Scholars for 9/11 Truth


More in sorrow than in anger . . .

4 January 2007

transcribed by Jim Fetzer



Con men are successful because they are so smooth that their sounds are often mistaken for sincere speech. That is surely the case with Fred Burks. Here he promotes the continuation of the abuse of the society's email list with a specious pitch for "voting" in order to replicate an illegal, null and void effort of the recent past. Apparently, the results were not what they wanted, so they are going to do it all over again. As they know, Scholars has members but is not run by its members. There are no procedures for voting on issues. Which means that, in order to create a phony pretext for siezing control of the society's web site, they have to transform it into one of another kind.

If you wonder how you can tell whether he is a credible source, you can look beyond his service as a translator for George W. Bush (who, as the world well knows, places an enormous premium on loyalty to him personally) and consider whether the allegations he makes about me--in relation to the possible use of directed energy weapons at the WTC, the time of fall of a piano from the top of a 110 story building, and the "collapse" of the Twin Towers "faster than free fall"--are or are not justified. I explained to him and others OVER A MONTH AGO why his depictions were false and misleading. (See the email below.)

That, however, has not inhibited him from recycling trash talk all over again, even when they know it is a distortion of my views. And you know they know better from the email proof I have offered below. More interesting than this latest attempt to take what does not belong to them by fabricating a pretext cloaked in a fake commitment to democracy--which bears comparison to actions by Burk's mentor in advancing a fake commitment to democracy in order to take control of Iraqi oil--is the situation with my former co-chair, Steve Jones. While Fred resurrects phony issues, Steve refuses to confront very real ones.

Steve has claimed that his positions have been misrepresented in the past and that attacks upon them are "unscientific". As a philosopher of science, I am fascinated by issues of this kind, so I invited him to appear on my talk radio program, "The Dynamic Duo", with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, on 2 January.
They have been the targets of these charges, which are posted on stj911.org, the web site for Steve's new society. Steve did not appear, but the program has been transcribed and has been archived at st911.org and 911scholars.org. I think it marks a step forward in exposing falsehoods and revealing truths.

Anyone who wants to form an impression of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, the name of this new group, should visit stj911.org and take a look around. I think it would be worthwhile to compare what you find there with what you find at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. You are always weldome to join this new society. Nothing about membership in Scholars precludes that. Creating a new society and joining a new society should not be confused with attempting to damage, destroy, or steal an old one. And that's what this "voting" is all about. I find it insulting that these people would attempt to play you for suckers.

James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:56:24 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Jim, on falling pianos
To: Fred Burks <fredburks@earthlink.net>

Free fall speed through air for a grand piano would have taken longer than the time in which the towers were demolished. Do we agree on that? A piano would take from 12.5 seconds (Steve's example of a very heavy "baby" grand) to as much as 30 seconds (Judy's friend's examples). These times are faster than the times of the destruction of the towers at 10 seconds (The 9/11 Commission Report) and 9 and 11 seconds (NIST). Unless 9, 10 and 11 seconds are equal or greater time than 12.5 seconds, the towers were destroyed at a rate faster than free fall in air! What about this is unscientific? What about this do you not understand?
I have expressed frustration because I am stunned that you would question this result. Since Judy Wood offered her series of elegant billiard ball proofs, I assumed you understood them. Have either of you studied her work? I highly recommend it. I presumed persons of your education and intellect would grasp what I take to be one of the most important proofs the official account cannot possibly be wrong, because it contradicts laws of physics that are inviolable

Quoting Fred Burks <fredburks@earthlink.net>:

> Alex,
>
> I don't understand why you continue to debate when Jim clearly is not
> willing to present a scientific basis for what he is presenting. I
> appreciate your trying to persuade him, but doubt that you will have
> much luck when he is not willing to use reason. You take care.
>
> With best wishes,
> Fred
>
>
> Deeply committed to what's best for all of us and to personal & global
> transformation through love & empowerment.
>
> Explore these empowering websites managed by Fred and the PEERS team:
> http://www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
> http://www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major
> cover-ups http://www.inspiringcommunity.org - Building a Global
> Community for All http://www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of
> Love that interconnects us all Educational websites promoting
> transformation through information and inspiration
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>
> To: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
> Cc: "Fred Burks" <fredburks@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Jim, on falling pianos
>
>
> Jim, for the sake of the greater good I will ignore you patronizing
> language.
>
> The Towers could have fallen at free-fall speed if all of the
> supports (i.e. steel cores, etc.) were demolished using explosives.
>
> This does not mean that they fell at GREATER than free fall speed.
>
> Alex.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > To: "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>
> > Subject: Re: Jim, on falling pianos
> > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:58:46 -0600
> >
> >
> > Am I dealing with morons? The 9/11 Commission Report, on page 305,
> > states
> the
> > South Tower "collapsed" in ten seconds. The NIST has said they came
> > down in 11 and 9 seconds. Don't you get it? THESE ARE THE
> > GOVENMENT'S OWN FIGURES. It is physically impossible for 110 story
> > buildings to collapse in that time,
> unless
> > they were in a vacuum. And that would imply NOTHING BETWEEN THEIR
> > TOPS AND THE GROUND TO RESIST THEIR FALL, which violates the law of
> > conservation of momentum.
> > What do you think--they set up gigantic Bell jars to such the air
> > away from the towers? No? Then they fell in air and the speed of
> > objects in free fall, such as billiard balls, bowling balls, and
> > grand pianos matters. I infer that
> your
> > competence to address these questions is even more limited than your
> > ability as an attorney to represent my position accurately. I am
> > very disappointed in you, Alex. You appear to be out of your depth
> > in every respect. This is
> stunning.
> >
> > Quoting "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>:
> >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > If you point out ONE statement by ANY scientist other than Judy
> > > who
> says
> > > that the towers fell faster than freefall speed*, or that the
> destruction was
> > > greater than thermite/thermate (especially the NANO forms which
> > > Steve
> has
> > > written about), then I will reconsider.
> > >
> > > * BTW, the EXPLOSIONS might have occurred faster than freefall
> > > speed,
> but the
> > > BUILDINGS did not fall faster than freefall. In other words,
> > > explosions
> can
> > > be spaced 1000 feet apart and go off simultaneously, which is
> > > faster
> than
> > > freefall.
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > > > To: "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Jim, on falling pianos
> > > > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:43:14 -0600
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am sick of the gross misrepresentations. All I have ever said
> > > > is
> that
> > > this
> > > > cannot have been done as the official account claims nor by the
> > > > use of
> > > ther-
> > > > mate/thermite. It required a vastly greater source of energy,
> > > > whered
> mini-
> > > > nukes, directed energy, and HAARP weaponry all DESERVE CONSIDERATION.
> As
> > > > for free fall, Fred is tell me that a piece of paper would fall
> > > > as
> fast if
> > > > it were open rather than crumpled up! I'm sorry but I'm just
> > > > not
> > > impressed.
> > > > So far as I can see, neither of you has understood the argument
> > > > that
> > > relates
> > > > speed of destruction to the use of forces beyond gavity! That
> > > > is
> > > appalling.
> > > >
> > > > Quoting "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Jim and Fred,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to be real clear. I am convinced that scalar weapons EXIST.
> As
> > > just
> > > > > one example, in my essay "Global Warming: Cold Facts or Hot
> Air?" --