Fetzer: THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK

[Jackpine Radical]

THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK

James H. Fetzer

As an expression of support for those who are attempting to expose the truth about the events of 9/11 for the benefit of the American people, I am posting the penultimate version of a chapter I have submitted to David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott for publication in their volume, 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (forthcoming). I stand with Steve Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young, David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Theology at Claremont, and other students and scholars of 9/11, who believe that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Further discussion may be found at NIST's Evasion.

Here's his home page.

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

And see this link for a DYNAMITE article:

http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf

Since it's a PDF (23 pages) I can't copy a sample for you, but will tell you that he couches his entire discussion in the language of the philosophy of science & approaches the question of what happened on 9-11 in a very comprehensive way. As an entree, he dissects the Kennedy assassination in the clearest, most concise terms I've seen anywhere before proceeding to do the same for 9-11.

Please--check it out. Whether you're MIHOP, LIHOP or a Coincidence theorist, I guarantee you won't ever see things quite the same after reading this.

[bpilgrim]

1. k&r

to understand the complete mess and mortal danger OUR country is in today you have to start here, ground zero.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[H2O Man]

2. Could you give us

a brief summary of what strikes you as the most interesting parts? I would be particularly interested in what you think about the JFK part. Thanks.

[RC]

3. THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK

7. The Case of 9/11
It has taken nearly 40 years for the deception to have been decisively settled on the basis of objective scientific evidence. In the case of 9/11, however, we are vastly more fortunate. 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. That account contends that 19 Arabs, with feeble ability to pilot aircraft, hijacked four airliners and then executed demanding maneuvers in order to impact the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;36 that the damage created by their impact combined with the heat from burning jet fuel brought down WTC1 and WTC2; that WTC7 was the first building in history to be brought down by fire alone; and that the Pentagon was struck by United Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757.37 The basic problem with this "conspiracy theory", as in the case of JFK, is that its truth would violate laws of physics and engineering that cannot be transgressed.

The extremely high melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above the maximum (around 1,500° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel under optimal conditions. Underwriters Laboratory had certified the steel used in the World Trade Center to 2,000° F for up to six hours.38 Even lower maximum temperatures result after factoring in insulation, such as asbestos, and the availability of oxygen.39 Since steel is a good conductor, any heat applied to one part of the structure would have been dissipated to other parts. WTC1, the North Tower, was hit first at 8:46 AM/ET
and collapsed at 10:28 AM/ET, whereas the South Tower, hit second at 9:03 AM/ET, collapsed at 9:59 AM/ET.

They were exposed to fires for roughly an hour and a half and an hour, respectively. 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.40


http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

5. So, you KNOW the post was against DU Rules and DELIBERATELY...

tried to circumvent them?

I think that shows a blatant disregard for the goals of the message board a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Trying to "K&R (before it is sent to the basement)" before the rules of the message board are enforced is nothing less than a deliberate attempt at disruption.

The rules of the board are there for a reason. And this rule is there to keep us from looking like gullible idiots to the rest of the world.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Because we (Americans) don't look like gullible idiots right now.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. No foolin'.

We watch Bushco steal 3 elections in a row, fall for a pack of lies that got us into a needless war, watch this gang run roughshod over our liberties, and get called "gullible" when we point out that the Reichstag fire might not have been set by the Commies.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Read the pdf.

My gullibility made me find it interesting.

Even if one believes that 9-11 happened as the PTB says it did, clearly there are holes you could fly an airplane through in it.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I DID read the PDF. I find it rather credible. That's why I began this

thread. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Read (pronounced red)- as in "I read the pdf."

I know you read it, you posted it. :silly:


Yes, he posits a very credible argument.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Duh.

[G_j]

7. give me a break

the post is still available here in the 9/11 forum, for anyone who wants to read it.
I don't feel I'm disrupting anything.

[stickdog]

14. Well, thank God for intrepid gullibility police like you!

Without reasonable people like you, we might not still believe exactly what our government told us about the Gulf of Tonkin!

[BlueEyedSon]

10. The October Surprise was another one