Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael B. Green and Jim Fetzer


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fetzer of course has gotten into some very bitter disputes with people like me who disagree with him about issues like the Wellstone crash and the supposed alteration of the Zapruder film. To us he 1) reaches farfetched conclusions based on very tenuous, unreliable and false evidence 2) often goes off on long irrelevant tangents about philosophical proofs that seem to more about proving how smart he is that the question being discussed 3) He has an "overgrown ego". I found it very interesting that a fellow 9/11 conspiracist who mostly agrees with him reached similar conclusions and is highly critical of Fetzer's reasoning and conclusions not only relating to 9/11 but to the Z-film as well. He also 'debunks' some of Jack White's 9/11 "photoanalysis" which Fetzer cited.

The author is "Michael B. Green, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Qualified Medical Examiner, Former Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin." For the complete article and photos go to the following page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

Professor Jones co-founded "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with James Fetzer, Ph.D., who has authored and co-authored many books in philosophy of science, edited and co-edited many more, and who has written voluminously on the JFK assassination, including the recent The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, which he edited, which I was sent as a gift, and on which I will later comment.

The Scholars website displays Professor Jones's article alongside one by David Ray Griffin, and one by James Fetzer, Ph.D. entitled "Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK." A great deal of the Fetzer article is devoted to inflating his own bona fides as both a conspiracy researcher and a philosopher of science by offering an essentially unintelligible technical discussion of epistemology that is grounded in addressing obscure Cartesian assumptions that are not fruitful for the working scientist interested in theory confirmation. Professor Fetzer is lead to adopt what he calls "abductivism" as the solution to a problem that few if any lay readers can grasp, let alone its "solution." The discussion, in any case, has no bearing whatsoever on what he will say about 911. Nonetheless, given Professor Fetzer's impressive self-promotion we are entitled to expect at least minimal competence when he turns to 911. Alas, this expectation is to be disappointed. My examination is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Fetzer begins by lumping together many critics of 911 who would not want to be associated with its spoiler, e.g. "As a consequence of inquiries by Nafeez Ahmed (2002), Thierry Meyssan (2002), Paul Thompson (2004), Michael Ruppert (2004), and David Ray Griffin (2004, 2005), among others, we already know that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be correct." In particular, Meyssan has two books purporting to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon. The second, Le Pentagate, humorously has a well-known photo of the hole punched in the C ring that displays two plane parts. For two accounts of why Meyssan is either a fool or a deliberate hoaxer, see: http://www.oilempire.us/hoax-jokes.html and http://www.911research.com/essays/pentagontrap.html. My view is that the entire discussion of what hit the Pentagon is a tar baby designed to trap the 911 truth community in useless speculation.

Fetzer next launches into a rebuttal of the view that the jet fuels were hot enough to melt steel, thus falsely implying that the "official" USG position is that the WTCs melted: "The extremely high melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above the maximum (around 1,700° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel under optimal conditions. … Insofar as most of the fuel was burned off in the gigantic fireballs that accompanied the initial impacts, that these towers were brought down by fuel fires that melted the steel is not just improbable but physically impossible." Fetzer's argument is both irrelevant and confusing because no official USG account contends that the buildings collapsed because their fires melted their steel. Thus Fetzer attacks a straw man and misleads readers away from the actual nature of the cover-up. In the next two paragraphs Fetzer uses imaginary Bayesian prior probabilities to generate a 10,000,000,000 "proof" of his thesis, while advising "most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40' in length." Eric Hufschmid in Painful Questions first popularized this happy fiction about beam lengths. Unfortunately, both Hufschmid and Fetzer did not trouble to observe Figure 5-19 in Hufschmid's book. This photo, taken on September 23, 2001, shows a multitude of columns in the 50' to 100' range. Beams were shattered, and this is what matters to understand that explosives were used, but the "poison pill" fiction that the beams were all or mostly sheared to fit onto the trucks comes from being a great thinker who fails to ask when certain photos were taken (trucks carting beams) and what happened in between (beams were cut to fit the trucks).

The acumen of Fetzer's thinking is clearest when he addresses the Pentagon itself:

The Pentagon case should be the most accessible to study, since it only depends upon observations and measurements, which are the most basic elements available for any scientific investigation. Indeed, photos taken prior to the collapse of the Pentagon's upper floors supply evidence that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it cannot possibly have been a Boeing 757.44 The plane was 155' long, with a wing span of 125' and stood 36' high with its wheels retracted. The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion. A meticulous engineering study with careful measurements has been conducted that offers powerful evidence that the official story cannot possibly be correct.

In his fn. 45 to the above paragraph, Fetzer writes, " A photograph is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html. The opening appears to be about 10 feet high and roughly 16 or 17 feet wide, or not much larger than the double-doors on a mansion." The relevant photographs on that site are reproduced below with their original captions.

I'm sorry, but as someone who knows something about Philosophy of Science, I would as soon read tea leaves. The first photo, rather than being of the initial impact site, is of an area of the Pentagon far to the left of the impact point of the fuselage and is presumably caused by the impact of the left wing. The second photograph is in my opinion uninterpretable. I will spare the reader a lecture on the confirmation and discomfirmation of scientific theories, but I will suggest that anyone who would offer such photos as useful "observations and measurements" in understanding what occurred at the Pentagon has not the slightest idea what observation or measurement consists of in the context of science.

Fetzer then argues that there are photos of the exterior of the Pentagon taken shortly after the crash that do not show debris or broken parts of an airliner. Fetzer does not consider that the airliners parts have smashed the façade of the Pentagon and penetrated to its interior.

Fetzer also has an argument of sorts about the damage done to the Pentagon's grassy lawn, but I find it incoherent. Essentially, he is saying that early reports that the plane crashed into the Pentagon lawn were mistaken, but that Rumsfeld had the lawn repaired anyway so that people might believe this earlier mistaken account. But I gather that the truth is something closer to the homely fact that the lawn was covered with a material so that it could better support heavy equipment, following which it required repair.

Fetzer's "observations' are at odd with obvious fact and either wittiningly or unwittingly serve the purpose of disinformation. Anyone who has ever looked carefully looked at video footage of the collapses of WTC1, 2, 7 knows that 1 and 2 were exploded symmetrically from their core well beyond their footprint, while 7 was imploded by conventional means and collapsed into its footprint. This is evident from the following photos of the South Tower Collapse:

Yet Professor Fetzer advises us, "Indeed, there appear to be at least ten features of the collapse of the Twin Towers that are expectable effects of controlled demolitions but not from fires following aircraft impacts. They include that the buildings fell about the rate of free fall; that they both collapsed virtually straight down (and into their own "footprints"); … The buildings both fell abruptly, completely, and symmetrically into their own footprints, which is explicable on the controlled demolition hypothesis but not on the official account." I will permit Professor Fetzer the option of arguing somewhere else that he may be a great philosopher of science, but not a great scientist. I will say only that I have read this error enough from those who by all reasonable standards should know better that I have been waiting for the deliberate disinformation websites to make their play with it, and now at least one has.

[…]

As a final caution to anyone who knows anything about science or logical reasoning, I offer this gem from Fetzer before he begins his speculations about what really maybe possibly might have hit the Pentagon:

Jon Carlson has proposed that the plane used in the attack must have been a Boeing 737, which also uses them. 54 That contradicts the use of a 757, of course, but it would also be vulnerable to a parallel argument about the absence of debris of the right kinds and quantities. Interestingly, both are incompatible with the smooth and unblemished landscape, which should have been massively disrupted by the wake turbulence that would have been generated by any plane of those dimensions at that low height, a phenomenon even known to rip tiles off roofs at ordinary altitudes. 55 These and still other lines of argument establish that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it cannot have been a Boeing 757 (or a 737). (Boldface added)

If I understand Fetzer, he is arguing that since the lawn and landscape were not torn up in some way by the Boeing's wake, there could have not have been a Boeing. Fetzer's implicit "scientific theory" with which the "observation" is in conflict by means of his intuited "laws of nature" is that wakes are pretty darn strong and can sometimes dislodge roof tiles, hence if they don't mess the lawn and trees as shown in photos, there's no Boeing! This is not what those in the philosophy os science business would call a tight nomological network of theoretical entities, laws in the form of quantified relationships, and observations. The reader should contrast this errant speculation about the quantitative forces involved in a Boeing's low flying descent and the damage it would cause to lawn and trees (something that most post-crash photos would only poorly reflect at best), with the kind of careful, quantitative, quasi-quantitative, and always logical reasoning used by Professor Jones.

I advised my friend who sent me The Great Zapruder Film Hoax that I could not read the book because it was an illogical incoherent hash and mishmash of nonsense that could hardly be followed, and that it could not be usefully assessed from the tiny blurry grainy photos that accompanied it. I advised that if there were a pony in there, it had been deliberately buried and disguised to discourage anyone from finding it. And I happen to believe strongly that the Zapruder film was altered. In going to Amazon.com to learn what some readers thought of the book, I found the following summary comment by Michael K. Beush preceding his review: "This garbage gives conspiracy theorists a bad name" I concur. A very interesting collection of essays that debunks much of the book may be found at "Assassinated Science" (a witty pun on Fetzer's home page "Assassination Science") http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax. The Introduction to that site begins:

"On September 3, 2003, Professor James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. described his new book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, as 'a magnificent achievement that may very well stand as an enduring turning point in JFK assassination research, namely the definitive proof that the Zapruder film was faked....'

Leaving aside Professor Fetzer's characteristic modesty, the claim is laughable. In its 496 pages, the book never gets around to making a single direct argument for the fabrication of the Zapruder film. The book is little more than a random collection of observations concerning features of the film which various contributors find odd and therefore label "proof of forgery. They consider these features "anomalies" but make no attempt to link any of them to each other or to show how any of these random claims disclose a process of fabrication."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?

Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.

9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?

Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.

9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.

People don't need to go "great lengths" to discredit Fetzer.He largely does it himself with his sloppy reseach and swollen ego.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?

Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.

9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.

Peole don't need to go "great lengths" to discredit Fetzer.He largely does it himself with his sloppy reseach and swollen ego.

That...and that he is a "target rich environment".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?

Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.

9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding...

The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must protest John's renaming of this thread which I originally titled

"A fellow CT and philosophy professor is highly critical of Fetzer, and come to the same conclusion as his critics"

Isn't free speech supposed to reign on this forum? Don't he (rightfully) complain about how Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse to limit such rights in America? Was the original title really too provocative by the standards of this forum where members regularly insult each other? Shouldn't he at most have deleted the subtitle?

Len

======================================================

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding...

The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks.

Got anything of substance to add? Despite you repeated insinuation to the contrary most of Fetzer's critics don't support the LNT or supporters of the status quo. Dr. Green certainly doesn't support the offical explaination for 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination.

The problem is that he has a problem thinking clearly and getting his facts straight and that goes for most of his associates as well.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

I posted the following in the Michael Collins Piper thread about Green's article and its attack on Fetzer:

"(Green) says that the photos purported to be of the Pentagon impact point are not of the impact point. I don't understand how he can say that (or why) when one photo clearly shows the collapse that occurred at the impact point, some 30 minutes after impact. Where else along that wall of the Pentagon was there any such collapse?

"Seems to me, based on his treatment of those photos, that this fellow should not be attacking others for writing 'disinformation.' If someone can show me a photo of a similar collapse along any part of that Pentagon wall, and that the collapse shown in the photos in question are photos of that 'other' collapse, I'll admit that I'm wrong and he's right."

You didn't address this then and you haven't addressed it now, you simply post what Green says so that people can read it and be misled. (Unless, of course, I'm wrong. I'm asking you or someone to prove I'm wrong and Green is right about the photos.)

More generally, on Fetzer, I see nothing at all "far-fetched" about the proposition that Wellstone (like many politicians before him in the U.S. and elsewhere) was murdered by plane (an alternate means is helicopter) by his political enemies. And I haven't even read Fetzer's book yet.

But of course to be even suspicious in such cases you first have to have at least an ounce of cynicism or distrust of government somewhere in your body.

