Professor Jim Fetzer Comments on 9-11 Evil

From http://wingtv.net/thorn2006/fetzer911evil.html

Professor Jim Fetzer Comments on 9-11 Evil from WING TV


On October 18, 2006 WING TV interviewed Professor Jim Fetzer of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth where he made the following comments in regard to Victor Thorn's 9-11 Evil:Fetzer: I am very glad to tell you that it seems to me that there is a wealth of information here. I felt I was learning from almost every page. It tends to provide a very substantial case in support of the proposition you have just enumerated, where the key thesis of your book appears on page 70:“9-11 was an intricately planned act of state-sponsored terrorism concocted by a foreign government, Israel, in unison with an ardently loyal faction of neocon crazies who had burrowed their way into the Pentagon, State Department, and White House. Assisting them were a host of defense contractors, computer gurus, and explosives experts who made the whole thing happen on the morning of September 11, 2001.”

Fetzer: Now I think the way you patiently lay out your case, including the ‘Dancing Israelis’ and the Urban Moving Systems and the connections between Larry Silverstein and Benjamin Netanyahou and Ariel Sharon and all of this, is extremely persuasive.Fetzer: I would encourage anyone who wants to take a serious look at the hypothesis that Israel, that the Mossad in particular, played a key role in 9-11 as you’re suggesting, ought to take a good look at this book and that additional support (at st911.org) under the category of Foreign Perspectives. I think I would recommend every serious student of 9-11 needs to read your book, Victor. And let me just explain why, from the point of view of scientific reasoning, I think your book is so important. This, of course, is my principal area of research.

I’ve published 27 books, and a lot of them have been on the theoretical character of scientific knowledge. So, scientific reasoning, in general, is a pattern that falls into four steps or stages. First, there’s puzzlement. You encounter a phenomenon you don’t readily understand, you’re not able to integrate with your background knowledge and beliefs. A puzzlement in this case would arise over the events in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville on 9-11. Then there’s speculation. Speculation is the crucial stage of considering the full range of alternative of possible explanations.

Now, one possible explanation that the government has given us is that the plane impacts plus the jet fuel fires led to the weakening or melting of the steel, which led to a pancake collapse, and the buildings fell. That’s a hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis would be that the buildings actually came down by controlled demolition – not of, in this case with regard to the Twin Towers, of a conventional kind where you’re blowing buildings – blowing them up or bringing them down from the bottom up; but in this case from the top down, for which there’s an enormous amount of evidence. And then of course we have Building 7, which was a conventional kind of controlled demolition, a building blown up from the bottom up. Now, once we establish that the events in New York in particular, and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania do not accord with the government’s account, when you adapt them to the evidence - which is the third stage – you’re taking the alternative hypotheses and adapting them to the available evidence, where the government has been going way out of its way to make sure that we don’t have all the evidence that ought to be available. Just reading through that petition (on ST911.org) you realize how massively the government has withheld evidence. And past the stage of adaptation, once you establish which hypothesis receives strongest support than the alternatives, once the evidence settles down, you’re entitled to accept the preferable hypothesis, albeit in the tentative and fallible fashion characteristic of science, which means if new hypotheses are advanced or new evidence becomes available or you discover some of your old evidence really turned out to be fabricated, faked and has to be jettisoned, then you can revise the situation based on logic and the new body of evidence.

Fetzer: Now, what’s crucial about your book, there’s been an utter failure to take very seriously the hypothesis that when it comes to those who were involved in bringing about the events of 9-11, that the Mossad or the Israeli government could have had a key role to play. And that seems to me to be extremely important and very well investigated in your book. So when I recommend your book, it’s not that I’m saying I think everyone should believe everything you have to say. I have a few questions I would hope to pose to you today, but I am saying this is extremely important in giving what I would call a very nice preliminary outline of evidence that tends to suggest that, even in some cases, strongly supports the hypothesis that the Mossad and the Israeli government had a very intimate role to play in the events of 9-11. Fetzer: I want to say I’m very proud of you for authoring this book, Victor. I think it’s very, very well done; and even though I wouldn’t imply that it’s the last word, I think you have done some tremendously important work in opening up an area of investigation that we cannot shy away from. If we want to understand the truth, we have to confront the full range of alternatives, and frankly I don’t see how we can have a complete explanation of what happened on 9-11 without taking into account the role of the Israeli government in contributing to bringing about these events. Fetzer: I would encourage everyone with a serious interest in 9-11 to read your book. Your book is mind expanding. It requires you to stretch your intellect to encompass alternatives you might prefer to ignore.