Anthony,

Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years--where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn't actually cite the most important among them,

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as breaks.

"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about "special planes". But no matter how "special", no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum "flying beer can".

Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots' study,

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"

You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists--and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions--are without merit. See, for example,

As usual Jim Fetzer, you qualify your theories with false analogies, apply misleading terms (eg "flying Beercan"), use bad scientific method (stating that the planes' striking the WTC violate Newton's Laws, which you do not establish using any form of scientific method), then call it Fact.

The reason the planes actually penetrate the World Trade Center is really quite similar to the way a simple human hand can break greater than 8 inches of concrete using Karate. An object with sufficient momentum creates a force sufficient to break objects seemingly impenetrable.

Look at this video if you would like an example. Unless you believe this is staged as well. The long and the short of it is the the WTC was not sufficiently strong to withstand the planes' mass and momentum. Just like a hand breaking bricks, the velocity of the planes would NOT slow as the building gives way. That would result in broken bones, obviously. A plane has a center keel and reinforced connections at the wings (I defer to Bill Sherwood's knowledge of plane design, please refer to his prior posts on this subject).

http://tpt.org/newtons/video.php?id=1297

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Edited August 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Duane, I have long suspected that the ops use these forums to notice problems they need to deal with, such as by the simple but effective expedient of deleting videos that demonstrate that the positions they are promoting are false. My best guess! And of course you are right to notice that Pete McKenna has serious problems with the laws of physics, engineering, and aerodynamics.

When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

"This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes.

Edited August 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Peter McKenna]

When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

"This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes.

No Duane, it is not disinfomration.

The analogy is correct and actually fairly precise.

You should put forth an actual intelligent argument rather than just irrelevant slander.

The plane does not slow (significantly) because that would indicate force imparted to the plane from the building, ergo no visible plane damage prior to penetrating the building. The momnentum of the plane is sufficiently significant, that it does not absorb these forces, just as the hand penetrates the concrete in the video (and does not decelerate).

The analogy is apt.

Provide justification Duane, for your inane remark.

[Peter McKenna]

Duane, I have long suspected that the ops use these forums to notice problems they need to deal with, such as by the simple but effective expedient of deleting videos that demonstrate that the positions they are promoting are false. My best guess! And of course you are right to notice that Pete McKenna has serious problems with the laws of physics, engineering, and aerodynamics.

When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

"This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building.

That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes.

As usual Jim, you reply with barbed rhetoric rather than addressing the facts. The refutation I posted precisely addressed your erroneous theory with an analogy using the same physical laws that you espouse. The problem is you cannot argue theory or science, as you apparently haven't the ability. I have posted the link to the NIST site with the computational model that accurately correlates the events of the plane strikes to the building collapses. But you and your sycophant minions would rather slander and denounce the politics of NIST than offer any serious scientific rebuttal. Where is your analysis of these events? Go ahead and trot out the list of your supposed "qualified" members. That of course proves nothing. I seriously doubt your ability to reason soundly since you offer no proofs of your fanciful theories.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Peter McKenna

[Duane Daman]

Duane, I have long suspected that the ops use these forums to notice problems they need to deal with, such as by the simple but effective expedient of deleting videos that demonstrate that the positions they are promoting are false. My best guess! And of course you are right to notice that Pete McKenna has serious problems with the laws of physics, engineering, and aerodynamics.

That would be my guess too .. It's not the first YouTube account to be terminated for providing the proof that 911 did not happen as advertised by the US government, and it won't be the last.. A few YouTube accounts exposing the Apollo fraud have also been terminated.

Yes, it appears that Pete does have a few problems with the laws of physics .. Just like everyone else who defends the official story of the 911 attacks.

Funny how ALL other plane crashes throughout history, actually leave huge amounts of wreckage behind, to be studied, and often reassembled.. Unlike the government's fiction of 911, where no significant amount of plane wreckage was recovered from ANY of the alleged crash sites.

[Greg Burnham]

Peter McKenna: The man who conducted a study of the Zapruder Film that, according to him, PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the film was an absolute fabrication! This is the same man who posted his entire study of the Z-film on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum complete with measurements, mathematical calculations, geometrical analysis, temporal studies, eyewitness statements, mechanical peculiarities of the B&H Directors Model Camera, etc., and then set forth his conclusion that it was, without any doubt, altered.

