My Conversation with Prof. Jim Fetzer

Brass · Jan 31, 2012

Alright. In a thread in this subforum entitled "Gravy sites violates Google's TOS??", the conversation derailed a little bit (yes, mostly in part by me) to the rhetoric and name-calling that the 9/11 Truth Movement has bestowed upon some of us more logical thinkers. I posted some of the statements and names that Jim Fetzer addressed me as in an exchange of e-mails. Let's backtrack just a moment so I can fill you in on the story. Before my Spring 2010 semester at college, I was to be enrolled in a class called "International Terrorism". Before school even started, the professor e-mailed the class and gave us advice to start thinking about and researching our idea for a term paper. Since it was related to the most horrifying terror attack in US history, I decided to choose "Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" as my piece. In the paper, which was about fifteen pages, I decided to debunk some of the biggest claims by the Truth Movement such as WTC1, 2 and 7 being brought down by controlled demolition, NORAD standing down, etc. In order to get a better understanding of where the Truth Movement was coming from, I wanted to hear it from their mouths; so I researched them a bit and instead of talking to some 24 year old college student, I figured a "scholar" who believed in the conspiracies would be the best way to go. Boy, was I wrong. I admit, I wasn't very conversed in the world of debunking yet. Some of my responses (at least to me, now) seem and look rather elementary, including some which are ripped off directly from RKOwens4 YouTube videos. (Sorry, RKOwens4. Love your work. Will never do it again, obviously). Here is the original e-mail exchange between myself and Jim Fetzer.

Before we start, however, let me clarify that this is not a way of trying to get a voice for Mr. Fetzer on these boards. Conversely, I hope this doesn't turn into some sort of Fetzer Flame Fest (I should trademark that) either. LashL was kind enough to let me post this after I sent her a PM requesting permission, as I wasn't sure if it would be acceptable. Luckily, it is and you awesome people are able to view it. I'm also going to write this in talking dialog, with dates, so hopefully it makes sense. Also, the only things edited out were where I go to school (personal information, in my opinion) and times when Fetzer responded with a quote from me. Anyway, here we go:

Me - 12/31/2010 - Hello, My name is Sean and I'm a student at [university name]. For my paper in a class regarding International Terrorism, I'm writing about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and more so debunking them. I didn't want to fill my paper with ideas of my own without a counter argument from the 9/11 "Truth" crowd. I was wondering if there was a chance that I could send some questions and have someone answer them so I can include them in my piece? Thank you!

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

Fetzer - 12/31/2010 - Absolutely! You might want to look at a few of my papers about the nature of conspiracy theories, by the way, including the first part of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which is at
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm and the more recent "Conspiracies and Conspiracism", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6047.shtml And of course you can learn more about me at my
academic web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Send your stuff!
Best wishes,
Jim

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

Me - 12/31/2010 - Jim, thanks for the speedy reply. To be honest, I really don't know if you support these claims, but figured I would ask anyway:

- Conspiracy theorists claim the use of the term "pull it" by leaseholder Larry Silverstein on PBS's "America Rebuilds" is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. 9/11 "Truthers" base this entirely on the assertion that "pull it" is a well-known demolition industry term meaning "to bring down with explosives." However, after e-mailing demolition companies and doing vast research on it, no where does it say, or no where did any company know, that the term "pull it" referred to bringing a building down with extensive use of obvious wires. How can this claim still be supported by 9/11 "Truthers"?

- 9/11 "Truthers" use claims that firefighters heard explosions happening in the building. Are we to believe there was nothing flammable in the building at all? That includes interior piping, machines, etc.

- Do 9/11 "Truthers" still insist that the jet fuel couldn't melt the steel beams, even though no one ever claimed that "melted beams" were the cause of the collapse?

- The biggest claim is that the deconstruction of the WTC was by a controlled demolition. As someone who's seen a live demolition of a very large building in Las Vegas and saw live video of the WTC collapsing, the two are entirely different. A real controlled demolition can only occur with very loud and very obvious explosions on the side of the buildings. These explosions occur before the building collapses, unlike what occurred at the WTC, as well as very visible flashes of light. How can this claim stand? As in, if the two are so different and no other controlled demolition in the history of mankind ever occurred like the WTC, then how can it be called a "controlled demolition?"

Thanks a lot for your time. Have a very happy new year!
Sean

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

Fetzer - 12/31/2010 - Sean,

It stikes me that you are not using an academic address. Where are you in
school and what course are you submitting this for? I am preparing answers
to your questions, but I would like to know a bit more about you. Have you
ever studied science, for example, or taken a course in critical thinking?
Many thanks!
Jim

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

Me - 12/31/2010 - An academic e-mail address? Well, I'm not a fan of the interface of the e-mail server, but it's [my school e-mail edited out] if you'd rather e-mail your answers to that. The course I'm submitting this for is "International Terrorism".

