Thursday, August 17, 2006


9/11 Truth Scholars Jones and Fetzer Respond to World Net Daily Hit Piece
B.Y.U. Professor Steven Jones Says He Was Misquoted
Steven Jones August 17, 2006

Quote from Moseley's "9/11 Bush Bashers":At a national conference broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, key conspiracy leader Alex Jones announced that the American government has already collapsed and a shadow government is now running our country. This radio talk-show host next announced – on tape – that Osama bin Laden is now a paid agent of the CIA.
Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government.

Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast. I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL.
I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare.
Please find out who to write to, to protest these untrue statements, so that after my meeting I will be able to respond. If you would respond in my behalf, I would deeply appreciate that. These lies need to be challenged, for anyone can listen to CSPAN and determine that I did not make the alleged comments.

9/11 Truth Scholar Jim Fetzer Responds Point-By-Point to Moseley's 'Reprehensible' Article
Truth Seekers, not Bush Bashers:Why doubt 9/11?

RECENT 9/11 NEWS__________World Net Daily Seeks to Level 9/11 Truth to 'Bush Bashing'
9/11 Hit Pieces Get Just Plain Stupid (Part 1)
Norwegian coverage of 9/11 Conspiracy films
'Fakes on a Plane' looks at 'Conspiracy' WTC films
Oliver Stone "Indicted" as a Conspirator; Alex Jones defends portrayal of heroes
Hope for 9/11 truth...the guilty beginning to crack
Jason Bermas of Loose Change on MSNBC
9-11 panel heads say Rudy got off easy
9/11 Chairman Kean says what NORAD told them, "Was so far from the truth"
9/11 and more at
Jim Fetzer/ August 17, 2006

"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas, isreprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses languageand logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparenteffort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientificfindings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicistfrom BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in factdestroyed.
Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks uponmembers of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseleyposts. On 15 August 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On 1 August 2006, 22.
23 July 2006, 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately afterany response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advancedserious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite ofthat, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.
In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot havecome down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, "blow outthe first and second floors, so that he building falls down into its ownfootprint".

This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley's definitionis applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear tohave been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they wereblown up from the top down. I explained that to him then, but it was to no avail.
That post revealed the abuse of language. In another, he committed alogical blunder by maintaining that, because different "conspiracy theories" are not consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inferencethat follows is that they cannot all be true! You don't have to have taughtlogic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to havenoticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time, but he still choose to repeat it in the article WND published on 16 August 2006.
His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an emailasking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offeredmy own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculatingthat he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident ofBrooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believesthat he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it! Iwas commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts--and it fits to atee.

In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseleyclaims that, during the LA American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted "thereis no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals". This is false andmisrepresents his position, which is that only Constitutionally prescribed remedies, suchas impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous characterof Moseley's gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone canconfirm this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived
Although he would not identify himself to me, Moseley now tells us that heis "executive director of the U.S. Seaports Commission". A friend of minewho's active in Wisconsin politics has told me that this means he is a "politicalhack". I don't know what to say about that, but it is apparent that hisposts in these exchanges and his article in WND are intended to mislead the unwaryconcerning the state of objective, scientific knowledge of the events of 9/11.
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (, I would observe thatour members have established more than a dozen disproves of the officialgovernment account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that thegovernment's account--in one or another of its guises--cannot possibly be correct. Hereis an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about9/11:

(1) the impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring thebuildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (asFrank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were verysimilar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued tostand after those impacts with negligible effects;
(2) the melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than themaximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt,which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down;
(3) UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at leastsix hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burnedtoo low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half inthe North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt;
(4) if the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would havedisplayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging andtilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt,and total demolition that was observed;
(5) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor tobring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planesand the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which meansthat, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, thatcould not have caused lower floors to fall;
(6) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor tobring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planesand the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floorto collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond anythat the government has considered;
(7) heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with morethan 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse",which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction andcould not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unlessevery supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelowhas pointed out to me;
(8) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have takenat least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astoundingresult that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives;
(9) the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground,where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to twogigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization ofthe concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain;
(10) pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four,and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by theplane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course,implies that it was not produced by such a cause;
(11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET afterLarry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it",displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions,including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where thefloors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing tothe official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSIONREPORT;
(12) the hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-tonairliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above theground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: nowings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that thebuilding was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(13) the Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting thebuilding, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor";but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagonis high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means thatthe building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(14) the aerodynamics of flight would have made the officialtrajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if ithad come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; butthere is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that thebuilding was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(15) if Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been adebris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris isdistributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would beexplainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed asrequired by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that theywere not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passengermanifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well;the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. Theevidence is archived at No matter what Moseley may write, our objectiveis seeking truth, not bashing Bush.


No comments: