911 - Prof. Fetzer letter in support of Dr. Steven Jones
Fri Oct 6, 2006 14:21

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 911 - Prof. Fetzer letter in support of Dr. Steven Jones
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:34:01 -0700
From: Kent <911cd@cox.net >
To: kent knudson <911cd@cox.net >


To BYU President Cecil Samuelson:
On behalf of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
13 September 2006
Cecil Samuelson
President, BYU
Provo, Utah

Dear President Samuelson,

As the founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org), I
want to write in support of Steven Jones, whom I invited to become my
co-chair when I founded Scholars in December 2005. In the brief span
of time since, the society has made a tremendous impact with the
public relative to 9/11. We are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and
revealing truths and have more than 300 members divided into four
categories, including civil engineers, mechanical engineers,
aeronautical engineers, pilots, and other experts.

We have discovered that virtually everything the government has told
the American people about 9/11 is not only false but provably false.
Learning from the efforts of those who have gone before, we have
conducted our own research and have discovered that the official
account is not only provably false but, in major respects, implies
the violation of laws of physics and engineering that are inviolable
and unchangeable. This means what we have been told is fine as long
as you are willing to believe impossible things:

The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring
the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand
them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the
planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to
withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with
negligible effects.

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than
the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not
exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions. UL estimated that the actual
fires averaged only around 500*F, so the fires cannot have caused the
steel to melt and melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least
three to four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where
these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the
South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the
steel to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have
displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical
sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the
complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with
more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake
collapse”, which could occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings,
such as the Twin Towers, only if every supporting column were removed
simultaneously, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has
pointed out to me.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in
9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would
have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood, a mechanical
engineer, a civil engineer, and a materials science expert, has
emphasized, an astounding result that would have been impossible
without extremely powerful explosives.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground,
where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Wood has likened to
two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like
the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot
possibly explain.

Massive 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 the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake-collapse scenario,
which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET
after Larry 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 the floors are all falling at the same time,
and so forth.

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton
airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet
above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a
Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage,
and no tail! Which strongly suggests that the building was not hit by
a Boeing 757.

The Pentagon’s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the
building, 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 Pentagon is high and should have been present and
visible; it was not, which reinforces the conclusion that the
building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--
flying at 530 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible;
and if it had come it at an angle instead, that would have created a
massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no
alternative explanation, which means that what we have been told
cannot possibly be correct.

If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been
a debris field of about a city block in size, as a former Air Force
Inspector General has told me; but in fact the debris is distributed
over an area of around eight square miles, which would be explainable
if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed
as claimed.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including
that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not
on any passenger manifest; 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. The evidence may be found at
st911.org. What this means is that the official account the
government has presented cannot possibly be true.

Demonstrating that the official position is false is different than
establishing what actually happened on 9/11, especially since the
government continues to withhold much of the most important evidence
from public inspection. (See our Petition at the top-left of our home
page at st911.org.) That is why Steve’s work, which is dedicated to
establishing what actually happened in Manhattan on 9/11, is
extremely important but also extraordinarily difficult to conduct.

We believe that discovering how and why the victims of 9/11 lost
their lives is the highest form of repect that they could possibly be
paid. To ignore what we have found and casually accept the
government’s account, when we know that it is indefensible, would be
grossly disrespectful. As a former Marine Corps officer, I consider
my obligations to my country to take precendence over support for an
administration that has been lying to the American people, not only
about the reasons for going to war but on other major issues.

I imagine you are aware that President Bush recently acknowledged in
response to a question at a press conference that Saddam Hussein had
“nothing to do” with the events of 9/11. You may also know that a
Senate Intelligence Committee Report, releases just this past Friday,
observed that there had been no links between Saddam and Osama. But
do you also know that, two months ago, our FBI admitted it had “no
hard evidence” relating Osama to the events of 9/11? If neither
Saddam nor Osama was responsible for 9/11, who carried out the attacks?

This means that the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from
scratch. I must tell you that I am not alone in following the
evidence where it leads and drawing the tentative and fallible
inference that some of our highest officials, including Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, General Richard Myers, Paul
Wolfowitz, Rudy Guliani, and Larry Silverstein have to have been
involved. There is not only massive circumstantial evidence but even
some that is direct.

Because of his understanding of BYU’s preferences, Steve has largely
avoided public appearances, the vast majority of which have fallen to
me. He is not used to being badgered by talk hosts or having his
words “spun” to create the impression that he said something he did
not say. This host would have been unable to abuse me. Because of
differences in our character, background, and personality, I would
have been far more aggressive in thwarting his behavior.

Which leads me to the crucial point. Steve Jones is a very fine,
conservative, upright, and honorable man. He is a very gentle and
kind human being, someone whom I greatly admire and would emulate if
only I could. He certainly does not have a racist bone in his body.
If you consider my list of principal suspects, observe just how easy
it would be to pick and choose and make the case that I was biased
against blacks, women, or Jews, when the reality is that, like Steve,
I am biased against the killers and traitors who are subverting our
way of life.

Respectfully,
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.st911.org
 

Main Page - Thursday, 10/10/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)