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

Fetzer - 12/31/2010 - Which is "[abbreviation of my college]"? Would you send me a copy of your paper when you submit it? I would like to see what you have done with my answers. I am just the least bothered by the leading way in which you fashion your questions. Can you tell me a little about yourself and your background? Many thanks.
Jim

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

Fetzer - 12/31/2010 - Your use of the term "Truthers" in quotes suggests that you are a skeptic of the sketpics, who do not merely doubt but have actually proven that what we have been told about 9/11 is not simply false but provably false and, in at least some cases, not even physically possible because it violates the laws of physics, of engineering, or of aerodynamics. I have published a summary of our findings as "Why Doubt 9/11?",

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46

So I hope you will be sure to include a link to that overview, which I have
updated as new developments--the acquisition of new evidence, new hypotheses, or better reasoning about the issues involved here. Please write to tell me what course you are submitting this for and a bit about your background. I spent 35 years teach logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.

Many thanks. You will find my answers below.

Jim

Continued from Fetzer

[Larry Silverstein claim]
This is a nice example of begging the question by assuming the answer to an
issue that is being contested. Not only is the question improperly posed (in
the form of what is know as a "leading question" by begging the question in
the form of a question), but members of the 9/11 truth community themselves
have differing opinions about this. Showing that one side or the other was
mistaken, therefore, would not show that some of the members of the research
community are right and others are wrong. I have in fact discussed this in
an exchange with Jim Hoffman, "What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing
logic and language to attack S9/11T", which I published on 14 June 2006 and
is now archived at http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html

As a student of language, I would observe that the syntax, semantics, and
pragmatics of Larry Silverstein's statement all support the interpretation
of his use of the phrase "pull it" as standing for bringing down by means of
controlled demolition. He suggests "the best thing to do might be to pull
it, they made the decision to pull and we watched it come down". What else
could this possibly mean? Certainly he was not referring to "pulling fire-
men out of the building". Firemen are not referred by "it", which is not
even plurals, and are not inanimate objects. Plus there were no firemen in
the building at the time. So they made the decision and "we watched it come
down"! What else could you possibly think he meant by that? If you check
it, others have reported the use of that term with that meaning in their own
work in the industry. So I have a hard time imagining why you don't think so.

"- 9/11 "Truthers" use claims that firefighters heard explosions happening in
the building. Are we to believe there was nothing flammable in the building
at all? That includes interior piping, machines, etc."

Haven't you ever watched "Loose Change"? The firemen are very explicit that
they heard a series of explosions--"Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!", in very rapid
succession. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html
Here's a video about it and there are many more: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-...hters-reveal-huge-explosions-towers-collapsed

"- Do 9/11 "Truthers" still insist that the jet fuel couldn't melt the steel
beams, even though no one ever claimed that "melted beams" were the cause of the collapse?"

Jet fuel is principally kerosene and burns at a relatively low temperature.
Most of it burned up in those spectacular fireballs. UL certified the steel
used in the buildings to 2,000*F for three or four hours. But the fire in
the South Tower only burned around an hour and in the North Tower an hour
and a half. NIST sampled 236 samples of steel and found that 233 of them
had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three about 1,200*F. The fires could have burned forever and not weakened or melted. For more, see "Why doubt 9/11?", a link for which is in my response above.

[Controlled demolition claim]

They were both "controlled demolitions" but of very different kinds. See the videos, "This is an Orange" and "9/11: Towers of Dust". Some key differences:

WTC-1 & WTC-2 WTC-7

Sequence: Top down Bottom up

Floor motion: Stationary Falling together

Mechanism: Pulverization Controlled Demolition

Time/Speed: About 10 secs. About 6.5 secs.
(~ free fall) (~ free fall)

Remnants: No pancakes Pancakes
(below ground level) (5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance. Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different. If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not. The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control. For more on this, see http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-analysis-of-the-wtc-on-911

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

Me - 12/31/10 - Mr. Fetzer, thank you for your insight. I will definitely send you a copy of my paper when it's final. Allow me to answer a few of your questions/points just to clarify. The reason I put the word "Truthers" in quotations is because I personally don't believe it's the truth. While you may say there's enough evidence out there to maybe say that 9/11 was an inside job, I feel there's double the amount of evidence to debunk any ideas that the 9/11 truth movement may have.

You talked about Loose Change in your answers, but I refuse to use that outlandish fiction movie in my paper, as most of what they have said was and quickly easily debunked, as well as the fact that the creators have changed their position and reasoning more than once on certain aspects of 9/11. I might, however, use your "Why Doubt 9/11?" piece in my paper. However, while some points are interesting, like Loose Change, some aspects can be easily debunked.

Seems like you have a lot of structural damage-related information in your article. To understand this structural failure, it's important to understand the structure of the WTC. Most high-rises have a concrete inner core or concrete-encased outer columns, or both. The WTC had neither. Instead, the WTC's steel columns and trusses were protected by a layer of foam fireproofing, which was blown off during the plane impacts. For the North Tower, 15% of the perimeter columns and 13% of the core columns were severed with many more damaged. For the South Tower, 14% of the perimeter columns and 21% of the core columns were severed, with many more damaged. Unlike most office fires, the crashed piled debris against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for persistent fires right at the most vulnerable points of the building. Now, although steel doesn't melt until 2750 degrees Fahrenheit, it loses 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. The worst of the fires were burning at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. As the weakened floor trusses sagged, they pulled on both the core and perimeter columns. Now, because the perimeter columns provided only 40% of the buildings support and were weakened the most by fire, the sagging caused the perimeter columns to bow inwards, which continued until the columns reached their breaking point and snapped. This fact is even supported by an NYPD aviation unit officer who reported that the North Tower was buckling. I feel, like I stated before, that evidence like this debunks 100% of the "structural damage" conspiracy theories. Yes, I'm aware that the buildings were "designed to take airplane impact" but wasn't the Titanic supposed to be "unsinkable"?

