Discussion with James Fetzer via email.
jfetzer@d
wrote: (to Galen in the 911
Nexus group)
Galen appears to be one of the total hare-brains who believes anything
he
is told. I have edited three books on JFK that completely dismember
THE
WARREN REPORT and demonstrate governmental complicity in the
assassination.
I support RESEARCH on unconventional methods for destroying the WTC,
since there is overwhelming evdience that conventional methods can't
account
for the massive damage, the speed of destruction, the degree of pulverization,
and all that. If we don't consider means such as lasers, masers, and
other
high tech, directed energy weaponry, we are most unlikely to figure
out how
this was done. That may be good enough for a shallow fellow like Galen,
but
it is not good enough for those engaged in serious scientific investigation.
There is enough evidence of video fakery to make the question of whether
or
not planes hit the Twin Towers an interesting question, but his apparently
massive ignorance on all of these topics disqualified him from being
taken
serioiusly. I'm sick and tired of crude shit dished out by people like
him.
Andy McCracken
<rasandy@g ..>:
"If we don't consider means such as lasers, masers, and other
high tech,
directed energy weaponry, we are most unlikely to figure out how
this was done." - Fetzer
That is a completely baseless and illogical statement.
jfetzer@d
wrote: 07 August 2007 01:20
For those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, you may be
right. Massive 9/11 ignorance never ceases to astound me.
For those who are familiar with the evidence and competent
to judge, unconventional methods appear required to explain
what is known about the effects that were brought about. I
suggest you visit and study the evidence at drjudywood.com.
Andy McCracken
<rasandy@g ..>:
Thank you for the reply. I will take this opportunity to address
your comments in more detail.
I am familiar with the 9/11 evidence, including a number of visits to
drjudywood.com, and
consider myself competent to judge, having a chemistry degree from a
British university, and a
wide knowledge of other scientific disciplines.
I disagree that "unconventional methods appear required "
since I have not seen anything that
is not explainable by conventional explosives and thermate.
This is why I described your comment as "baseless".
Another reason, why it is baseless, is that there were no observed phenomena
that are
indicative of a beam of any type.
In order for a beam, of such massive energy, to pass through the atmosphere
unseen, it would
have to have zero losses passing through the air - and yet be able to
cause concrete to explode
into dust, and steel to fall into 30-foot sections.
Only a beam of neutrinos could pass through the atmosphere with negligible
losses; and they
would pass through the building, and the rest of the planet, in the
same manner.
Baseless because there is not even a theory that is suggesting a beam
of the type you are
"considering" is a possibility. Certainly there are no reports
of any experimental beams capable
of destroying even a small building in this manner.
Nor are there any reports of a portable power source capable of delivering
the required energy.
A beam weapon must be in line of sight of the target, and therefore
in the air - yet would need
to be powered by something of comparable size and mass to the objects
it was reducing to dust,
otherwise it would itself be destroyed by its own energy.
This is why I said there is no logic in your statement about "required
to explain".
Postulating a weapon that uses unknown physics, and unknown technology,
that nobody is known
to have, is never going to be an explanation of anything.
It is the black-magic explanation, dressed up as science, and the suspicion,
among many, is that
you are not too stupid to realize that this is so.
Andy
jfetzer@d
wrote: 07 August 2007 13:46
One of the classic techniques of propaganda is to attribute an exaggerated
position to someone that can be more readily attacked than their actual
view
and then claim to have demonstrated that their actual views have been
destroyed by attacking the exaggerated view. You have never offered
any evidence that I
or anyone else, for that matter, hold the view you attribute to me.
I have
ENCOURAGED RESEARCH on unconventional weaponry, such as lasers, masers,
and
plasmoids, because I am convinced, largely on the basis of the extensive
work
of Judy Wood, who, in my opinion, is the most highly qualified scientist
who
is working on these issues, which has demonstrated that the massiveness
of
the destruction, the speed of devastation, and the variety of kinds
of damage
done at the World Trade Center far exceeds what merely conventional
explosives, including chemical "cutter charges" such as thermite
and thermate, could have
brought about. Your claims to the contrary are not "proof".
I doubt that you
have spent any time listening to the interviews I have done with Judy
on "The
Dynamic Duo" or visiting her web site at drjudywood.com to study
her research.
You are instead taking a few words or phrases, such as "space beams"
or "death
rays", which have been tossed around by those who are either too
lazy or too
ignorant for serious research or else uninterested in discovering the
truth,
in orer to attack those gross misrepresentations. That seems to be your
way.
That you have
a chemistry degree is commendable. I trust you appreciate that
Dr. Wood has degrees in civil engineering (emphasis in structural),
in engin-
eering mechanics (aka applied physics), and in materials engineering
science.