It was his absolute finding that the film was a fabrication...

Then something peculiar happened. He told us that after one "views the film over and over and over again, one can become almost ill, but still one can see that it probably is authentic."

He then began to tear down his own pseudo-scientific study of the film himself and then claimed "IT IS AUTHENTIC" --

That is not a scientist's methodology at work.

I see you have not changed, Peter. Your methods are as shabby now as they were then. A pity.

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

Do you seriously expect Jim to change?

Besides, his claims and "proof" do more to discredit Twoofers than any debunker could ever achieve.

[Peter McKenna]

Peter,

Do you seriously expect Jim to change?

Besides, his claims and "proof" do more to discredit Twoofers than any debunker could ever achieve.

True, Evan,

It just becomes tiring when people propound thoughts as Fact based sheerly upon a firmness of need rather than a detached perspective.

The idea that Bush and Cheney engineered the 9/11 events after being in office for eight months, co-opting the entire military infrastructure, including a huge chunk of the civilian population, and to disregard hundreds of eyewtiness accounts, etc. etc., in order to foster wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (of course the Iraq war was demonstrated to have been fostered by false intel from a dubious asset, not 9/11 events), is just ridiculous, and no real proof of any of these supposed facts has ever been offered or provided by these proponents, just guesses, propounded on soapboxes, and backed up by emotion and hubris.

As Hoffa said (paraphrased), those facts lack only the simple attribute of being true.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Peter McKenna

[Peter McKenna]

Peter McKenna: The man who conducted a study of the Zapruder Film that, according to him, PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the film was an absolute fabrication! This is the same man who posted his entire study of the Z-film on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum complete with measurements, mathematical calculations, geometrical analysis, temporal studies, eyewitness statements, mechanical peculiarities of the B&H Directors Model Camera, etc., and then set forth his conclusion that it was, without any doubt, altered.

It was his absolute finding that the film was a fabrication...

Then something peculiar happened. He told us that after one "views the film over and over and over again, one can become almost ill, but still one can see that it probably is authentic."

He then began to tear down his own pseudo-scientific study of the film himself and then claimed "IT IS AUTHENTIC" --

That is not a scientist's methodology at work.

I see you have not changed, Peter. Your methods are as shabby now as they were then. A pity.

This post makes no sense.

I do not delve into JFK assassination theories and have never even seen the Zapruder film.

To simplify my prior post: The plane in the video does not slow due to its momentum. If it were to slow that would indicate that significant forces were transmitted back into the plane structure, possibly significant enough to damage the plane, prior to penetrating the wall, as Fetzer suggests. The simple fact that it doesnt slow follows the analogy of someone's hand breaking 8 inches of concrete using Karate, the hand does not slow because it must break the concrete blocks. If the blocks were made of hard rubber and sufficiently elastic, then the Karate guy's hand woould likely break. Same with the building. If the walls were more elastic, the plane may have crumpled prior to penetrating the wall. It didn't, the walls experienced shear (like a hole punch). It isn't mystical, just sufficient momentum.

It can be modeled using dynamic computational analysis. NIST did that. Of course, you will say NIST has suspect loyalties, therefore the analysis cannot stand on it's own merits.

That is not an argument, it is only an emotional attack on analysis. If anyone of Fetzer's so-called "qualified" pack of truthers really could rebut the NIST analysis, let them do so. I haven't seen anything close to resembling real engineering analysis from that camp.

So continue bleating emotional diatribes instead of evaluating the events rationally.

Due to the fact that not one single bona fide scientific or engineering publication has commented on the truther point of view, or supported these alternate theories that Fetzer and others propound, that should indicate that these so called theories have dubious merit. Otherwise where is the alternate engineering analysis?

These points of view seem nothing more than political footballs to foster an anti-Bush-Cheney platform.

I do not support the Iraq war. But I do not see that the events of 9/11 had much to do with fostering that war.

The events of 9/11 had much more to do with a breakdown of effective intelligence and the ability to act on valid information.

There was a huge post 9/11 intelligence analysis that concluded this you know.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Peter McKenna

[Greg Burnham]

Are there two Peter McKennas, then? Perhaps I have mistaken you with the other. If so, my apologies.