As for your Larry Silverstein response, I've seen many videos of firefighters saying that they were ready to "pull it" which they clarified "it" as the last remaining firefighting brigade in the building, because as they have predicted hours earlier, Building 7 was ready to fall. You also said that "pull it" IS used within the demolition industry, or implied it. If you could provide a link, or any evidence that supports this claim, please send it to me.

I appreciate your responses. You didn't have to, but you did, and I really, really appreciate it. Thanks a lot.
Sean

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

Fetzer - 12/31/2010 - Sean,

I am going to put this as kindly as I can. One day when you grow up and
discover that we were right and you were wrong, you are going to feel very
differently about all of this. You attitude about "Loose Change", for
example, illustrates the problem. I was alluding to interviews done with
firefighters, which is completely independent of your agreement or lack of
agreement with its major themes. The fact that you are not even willing
to watch the film speaks volumes. You have been massively duped by the many web sites out there dedicated to keeping the truth from the American people. I knew your attitudes as soon as I read your questions and how you framed them. I am sorry, but you could use a good course in critical thinking.
Best wishes for your project--and I look forward to reading your paper!
Jim

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

End of scene one. This is where I goofed. I never sent a copy of my paper to Fetzer when I was done, as I simply forgot. Needless to say, I didn't use anything he said in my paper, however, after not only the presentation of my paper to the class and the paper itself, I got an A+ on the entire thing. At the end of every year, however, I start to catalogue the files of old papers I wrote over the year on my computer. I stumbled upon my research paper, remembered I promised a copy to Fetzer and attached it.

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

Me - 1/2/2012 - My name is Sean Hughes. You might remember me. About a year ago, I sent a request to get your views on the issues of 9/11. I told you I was writing a term paper, which I was debunking 9/11 conspiracies. I told you when it was finished that I would send you a copy. I forgot to, and I feel bad for not following up on my commitment. Unfortunately, I do not have the complete version anymore, but I DO have a very "bare bones" version. There might be some misspellings here and there, as this version was just me throwing my thoughts and information down. Anyway, I'll copy and paste a version here. Hopefully the format doesn't get twisted or anything, as I just copy and pasted it from a Word document.

[Paper edited out. It's friggin' long and would only make this novel of a post longer.]

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

Fetzer - 1/2/2012 - Sean,

Well, this clearly demonstrates that I was right about you: you need to take
a course in critical thinking. I could probably spend a week enumerating and
explaining the fallacies you have committed here, especially special pleading
by citing only the evidence on your side. Didn't I send you a document about
"Resources on 9/11" when you wrote? Did you read ANY of the studies that
I linked in that summary of resources? Why haven't you even included ONE
of my articles, such as "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK";
"20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong"; "Peeling the 9/11 Onion:
Layers of Plots within Plots"; "The BBC's instrument of 9/11 misinformation"?

The answer, of course, is that they blow your position, which has been refuted on dozens and dozens of grounds, right out of the water. It is embarrassing to read this, because it reflects your childlike innocence in desperately wanting to believe what you have been told. You don't even include my debates with Mark Roberts on "Hardfire"! To demonstrate the hopeless inadequacy of your work, how can you explain the gross visible evidence of the destruction of the towers?

Gravity operates only in one direction: down. Yet the towers are blowing apart in every direction, which is the kind of effect we have from explosives. Take a look at my "New 9/11 Photos Released", for example, and give this some more thought. To quote me without citing the context, by the way, is inexcusable!

Grade: D (for doing some research, but you have suppressed contrary proof).

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

Me - 1/2/2012 - Mr. Fetzer,

I'm really not even sure where to begin. You said that you could "spend a week enumerating and explaining the fallacies you have committed here" which is ironic because I did the same thing about your papers - they were easily debunked and thus couldn't be taken seriously in my paper. It's funny that you say that I need a course on critical thinking, yet you are someone that when on FoxNews and used the Norman Mineta testimony in favor of your side, all the while taking his interview 100% out of context without even addressing what question preceded his testimony. You also provided a list of links. Aren't you committing the same act as I allegedly am, sir? Only providing links for your side? Why not include the information presented by Popular Mechanics? Why not include the vast and incredible research composed by Mark Roberts? I mean, in your "20 Reasons the Official Account of 9/11 is Wrong" theory, the first sentence of your first point is inaccurate! (Frank DeMartini said a 707 could hit the WTC without consequences. What type of plane actually hit the buildings that day, though. And like all of us, his vision is a theory.)