Is it your contention that having a degree in chemistry is comparable
to her
background and qualifications? You say you have visited her site, but
do not
say whether you have listening our interviews on "The Dynamic Duo",
where we
visit her site and go through her latest additions. Do you understand
that
she is updating her site regularly and that she has been my guest on
the show
perhpas as many as a dozen times, possibly more? She has been spending
most
of her effort in accumulating evidence about the destruction of the
WTC with
a massive photographic record. She emphasizes repeatedly the necesssity
that
we understand what happened (the effects induced) before we attempt
to explain
it (by whatever means that would have taken). She has been noncommittal
on
the pont where you attack. Even if your views about specific kinds of
lasers
were "good as gold", that would not show unconventional methods
had not been
used. A Ph.D. in physics who was present in Madison endorsed her findings
and suggested that it probably had involved the use of masers. Of course,
she had the benefit of having more exposure to Judy's work and was actually
present at the conference, not to mention having superior background
to yours.
The point is that many kinds of unconventional weapons have to be considered.
Any who wants
to understand why I hold my views should vist 911scholars.org
and go to "The Science of 9/11", where they are laid out explicitly.
I know
there are people like you out there who really don't understand the
score and
who are satisfied to trade in straw men, as you do here. Judy presented
her
research during The Madison Conference, "The Science and the Politics
of 9/11:
What's Controversial, What's Not", which was not only recorded
but broadcast
live over revereradio.net. Did you listen to what she had to say? I
am sure
you did not, because what you offer is a caricature, at best, of her
poisiton
point of view. I find these fabricated attacks on me and yours on her
to be
of a piece. There is easily available evidence to the contrary about
her on
her web site just as there is easily available evieence to the contrary
about
me on many sites: google my name, visit Wikipedia,
visit my academic
web site,
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer,
public issues http://assassinationscience.com,
or JFK site http://assassinationresearch.com.
Instead I find rubbish posts by
persons who ought to know better. If one of us is supposed to be working
the
other side, your shoddy efforts and appeals to false depictions of oue
efforts
stand on one side, while my history of exposing deceit and deception
by the US
government stands on the other. I suggest you study Judy's actual work
if you
want to understand it and stop trading in caricatures. The views you
attack
are not hers. Visit her web site. Study her presentation. Then let's
talk.
Andy McCracken
<rasandy@g ..>:
This is what I would call "trying to change the subject".
I did not offer a
critique of Judy Wood's website, I was being critical of your comment
posted
earlier.
Specifically: "If we don't consider means such as lasers, masers,
and other
high tech, directed energy weaponry, we are most unlikely to figure
out how
this was done."
I have considered it, and written it down for you - a short list of
reasons
why this is most unlikely to help you figure out how anything was done.
My opinion, that I haven't seen anything incompatible with explosives
and
thermate, is not invalidated by waving Judy Wood's qualifications around.
Giving some reasons would be far more convincing.
Asking me to first carefully study the whole website, and then to listen
to
all recordings of interviews, and maybe check out a few more websites
while
I am at it - that is a disinfo tactic and not a debating method.
Let's talk when you can justify your position with a factual argument
and
some specific details.
jfetzer@d
wrote: 07 August 2007 16:07
My statement was impeccable and your infantile responses are irrelevant.
I
have tried to be generous with you, but what you do or do not understand
is
not my problem. I directed you to Judy's site because that is a repository
of the evidence. I am a former Marine Corps officer. I have taught logic,
critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. It is apparent
to
me that you could not pass a freshman course in critical thinking. So
post
to your hearts content. Believe whatever you like. Just take me off
your
list, which clearly has nothing to do with real research on 9/11. Thanks.
Andy McCracken <rasandy@g ..>: 07 August 2007 16:37
I see you would prefer to "cut and run" rather than debate
any science or
details, and that your position is that Judy Wood says so, and she is
very
clever and so must be correct.
Suit yourself; the 2,000 people, on my lists, will be the judge of whether
your statement was "impeccable", and also on your abilities
to justify your
"impeccable" statement, and the level of your claimed generosity.
I don't see what being an ex-Marine has to do with anything either,
btw.
jfetzer@d
wrote: 07 August 2007 16:53
Maybe you have face to save with your list and therefore want to prolong
a
pointless exchange. I have directed you to a repository of evidence
that
anyone who is serious about this must master. You have not. I have also
observed that I have spent some fifteen years exposing complicity in
the
assassination of JFK, have published extensively on the death of Senator
Paul Wellstone and have now edited a new book on 9/11. I am also a former
Marine Corps officer. If you think this adds up to the stuff of which
a
"disinformation agent" is made, then I pity anyone who has
ever looked up
to you for intellectual guidance. If I am an op, then please inform
the
government, so it can start sending those checks! In my opinion, you
are
a snot-nosed kid who has an ego problem. Well, I don't. There are lots
of (let's say) young punks out there who like to take cheap shots at
those
of us who are trying to solve the greatest mass-murder mystery in history.
You have had your shot. Life is too short. Keep it to your little list.
