If you see fewer posts. . .

it's because I don't post much anymore. This may change at any time. But PLEASE feel free to look through our Flickr stream (over on the right), which is updated almost every day.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Who is Jim Fetzer

For anyone who has read my rants on 9-11 you know that I make frequent reference to a man named Jim Fetzer, a UMD professor. For anyone questioning the research and cognitive abilities of this man, I offer the following. Fetzer's analysis of one page of Gerald Posner's book Case Closed which basically was a book saying that Oswald shot JFK by himself.

vs

From the article:

Fallacy # 7: page 104, lines 24 to 27:

Posner: "The Carcano's bullets, 6.5 millimeter shells, are 30 to 50 percent heavier than the average bullet of that diameter, and travel with the same velocity, 2,100 feet per second, as the Russian AK-47 assault rifle."

This combines an appeal to popular sentiments with a faulty analogy. The Russian AK-47 is a familiar sounding weapon that is widely believed to be an excellent assault rifle. Thus, if the Mannlicher-Carcano fires projectiles with the same velocity as the AK-47, it must be an excellent weapon too. That is the appeal to popular sentiments. An assault rifle is designed to put out a large number of rounds in a short space of time, however, and would be a hopeless choice for an assassination from the sixth floor of a warehouse or an office building. Notice that, if the analogy were carried through more exactly-if the Mannlicher-Carcano fires projectiles with the same velocity as the AK-47, it must be an excellent assault rifle-then it falls apart. He might as well contend that various quality weapons have barrels of similar length as the Mannlicher-Carcano (stocks made of material similar to that of the Mannlicher-Carcano, etc.), but they would all be roughly on a par in their argumentative force: plausible but misleading.

Again, shows that Fetzer is not the nut job that some websites make him out to be. He is a very thoughtful person who looks in-depth at things and makes logical connections to support his point of view. All we should ask is that those advancing their own beliefs make statements which are just as plausible.

For example: The fact that the World Trade Center building fell pancaked at free fall speeds, crushing the undamaged structural steel and concrete supports, is hard to believe. Especially give the fact that UL labs had certified the structural steel used in the building to be able to withstand 2000 degrees Farenheit, that kerosene-based fuel burns at a maximum of ~ 1400-1500 degrees, and that the smoke from the fires was dark (indicating it was oxygen-starved and therefore not as hot as it could have been), and that the building which had been burning for the shortest amount of time collapsed first. Also interesting is the fact that the company which was used to transport all of the debris from the World Trade Center was Controlled Demolition.

Simply put: What is not possible cannot happen.

I will continue reading Jim Fetzer.

3 comments:

Pete 8/14/2006 12:49:00 AM  

Kurt, Are you nuts?

Check out the official accident report from the NTSB at
//www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

The report confirms what I have seen many times as an instructor. These 2 clowns should never have been in the same aircraft. Timid and timider! Fly the goddamned airplane. Neither one could do that.

As far as the WTC watch this NOVA episode

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Kurt Schroeder 8/14/2006 09:58:00 AM  

Pete, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that you do not think that Wellstone was assassinated, and that the NTSB report answers all the questions, I would say I'm not sure about that, as one of the NTSB members who signed the report has admitted that the NTSB doesn't know what caused the plane to crash. The crash does seem highly suspicious. A friend of mine, also named Pete, was one of the pilots's instructors in North Dakota. He remembers that the co-pilot seemed to be fine, but not stellar. I'd have to ask him about it again, but people change. I have flown a plane before, and after only an hour of flight time, I don't think that flying is that hard. Landing and navigating is tricky, but personally, I find it hard to believe that someone with more than a few hundred hours of flight time would crash like this without either: A) serious engine failure; or B) trying to. I could be wrong. Even so, the lack of any distress call and the behaviour of the government agents that day don;t make a lot of sense.

As for the Nova episode, I will have to watch it. Have you seen the Nova episode where they were unable to recreate the structural failure of the WTC w/o removing all of the steel supports from the simulation?

So many things about 9-11 are unexplained. You sound like you are a pilot. What has been your experience with cell phone calls like the ones made from the flights on 9-11? Are those kind of calls possible at those altitudes and speeds?

I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Kurt Schroeder 8/14/2006 11:44:00 AM  

Pete turned out to be my friend Pete. Hi Pete.