I also take offense to the "childlike innocence" jab. You want to know a story? I watched Loose Change during my freshman year of college and I believed everything in it. For a few hours, I was a 9/11 conspiracist. Then, that same night, I decided to do my own research and examine BOTH sides of the argument (something I pride myself on doing and something that I will demand of my students when I'm an educator.) I watched the movie around 5:00 PM. By 9:00 PM that same night, I was totally against Loose Change citing the massive amount of evidence against it. I mean, if this movie, which is so representative of the Truth Movement, was in fact, truth, why have they needed to edit it and re-release it three more times?

I also viewed your "New 9/11 Photos Released" on your Blogspot page and you have a "childlike" understanding of basic demolition. I'll say it as simple as I can; there is a recipe for controlled demolition. If you don't do the recipe the right way, it won't work. This recipe includes visible detonations before the tower collapses to ensure that it does, in fact, collapse. Otherwise, it will not work. Also "To quote me without citing the context, by the way, is inexcusable!" which is probably how Norman Mineta feels about your rant on FoxNews.

I'm also hoping the grade of a "D" is because of the context and not because of the view. Despite our differing opinions, I enjoy our correspondence. I believe in discussing opinions with other sides in order to grasp a greater understanding of everyone's points of views and thought processes. Cheers, Mr. Fetzer.

Sean

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

Fetzer - 1/2/2012 - You obviously have never watched any of my presentations on 9/11, where I explain that 767s are very similar to 707s in their mass and fuel loads, where the cruse speed of a 707 is actually even great than that of a 767. So if a 707 had hit instead, it would have been
expected to have done MORE DAMAGE, not less.

I guess you also missed that a 767 cannot travel as fast as shown in
the videos, where the air is three times more dense. Nor enter a
building in violation of the laws of physics. Nor pass through its
whole length into a massive steel-and- concrete building in the same
number of frames that it does the same in air.

Nor that the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause
the steel to weaken, much less melt. And if it had weakened, then
there would have been some gradual tilting and sagging, not the
complete, total and abrupt non-collapse that occurred. But you do not
even believe your own eyes! What a total waste.

The fact that you would believe a shill like Mark Roberts and obvious
propaganda like POPULAR MECHANICS tells me all I need to know about
you. Your ability to reason is actually far weaker than I had assumed
before--which is pathetic. Save you time. I can't abide arrogant
phonies who ignore science, logic and evidence.

Go through my "20 reasons" and give me samples of what I have wrong.
Your ridiculous caricature of the report of Frank DeMartini and your
incapacity to even remotely understand what Norman Mineta was telling
us is astounding! You don't deserve a "D". Your fallacies are
abundant and clearly warrant the grade of "F".

You do not appear to understand that, when one side assert a position p,
and the other side asserts not-p, there is an obligation to sort things out.
You have taken for granted that flimsy responses to what we have found
are TRUE, but you have no idea about whether you are right or wrong.

That is where SERIOUS REASONING and CRITICAL THINKING come
in. You have been taken in by a slanted definition of the phrase "controlled
demolition". As I explain in all my talks, WTC-7 was taken down using a
classic controlled demolition. The towers by a demolition under control.

But it was not a classic controlled demolition, for reasons that I explain in
all my presentations. Which tells me you have rejected my work without
even bothering to study it, much less understand it. The level of what you
are doing is so shallow that to say it is "tissue paper thin" is exaggerating.

I don't know if you are displaying your ignorance so massively because
you actually think you are right or just want to demonstrate how dumb you
are. Here are three presentations about 9/11. Study them and get back:

"False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU

"Howard Huges interviews Jim Fetzer about 9/11"
http://theunexplained.tv/paranormal-podcasts/edition-67-911-special

"Is the Global 'War on Terror' justified by 9/11?"
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19318111

But if you won't study the evidence, then forget it! You are a lost cause.

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

Me - 1/2/2012 - It's funny how you say I'm "childlike" yet you're the one resorting to frivolous insults about my ability to understand and comprehend, especially since I contacted you and continued to communicate you with the utmost respect. I don't believe anything at face value, which is why I'm no good to the 9/11 Truth Movement, as they rely on people who don't bother to fact check.

I HAVE studied the evidence, Mr. Fetzer, that's the problem. As for your 20 reasons, well, here's a few:

- Underwriters Laboratory does not certify structural steel and don't even think about believing what Kevin Ryan says is true.

- It's hard to take Willy Rodriguez' story seriously when he's changed it on us so many times before. There were no mentions of explosions on the hand-written notes by the 9/11 Commission when he testified, nor any mention of explosions in his 2001 or 2002 interviews NOR any mention of explosions in his statement to NIST NOR any mention of explosions in his 2004 conspiracy lawsuit against the United States. His story is dramatic enough and never needed any embellishment.

- There were no "pancakes." - I know. It was simply a theory that people thought would happen after the collapse. It obviously didn't happen this way.

- When Larry Silverstein said "pull it" who is the "they" that he was referring to, in the context of "they decided to pull"?

- The Towers did not collapse in under 10 seconds. The videos you are watching have their timing off. Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists start counting as the section UNDER the airplane crash site starts to fall, which shaves off 3-4 seconds of the actual collapse time and is incredibly dishonest and they know it. I mean, wouldn't the ultimate humiliation for you or anybody in the movement be to finally admit you were wrong? Especially a former college professor admit they were wrong? You're too entrenched in your views and you understand how awful you'll look if you admit you were lying. There's no way out for you, and it's kind of funny.

