Dear Jim and Molly,
Can we turn our interview time into something postivie rather than esoteric squabbles amonst the elite? I have enough of theat myself.
There is a ballot initiative that has more teeth in it that the one Les is passing around...as a matter of fact he took it from the creators.
Molly also likes to have positive notes to end on.
Would you be open to this?
I am ccing the appropriate parties
From: "James H. Fetzer"
Sent: Jul 15, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Paula Gloria
Subject: Response to.... (fwd)
For background in relation an interview about video fakery/no planes.
------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:40 PM -0500
From: "James H. Fetzer"
Subject: Response to ...
ON THE SCIENCE OF 9/11 RESEARCH
Minor bad news and good news: I'm in the middle of a spat with Jim Fetzer, who told me a few months ago that he'd cool it on the video fakery stuff, but instead has been flogging it harder than ever on the Dynamic Duo radio show, which has misled some folks into thinking I share his opinions, which I most emphatically do not.
The good news is that this may serve as a wake-up call that will push him to do some solid scholarly work. Stay tuned for the awful details next week.
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it has never crossed my mindthat all of us should share all and only the same opinions about 9/11--ever! Indeed, the only official statements of the society are our Press Releases, which are meant to represent positions of Scholars. In the case of video fakery/planes or not at the Twin Towers, one press release has appeared, "Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery", 28 July 2007, which anyone can access. In light of his present views, I would observe that I even quoted Kevin in that release stating that, given this new evidence, he might have to take these possibilities "more seriously", which I certainly appreciated at the time. As to his current stance, I am less certain.
..., like many others in the 9/11 movement, does not seem to me to have a firm grasp of the nature of science. In particular, he appears to confound the place of finished research reports with actual ongoing inquiry. Finished reports are the kind of thing found in scientific journals.
Actual ongoing inquiry reflects the state of investigation prior to reaching such firm conclusions as to justify their presentation in the form of finished research reports. Indeed, it is easy to confound one with the other, because "finished research reports" do not always represent good science, and good science is not confined to published reports. I think Kevin has largely confounded one with the other. Here is an illustration.
A paper by Steve Jones, "REVISITING 9/11/2001: Applying the Scientific Method", for example, appeared in THE JOURNAL OF 9/11 STUDIES, where it can be found. This, presumably, is an example of "good science" in Kevin's view. But that is not an opinion that I happen to share. If you visit 911schololars.org and scroll down to "The Science of 9/11", you can find several discussions I have devoted to this paper, including one entitled, "On Scientifi Method and 9/11 Research", which is archived in audio on the "The Dynamic Duo", 17 May 2007 (Part 1, Part 2), but is also transcribed as "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community". Click on the icon for "(transcript)" and you will have it at hand to copy and to read at leisure.
In my opinion, the paper I was critiquing was not a publishable paper, for the reasons I enumerated there. (It may have been changed in the meanwhile, since I have noticed that Steve tends to make unannounced changes--even though this is a paper that appears in a journal--just as he did after Chandler, when I pointed out that a photo he had used in support of the presence of molten metal beneath the towers where a group of responders is peering into a chamber that is aglow had to have been faked, since the temperature of the metal would be somewhere around 3,000*F and would be melting the skin from their bodies! (Think about whether you would be willing to put your face over the open spout of a tea kettle when it starts to whistle--water that is only turning to steam around 212*F.)
If ..... wants to challenge my qualifications to render judgments about papers and their publishability, of course, he is welcome to do that.
Check out my experience in this field on my academic site at and you will find that I co-edited SYNTHESE for ten years, founded and edited MINDS AND MACHINES for another ten, and have served on many editorial boards. I know well that the key to a successful journal is appointing members who are highly qualified and of the first rank. I encouraged Steve to do that from the beginning, but, so far as I have been able to discern, he never took my advice. That means, in my view, the journal has fallen short of what it should have been and, with appropriate changes, could still become, namely: a significant venue for the publication of serious research. I am afraid it still falls short.
.... thinks differently, which is fine, but not all opinions are on a par. I have noticed that, instead of encouraging research into controversial aspects of 9/11, such as what happened at the Pentagon, whether unconventional methods were used to destroy the World Trade Center, and the possibility of video fakery (with or without planes) simply do not qualify. I know of serious contributions to one or more of these areas that have been rejected by the journal and, in my view, it was not because of any lack of scholarship by the author(s). On the contrary, while we can find variations upon certain themes there in abundance--it is THE PLACE TO GO for more on thermite/thermate/and possible variations--other issues are not addressed. And this appears to be a matter of policy, not the formal policy of the journal but its de facto informal policy. They won't go there!
This week was an odd week for .... to be attacking me on this subject for more reasons than one. I had just published a column entitled "Libertarian assails Iran myth", 8 July 2008 in OpEdNews, where it can be found archived as follows:
It would be difficult for readers not to interpret this as a strong endorsement for...'s candidacy. Moreover, that week I featured Joe Keith as my guest on "The Dynamic Duo", Tuesday, 8 July 2008, which I reran on Thursday, 10 July 2008. During this program, Joe and I discussed what I take to be five of the most important, if not the five most important, arguments for video fakery. If Kevin were serious about all of this, then he should be studying them; but that, alas, does not appear to be his style. Here are the five with sources:
(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system" has explained, in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed", which is archived at While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.
(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late--from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds--have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.
(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. Joe's argument has been archived here:.
(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut out was even "penciled in". Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2", which can be found at the following URL: . Presumably, the same technique was employed to create the cut out images in the South Tower as well.
(5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 9/11 Amateur, Part 3",. Killtown has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as youcan see in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blkogspot.com.