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

I posted the following in the Michael Collins Piper thread about Green's article and its attack on Fetzer:

"(Green) says that the photos purported to be of the Pentagon impact point are not of the impact point. I don't understand how he can say that (or why) when one photo clearly shows the collapse that occurred at the impact point, some 30 minutes after impact. Where else along that wall of the Pentagon was there any such collapse?

"Seems to me, based on his treatment of those photos, that this fellow should not be attacking others for writing 'disinformation.' If someone can show me a photo of a similar collapse along any part of that Pentagon wall, and that the collapse shown in the photos in question are photos of that 'other' collapse, I'll admit that I'm wrong and he's right."

You didn't address this then and you haven't addressed it now, you simply post what Green says so that people can read it and be misled. (Unless, of course, I'm wrong. I'm asking you or someone to prove I'm wrong and Green is right about the photos.)

Ron I think you are wrong on this one, though I have looked into the Pentagon matter as much as the towers. Did you click on the link to orginal article and see the photo Green was refering to? He said nothing about the collapse. He just said that the hole Fetzer was referring to was not the entery point of the jet but rather of one of the engines.

I didn't post the article nor do I believe Dr. Green wrote it to mislead. Fetzer and White are members of this forum and if they believe that Green was wrong I would expect them to defend their work here. Do think Jim Hoffman is a "disinfo agent"? If not why would he put this article on his site unless he thought there was substance to it.

More generally, on Fetzer, I see nothing at all "far-fetched" about the proposition that Wellstone (like many politicians before him in the U.S. and elsewhere) was murdered by plane (an alternate means is helicopter) by his political enemies. And I haven't even read Fetzer's book yet.

But of course to be even suspicious in such cases you first have to have at least an ounce of cynicism or distrust of government somewhere in your body.

Ron

I never said that his proposition that Bush wanted to get rid of Wellstone and would be willing to resort to murder was far fetched. How ever he very much distorted the facts about the case. For example there was a lot of information showing that the pilots were incompotent that he did not include in his book. he also insisted that there are operational high energy weapons that could down a plane, even though he could not cite a single report (not from tin-foil hat - UFO sites) saying they did. He in fact was guilty of what he accused the NTSB of manipulating the facts to fit his theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you click on the link to orginal article and see the photo Green was refering to?

Yes, that's why I brought up the subject.

He said nothing about the collapse. He just said that the hole Fetzer was referring to was not the entery point of the jet but rather of one of the engines.

One of the photos shows the collapse, but he says that was not the impact point. Does Green want us to believe that the jet hit somewhere else, and that the big collapse in the wall that we've all seen on tape and in photos is just where an engine hit? That's a new one on me.

I never said that his proposition that Bush wanted to get rid of Wellstone and would be willing to resort to murder was far fetched.

Nor did I say or mean to suggest that Bush himself was involved. He's too stupid for his handlers to trust him with knowledge of such matters. Same goes for 9/11.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the personal attacks are way out of line but are after common delphi techniques and disinformation tactics.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm

25 Rules of Disinformation.

Disinformation apears rife in the JFK debate in an effort as previously said to keep the status quo and stop people from finding the truth.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm

Apparently the above film is great. i havent seen it myself but 6000 million viewers so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding...

The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks.

David ... you have been told before that it isn't just LNrs, but also CTs that dispute Fetzer's alteration claims. Let's put it this way ... If Fetzer's alteration claims are so well made, then why is it that YOU are on record for saying that YOU have not seen any evidence of photo and film alteration? Did you not read Fetzer's book ... did you not see the claims made in that book being discussed on these type of forums well in advance to the books release? It seems you are always making snotty-assed replies ... so can we assume that you were aware of the issues being discussed or are YOU just making noise! So I guess what it boils down to is that some people like yourself are also part of the anti-Fetzer alteration crowd as well, the only difference being is that some say it in a-round-about-way because they are too much of a chicken-sh#t to say it outright. I personally think if Fetzer should ever pick a mouthpiece for his alteration claims ... he might not want it being someone who has seen the alteration claims being made and still says he hasn't seen any evidence of film and photo alteration.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...