I have two small questions if you'd be so kind to answer:

1.) If Building Seven was a controlled demolition, then why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro make the decision at 3:30 PM to halt operations and make a collapse zone around the tower TWO FULL HOURS before the building collapsed? Was he in on it?

2.) How many years have you been in or around controlled demolition? As the son of a man who's involved with controlled demolition, I'd like to think I know a little bit more about it than you, sir.

With respect and warm regards,
Sean

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

Fetzer - 1/2/2012 - There was a huge fire in the North Tower in 1975, where it burned intensely
at 2,000*F for around four hours. None of the steel had to be replace, which
is a nice indication that UL's certification was right on the money. There is
some kind of quibble from people like Roberts, which seems to impress you.
But the evidence supports that the steel was excellent--and perhaps you have
overlooked that no steel-structure high rise ever collapsed from fire before or since. And it didn't happen on 9/11, either, since WTC-7 came down in a
classic controlled demolition, while the towers were converted into millions
of cubic yards of very fine dust. (I explain ALL THIS in my presentations!)

How dumb can you be? If there had been a collapse, there would have
been pancakes. There were at WTC-7, which was a collapse. But not
at the Twin Towers, which were not "collapses" but demolitions, which
converted those 500,000 ton buildings into millions of cubic yards of
very fine dust. (I ALSO EXPLAIN THIS IN MY PRESENTATIONS.)

The demo experts who were doing the job. Have you never read my
dissection of Jim Hoffman's attempt to save the day? Go to Scholars,
articles, general articles, and scroll down to the bottom. You really are
grasping after straws. If you had only studied my presentations . . . .

Even THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT states that the South Tower
came down in 10 seconds. NIST rated them at 9 and 11 seconds. But
what difference does it make? THEY COULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED
AND THEY DID NOT COLLAPSE. I am forming a very poor impression
of your cognitive abilities. I EXPLAIN ALL THIS IN MY LECTURES.

Well, you'd better ask yourself, why would anyone create a barrier if there
was no reason to believe the building would collapse? In case you haven't
noticed, it was not hit by any plane and had no jet fuel based fires. There
were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather
low temperature. Unless he knew it was coming down (because he was in
on it), what other plausible explanation could there be for his behavior?

Well, if you had a brain in your head, it might have made a difference. I
have to say that even the gross observable evidence of the collapse of
WTC-7 is a classic "controlled demolition". See "This is an orange" on
YouTube. And the Twin Towers are obviously a demolition, but not a
"classic" one. See "9/11: The Towers of Dust", also on YouTube. It
has been a long time since I encountered a bona fide block head, but
you take the cake. Massive arrogance plus profound ignorance, alas.

I missed your petty remarks about Willie, so I am adding them now. More
proof of your abysmal ignorance and that you've never studied my stuff!
No one has to take Willie's story just because he reported it, since it has been confirmed by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong in their study, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job!", in which they used seismic data from a lab run by Columbia University and compared it with radar and FAA data to determine whether what he said was true or not. The explosions in the subbasements occurred 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE reverberations from the alleged plane hits. I EXPLAIN ALL THIS IN MY PRESENTATIONS. You are some kind of gullible sap, who doesn't even bother to understand the evidence, which he could not possibly rebut but for relying uncritically on unworthy sources.

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

Me - 1/2/2012 - Again, the petty little insults are hurled my way from you, proving your maturity level. No wonder you believe this nonsense - you act like a child and that's being generous. You're using your own sources as proof. YOUR lectures and YOUR findings. Well, MY findings disprove all of your information. More than 99.99% of architects and engineers don't support your views. Wouldn't that make it a consensus in the field?

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

Fetzer - 1/2/2012 - It's got nothing to do with "maturity level". You are a gullible sap who has never even bothered to watch ANY OF MY PRESENTATIONS. The evidence I give in my presentations DOES NOT ORIGINATE WITH ME. You must be some kind of mental midget. MY PRESENTATIONS REFUTE YOUR POSITION. You have no idea what my positions are, buster, so how could you possibly believe you have refuted them? You really do take the cake. Unbelievable!

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

Me - 1/2/2012 - Let's take this slowly. I'll respond to the Building Seven claim. You said that " Well, you'd better ask yourself, why would anyone create a barrier if there was no reason to believe the building would collapse? In case you haven't noticed, it was not hit by any plane and had no jet fuel based fires. There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature. Unless he knew it was coming down (because he was in on it), what other plausible explanation could there be for his behavior?" Well, if you had read MY piece, you would know that there were fires on almost every floor (as recalled my many firefighters) and it was these fires that led Daniel Nigro to believe that WTC7 would collapse. Also, during an interview on the Opie & Anthony radio show on XM Radio when Korey Rowe was a guest, a former firefighter said that the bottom half of WTC7 was scooped out from debris after the World Trade Center towers collapsed (Jason Berman, acting as Korey Rowe, then proceeded to tell the firefighter he was wrong, even though the firefighter was there and Mr. Bermas was not). Thus, the fires and the fact that the bottom half of the building was essentially scooped out, was enough for FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro to make the decision to half the rescue operations, fearing that the building would collapse. How does that NOT make sense?

