- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Truth seekers, not Bush bashers

“9/11 Bush bashers” by Jon Moseley (WND, Aug. 16), alas, is reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the Twin Towers were in fact destroyed.

Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley posts.

On Aug. 15, 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On Aug. 1, 2006, 22. July 23, 2006, there were 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately after any response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advanced serious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite of that, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.

In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot have come down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, “blow out the first and second floors, so that the building falls down into its own footprint.”

This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley’s definition is applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear to have been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they were blown 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 a logical blunder by maintaining that, because different “conspiracy theories” are not consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inference that follows is that they cannot all be true! You don’t have to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to have noticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time, but he still chose to repeat it in the article WND published Wednesday.

His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an e-mail asking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offered my own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculating that he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident of Brooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believes that he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it! I was commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts – and it fits to a tee.

In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseley claims that, during the L.A. American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted that there is no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals. This is false and misrepresents his position, which is that only constitutionally prescribed remedies, such as impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous character of Moseley’s gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone can confirm this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived on st911.org.

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members have established more than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the government’s account – in one or another of its guises – cannot possibly be correct. Here is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about 9/11:

  1. 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.

  2. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees 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 degrees for at least six 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.

  4. 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.

  5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

  6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

  7. 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 can only occur with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

  8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds – which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result 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 two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the 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 the plane-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 p.m. 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, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

  12. 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, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  13. 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 means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government’s official scenario.

There are more facts, 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 is archived at st911.org. No matter what Moseley may write, our objective is seeking truth, not bashing Bush.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., is founder and co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.