The evidence is so visual and easier to assess in video format that I find it more than a little puzzling why Kevin insists that these arguments should be presented in scholarly, written papers. But the fact of the matter is that Morgan Reynolds has already done that in his exceptional study, "Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center", which runs 58 pages with 71 footnotes. I am attaching it here for your consideration. Morgan, of course, is an accomplished scholar with at least a half-dozen books to his credit and innumerable articles. This is a fine piece of work which clearly qualifies as a scholarly, written paper. It may not be first first time you have seen it, but perhaps this will be the first time that you read it. It appears to me to satisfy your scholarly desiderata.
What is most powerful about these arguments, of course, is that they display the occurrence of events that would require violations of laws of physics, which is not possible. Laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Which means that, if they are being shown in videos, those videos cannot be authentic. Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, however, since, although the planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or might not have been present if the videos are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings. But there is considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to conceal the absence of planes.
As I explained during the email exchange that led up to ....'s "challenge", the debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has been repeatedly challenged itself. The engine found on the sidewalk in New York appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767. A piece of debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been recovered from any of the four "crash sites". And John Lear has pointed out that, before any commercial carrier can pull away from the terminal, the captain must submit an "envelope" certifying that the plane was ready for flight. Yet not one of these envelopes has been produced, either. That seems rather strange.
Perhaps even more importantly, Elias Davidsson has completed a masterful study of the absence of evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were ever aboard any of these planes. I know that ..... is familiar with his work, because I attached a copy of his study to an earlier reply in the course of this debate, and .... had him as a featured guest on "The Dynamic Duo", 11 July 2008. I don't know what he makes of all of this, but the available evidence could be explained with a high likelihood if there were no planes and all of this had to be faked. Indeed, the studies of alleged witnesses in New York further suggests that there were rather few who claimed to have seen any planes and fewer yet who could identify them. I imagine .... will claim that their reports are decisive, but it is easy to fake eyewitness reports and false memory syndrome is a common occurrence. Violations of laws of physics, however, which cannot possibly occur, are a different matter.
The weight of the evidence has led me to conclude that video fakery took place in New York on 9/11. I am inclined to believe that, in all likelihood, no planes were present as well. That appears to be the preferable hypothesis, given the state of the evidence, but more study would be appropriate to move the matter to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt. I submit that any rational mind who considers the evidence I have presented here will similarly conclude that video fakery took place in New York and that there is a very strong possibility that the planes were an illusion. How else is this evidence to be explained? What would be a reasonable alternative explanation? More study still remains to be done,I would agree, but I cannot resist in observing that anyone with a sincere interest in 9/11 truth who denies these conclusions must be either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Kevin's concerns cause me concern.
----- Forwarded message from firstname.lastname@example.org -----
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:20:28 -0500
Subject: Re: About video fakery . . .
Here's an article that Joe has posted on Morgan Reynold's web site.
He has offered $5,000 for anyone who can prove that he is mistaken.
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 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 heroics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by a 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 is 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 Airlines 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 views of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to the networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). 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.
Email Joseph Keith
(1) A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.
(2) Michael Hezarkhani video, real time
Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.
(3) Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion.
Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.
(4) Luc Courchesne video, real time.
Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.
Quoting J. Fetzer:
> Here's a preliminary response about the uniform motion proof that thevideos are faked, which comes from Joe Keith, an aerodynamic engineer, who will be my guest
on "The Dynamic Duo" this coming Tuesday, namely:
> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:48:25 -0700 [07/05/2008 07:48:25 PM CDT]
> From: Joseph Keith
> To: jfetzer
> Subject: Re: Uniform Motion
> Headers: Show All Headers
> Hi, Jim,
Yes, I am a source that in the crash videos, the plane moves in uniform motion through thin air and through the steel and concrete tower. If you count the frames for the plane to fly its own length through thin air and through the steel and concrete tower, you find that you count the same number of frames. Impossible. And, I have given my demonstrations to dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who have allagreed with me thatthese videos are all fake. Planes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!!! How do you meld with people who claim that thevideos are for real???? They must be disinfo perps!!!
> ----- Original Message ----- From:
> To: "Joseph Keith"
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Uniform Motion
> I thought you were the source of the argument that the plane moves in uniform motion through air and through the steel-and-concrete tower, which of course violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. Am I wrong to think this was your very elegant argument--which can even b illustrated by marking off equal units of distance in equal units of time (the camera running at constant speed)? I thought it was yours.
While I do not infer that Rolf or others who insist the videos are notfake are "disinfo perps", I find it very puzzling that he insists upon the existence of debris from the impacts, when there appears to be no debris whose authenticity can be confirmed. Does he mean, for example, the engine found lying on the street, which turns out to be, not from a Boeing 767, but from a Boeing 737? Where is the debris that should be extending from the impact area? Does he not know that other debris was planted at the Pentagon, for example, where a piece of fuselage has been traced back to a crash in Calais, Columbia, that occurred in 1995? I think he needs to satisfy his ownstandard with proof of real debris.
> Has he not paid any attention to Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), whohas observed on many occasions that each of these planes had hundreds, even thousands, of uniquely identifiable parts, yet not one of these uniquely identifiable parts has ever been found? Does he not know the point made by John Lear, a pilot with extraordinary qualifications, that no commercial airliner can depart from the gate without completing its "envelope" certifying preparations for departure, yet no envelope has been presented for any of these flights? Has he not heard me explain that FAA records show two of these planes not being deregistered until 2002 and the other two not until 2005? I am very diappointed in Rolf.
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia,
it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid
seeing ugly realities, they'd sooner not believe."
-- Joseph Goebbels
Nuremburg War Crimes Trials
F11 No Planes 9/11 Truth Rap
9 years ago