And how come your sources are ok, yet you resort to name calling against Mark Roberts? He's nothing but a New York tour guide who has compiled a ton of information on the matter. Let's be real for a second - if he supported your views, you would love him and cite him endlessly. Please admit that.

Hope your Monday is going well,
Sean

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

Fetzer - 1/2/2012 - Listen,

Either you watch or read some of my stuff or we can hang this up. I have
spent years on this and you are begging for a tutorial. Well, if you had only
done what I suggested (by reading my stuff when you first contacted me),
you might have been able to sort out the conflicting positions that you are
now asking me to spoon feed to you. Well, life is too short-and when you
make a colossal blunder by suggesting that, because I wrote something,
it was therefore MY STUFF, ignoring that SOMEONE WROTE EVERY-
THING YOU COULD EVER CITE, I am appalled by your selective use
of a baseless argument as thought it cut against me and no one else!

Since you are going on about WTC-7, have you watched "This is an orange"
yet? Does the name "Barry Jennings" mean anything to you? And what are
the differences between WTC-7 and the Twin Towers? Have you watched
"9/11: The Towers of Dust"? About the Pentagon, what did Jamie McIntyre
report and what did April Gallop have to say about it? Have you read "The
BBC's instrument of 9/11 misinformation"? Whom did they feature on their
two documentaries about 9/11? Watch or listen to two of the three links I
sent and we can discuss this further. But you have to study my stuff. OK?
Then you can explain what I have claimed and why you think I'm wrong.

Read my stuff. Watch my presentations. Then get back to me. OK?

Jim

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

Me - 1/4/2012 - I am aware of Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, as well. The way the 9/11 Truth has twisted their story is both slimy and utterly disgusting. On the morning of 9/11, Jennings and Hess, two city officials, went up to the command center in WTC7 to try to save lives. They found it deserted and decided to evacuate. When they got about to the 6th floor, WTC1 collapsed, and falling debris hit WTC7, causing it to shake and sway violently and it trapped the two for several hours. I'm not saying you believe this part, but Truthers love believing that it was a bomb that trapped them, proving that WTC7 was imploded (even though real implosions set off hundreds of charges seconds prior to collapse, not a single one seven hours prior.) However, in the BBC Documentary The Truth Behind the Third Tower, both men say clearly that it was the collapse of WTC1 which trapped them, not a bomb. Barry Jennings has since publicly said how Loose Change twisted his words, how he didn't appreciate that, and how he doesn't believe the government did 9/11. Not long after, Mr. Jennings passed away in the hospital from leukemia. You'd think Truthers, like Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery, would pubically apologize to his family for twisting his words, admit they were wrong, and allow him to rest in peace. Instead, to this day, there are truthers who insist that the experience by Jennings and Hess is proof of their theories and that Jennings was murdered by the government to hide "the truth" (even though, um, both men clearly did/do not support their theories at all).

I just watched "This is an Orange" and it still doesn't make sense to me. If Daniel Nigro and the entire FDNY (I have many, many quotes from firefighters who were at the scene) knew it was going to collapse due to the overwhelming fires (of which most were on the side facing the WTC; a neat little trick the Truth Movement does is only shows pictures from one side - the side that wasn't facing the collapsing buildings), then why did they abandon missions inside? By your theory, they're obviously in on it. After hearing firefighters reports that the bottom section was scooped out, the way it collapsed and more importantly, why is collapsed, makes sense. Speaking of the firefighters claims, you refuse to address those. Are they lying? Was the entire FDNY in on the job (which would refute your earlier claim on FoxNews that you believe only a small group of people were on this.)

I also viewed Was 9/11 An Inside Job?, the neat little slideshow you put together, which basically proves your elementary (if that) understanding of the Naudet Brothers. You put "just happened" in quotes, implying that you think they were in on it. The Naudet Brothers were making a documentary about Tony Benetatos, a "rookie firefighter" in Engine 7 in lower Manhattan, which was the subject of their film. Yes, they were in a good spot, but have you ever been to NYC before the towers came down? If you did, then you know how easily viewable they were from almost any spot in lower Manhattan. You even blow up an extremely blurry picture from their video and try to equate distance into the matter. You cannot do that. Pixelation happens you blow up blurry photos. Learn technology, please. The Jack White photo is also misleading. See in his picture how fine and small that incision is? Then, look at the Naudet frame - there's OBVIOUS blurring and pixelation. Very, very dishonest of you, Mr. Fetzer. I can only imagine how your parents would feel right now for your misleading and dishonest claims. Slide 12? No, that's not the nose! It's the impact of the plane! And I'm the gullible one? Jeez. "[Bush] had access to closed Secret Service television coverage" - or, you know, he could have misspoke about the whole mess. He's also painted as a bumbling idiot, right?

Yes, I did read Jim Hoffman's work and your dissection of it. Funny how you call me arrogant, yet your first line in the article entitled What's the Matter with Jim Hoffman? you say "A software engineer by background…" What's that supposed to mean? That he's not qualified to answer questions? You're throwing a lot of information around about controlled-demolition yet you have ZERO experience in the field. You also only really ever cite one engineer - Judy "Death Ray from Outer Space" Wood. Why not cite the MILLIONS of engineers and architects who don't agree with your theories? Here's a metaphor - there will always be one historian who thinks the Holocaust never happened….

You bring up Jamie McIntyre, another classic truther case of taking a quote entirely out of context. I assume you are referring to his quote where he stated "From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." Well, what's being left out is the key piece of information - the rest of the quote, where he continues to say "The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in." Or perhaps you mean his claim that there were only very small pieces of debris. Fair enough, but why would a reporter be able to get close (where the obviously big pieces of debris would be) to the crash site? Perhaps I can direct you to this: http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html For more information.

You stick by your guns that Larry Silverstein's referral of "they" were "demo experts." No, they were not. "They" were the FDNY. Daniel Nigro admitted that HE made the decision to pull - as in, pull the firefighters. NOT "pull" the building.

You're also "grasping at straws", especially in Why Doubt 9/11, point twenty, where you state that Bush acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Newsflash, Mr. Fetzer, nobody believed that anyway. Anybody with a simple knowledge, like myself, in middle-eastern politics and history knows that Saddam and Osama hated each other. There were other reasons for going into Iraq. Speaking of Iraq, if Bush could orchestrate this who thing, then why couldn't he just fake finding WMD's in Iraq, so he and his administration didn't look like asses?

You did state that it was "the highest form of respect to their survivors" to find out the "truth" yet you laughed at the story of Mark Bingham calling home from the plane. How does that make sense? The fact is that 99.99% of architects and engineers - people with actual experience and degrees in these fields - don't believe your amateur findings. Again, it's hard to really read all of your work and presentations when it's nothing but regurgitated and faux-facts, as well as complete and utter fantasy.

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

Fetzer - 1/4/2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Here's what Barry had to say. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I'm dumbfounded by your perverse combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Just one question. Since gravity works in one direction (down), how can the
destruction of the towers result from a gravitational collapse when they are
blowing apart in every direction, their mass is being converted into millions
of cubic yards of very fine dust, and there was no stack of pancakes? You
are really are something else. Your modus operandi couldn't be more obvious.

My background is in the history and philosophy of science and, like my work
on JFK, has been based on collaborative research, which, in the case of 9/11,
with pilots, physicists, and engineers (aeronautical, structural and
mechanical), which you would know if you had actually studied my stuff. I do agree with you that something slimy and disgusting is going on, but none of it is from my end.

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

Me - 1/4/2012 - Like I said, Jennings had come out against the 9/11 Truth Movement before he passed, saying that his comments were taken out of context and still, to this day, people such as yourself spit on his grave by continuing to do it. But hey, that's the "modus operandi" of the entire truth movement. Not mine.

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

Fetzer - 1/4/2012 - You are an ignoramus. Jennings is dead. He died just before NIST released its absurd study of WTC-7, which he would have been in the position to blow out of the water. Do not write again. I have had enough of you, perhaps the most dishonest person I have encountered relative to 9/11 in my life. There is no excuse for your irresponsible views.

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

Me - 1/4/2012 - Point out where I said he was alive, please, Mr. Fetzer.

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

Fetzer - 1/4/2012 - What matters is what he said about his experience inside WTC-7 that morning. You really are about the most dishonest person I have encountered in all of my dealings related to 9/11. Spare me. Enough is enough. This is over. Enough.

Annnnnnd, scene.

Brass · Jan 31, 2012

BTW, in no way am I trying to paint myself as a saint, here. I resorted to petty jabs and insults too, which I fully admit to.

ozeco41 · Jan 31, 2012

Well...

I've read it.... so where to start.

Remainder deleted - urgent business has just called - I will try again later.

Edx · Jan 31, 2012

This is very very hard to follow...

Would it have killed you to format it a little?

Brass · Jan 31, 2012

Edx said:
This is very very hard to follow... Would it have killed you to format it a little?

I tried to make it as easy to follow as I could. Any suggestions?

TheRedWorm · Feb 1, 2012

Each bold is a change of person, I think...

uke2se · Feb 1, 2012

Fetzer comes off as a loon in that exchange.

ETA: I did not find it hard to follow.

ergo · Feb 1, 2012

Fetzer was being patient with you. You were incredibly rude to request information from him and then not even look at it. You also framed your questions in a pre-emptive attack fashion which signals to anyone you may be communicating with that you are not truly open to the information you claim to be seeking. I would not have gone past e-mail #2.

I find it hard to believe an instructor of any course in "International Terrorism" would accept a paper on "debunking" 9/11 truth, a subject which has nothing to do with international terrorism. So my B.S. detector already is going off. What was your thesis statement/conclusion for this paper?

ergo · Feb 1, 2012

By the way, I was intrigued by this comment, regarding WTC 7:

Brass said:
a neat little trick the Truth Movement does is only shows pictures from one side - the side that wasn't facing the collapsing buildings)

Do you have images of the south side of WTC 7 in full conflagration? Do you have videos of the south view of WTC 7 as it's collapsing? All I've seen is a mysterious dearth of such images, as if no human being were anywhere south of the complex and recording the events. If you can correct this absence of visual evidence, do share.

Sabrina · Feb 1, 2012

The sheer arrogance of the man is astoundi- No wait. Actually, it's not astounding at all. Par for the course for these clowns, from what I can tell.

NoahFence · Feb 1, 2012

So he is a garden variety jerk. Typical truther.

NoahFence · Feb 1, 2012

Just where is this idiot a professor? I'd like to stay far, far away, and tell anybody I know to do the same.

BStrong · Feb 1, 2012

Confirms my opinon.

Childlike Empress · Feb 1, 2012

NoahFence said:
Just where is this idiot a professor? I'd like to stay far, far away, and tell anybody I know to do the same.

wikipedia:

James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California, in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School.[6] He went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.[6] After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.[6]

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[1] At the University of Kentucky, he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government.

Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science.[1] He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes, and the professional organization, The Society for Machines & Mentality.[7] The Society for Machines & Mentality has been accepted as a special interest group (SIG) of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).[8] His first article in the philosophy of computer science, "Program Verification: The Very Idea", Communications of the ACM (1988), ignited an international debate that has not subsided to this day.[9]

You can call him insane or a shill or whatever, an idiot this man is not. And he doesn't suffer idiots lightly.

NoahFence · Feb 1, 2012

He asked the OP to use LOOSE CHANGE as a source for factual information.

He may have been bright at one time, but today, 1/31/2012, the man is an IDIOT.

A drooling, retarded buffoon. End of discussion.

Childlike Empress · Feb 1, 2012

I doubt your word as any weight here.

NoahFence · Feb 1, 2012

I don't care. It's a fact.

ANYBODY who thinks that controlled demo took down the towers is a retarded, drooling idiot.

There is no way humanly possible they could have even survived a moment after impact. All the rest of it, thermite, fire temps, iron microspheres and of course the complete dismissal of the Pentagon and Shanksville are irrelevant in light of the fact that all 9/11 conspiracy theories are proven wrong 1/4 of a second after the first impact. Your opinion of the weight of my words is irrelevant.

SUSpilot · Feb 1, 2012

Brass: kudos. Fetzer, at a minimum, has not one clue about which he speaks. At worst, he suffers from having a preconceived notion about what happened that horrible day and will do everything in his power to twist the facts to fit that notion.

Scott Sommers · Feb 1, 2012

Several points stand out to me as significant.

Fetzer seems like a Truther and not a professor
By this I mean more than just his factual information and the rhetoric of his statements. The interesting thing to me is that Fetzer would continue with a correspondence that he clearly finds beneath him. He's not just frustrated with someone who doesn't understand what he's saying. He seems to see this whole discussion as beneath him, yet continues writing to Brass. It reminds me very much of the kind of Truthers we see here on JREF and that I have met elsewhere. They will never stop repeating their Truther mantras over and over and over again, even to those who have lost interest in hearing. He threatens to stop the correspondence, but doesn't.

Honestly, I had not expected Fetzer to be so obviously like a Truther.

He shows phony Truther suspicion
The first part where he asks about academic e-mail leaves me wondering if he thinks Brass may be a spy of some sort. He uses words like 'shill' to describe Mark Roberts. Apparently he believes there are Kennedy assassination investigators who have 'disappeared'. I guess he believes the NWO super secret government sends around spies dressed up as students to find out what super important info has has on them.

This leaves me thinking that, like a lot of other educated Truthers you see here and elsewhere, he is frustrated that no one will listen to him. Fetzer is a professor and used to being listened to just because of that. He seems to find it very frustrating that people laugh at him and treat him like a joke. I suspect he feels he should be listened to no matter what he says. Or rather, that what he says is the measure of what should be listened to. What you see here is the result of years and years of being ostracized professionally and being treated like a joke by large numbers of students.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts on this.

Brass · Feb 1, 2012

ergo said:
Fetzer was being patient with you. You were incredibly rude to request information from him and then not even look at it. You also framed your questions in a pre-emptive attack fashion which signals to anyone you may be communicating with that you are not truly open to the information you claim to be seeking. I would not have gone past e-mail #2.

I find it hard to believe an instructor of any course in "International Terrorism" would accept a paper on "debunking" 9/11 truth, a subject which has nothing to do with international terrorism. So my B.S. detector already is going off. What was your thesis statement/conclusion for this paper?

I did read the information that Fetzer passed on to me, thank you very much. My professor said we could do any paper that is tied to terrorism and he kept an open mind to creative topics; something that is almost a lost form altogether in education. Since we focused on Osama Bin Laden for a large portion of the course, I presented the facts that there are some who don't believe he perpetrated the atrocities on September 11th, 2001. I even asked my professor beforehand.

You can theorize about whether or not I truly wanted this information, but if there's one thing I've been taught it's to examine both sides and have questions, whether controversial or not, ready for the opposing side to answer.

As for WTC7, there are some partial videos and photos that show smoke billowing out of the side. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Also, many, many accounts by firefighters confirm this.

My Conversation with Prof. Jim Fetzer

Critical Thinker

Critical Thinker

Philosopher

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

I AM the Red Worm!

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Wicked Lovely

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Critical Thinker