Saturday, September 15, 2007

REBUTTAL TO JAMES FETZER

LITMUS TEST FOR RATIONAILTY?
REBUTTAL TO JAMES FETZER
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 27 2007
last updated September 15 2007


A new press release boosting Pilots for 9/11 Truth as “driv[ing] another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission” was just released by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (the Fetzer wing). Co-founder of the recently-divided organization James Fetzer in fact seems to have written up the release, titled “New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.” It was released on June 21 and picked up by Yahoo news, apparently a bit of an achievement, and has been widely republished since then. It demands a firm, well thought out response from my end, and hence the slight delay in publishing this (and the later edits and updates).

As the public decree explains, the Pilots had petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act to receive data from the Black Box (FDR) of Flight 77. Their study of the data, Fetzer announced, “has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.” [1] I'm not sure "report" is quite the right word; it's "signed by fifteen professional pilots," so it seems to be their three-month-old March 26 Press Release, which summarized all their AA77 FDR findings. Fetzer sums their points: “the plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor.” So it's not terribly “new,” and what’s even older is the tired list of hollow no-planer reasoning that is his group’s bolstered previous argument.

"We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building,” he explained, all flawed, well-explained or seriously questioned elsewhere, and too boring to bother re-hashing in detail here; but briefly, 1) the too small hole and “the wrong […] kind and quantity of debris,” 2) the CCTV video that shows something smaller than a 757 he thinks, 3) ground effect, and 4) the unmarked lawn. These four tracks of reasoning prove to Fetzer, “conclusively, in my judgment - that no Boeing 757 hit the building.” Noting the eyewitness accounts of an AA 757 that flew by that way as the “most important evidence to the contrary,” he found that “if the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon." [2] Just like others have been theorizing lately. How nicely it all falls together… and the Pilots don’t even have to offer a theory themselves.

Anyway… he wrote the piece with the cooperation of Rob Balsamo (John Doe X, co-founder of Pilots for 911 Truth), who explained elsewhere “Jim Fetzer and myself worked on this together.” Yet the final PR contained a major blunder… Fetzer stated that the Pilots “not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.” [3] What on Earth does that mean? I haven't seen this other animation yet, and had just been in a wrangle with Balsamo for hinting at just that possibility, contrary to their claims. Balsamo had to scramble to clarify their group “did not create the animation, which we included in "Pandora's Back Box". The NTSB provided the animation based upon its own data and spread spread sheets which can be found at our site/forums.” [4]
--
update 8/11: Recently Pilots for Truth did release an animation based on the black box data. It's pretty interesting and well done. Viewable here. Perhaps this is what Fetzer was talking about?
update 9/15: As Rob has pointed out to me, the crossed-out statement above is wrong - based on a misreading. Aplogies to have miseld with this sloppiness. They worked together on the corrections, as is obvious when I look back. In pennance, a gratis link to his unfiltered words.
--
Otherwise Fetzer carefully quotes Balasamo’s vague copy-and-paste master take on their findings: "the information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." While it’s more tame than what Fetzer says, he’s not so much putting words in Balsamo’s mouth as – well, here’s another careful quote:

“Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory.

While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on the basis of the NTSB's own data factually contradicts the official account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon--if trends are continued beyond end of data records--and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the building based upon that data.”
[5]

In other words, they have only discovered and relayed factual government data that supports the inference that the plane would not have hit. They didn’t say it didn’t hit. They let Fetzer say it for them.

“Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer warned, and by which I’m not sure what he means. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order,” and proposed this fake plane debris “might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." [6] Might be…

The most famous such scrap, photographed by Mark Faram, Fetzer admits “is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence,” by, for example, James Hanson of Ohio. Fetzer explains in his PR that Hanson “has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995.” Check out what this genius Hanson uses for evidence: a six-year old liana vine still embedded in the Pentagon "fuselage" metal! You have to see it to disbelieve it, so DO NOT click that link if you want to believe Hanson. Fetzer bought it though and was impressed enough with this find to offer to republish Hanson’s study on the Scholars’ site. [7]

Fetzer in one of his frequent Fox News appearances (artsified by me)
One of the deepest ironies revealed in Fetzer’s missive is that "Fetzer [...] retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.” Well, how could one argue with the logical conclusions of a renowned logic expert? I’ll try it caustically. Fact is, what this background of his shows to me is that he knows exactly what he’s doing – elevating a fraud to guiding principle of the “Truth Movement” he claims a leadership role in to arrive at the “truth.” In the end, from all this Fetzer was able to use his deep knowledge of ctical thinking and scientific deduction (as well, of course, as years learning all of their opposites – the arts of sophistry, quackery, and deception) to deduce an argument finally totally inverse to my own growing suspicions:

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

I am quite familiar with the evidence, and I invite anyone to check my reasoning for soundness of judgment. That’s what this site’s about: “the hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the no-757 at the Pentagon theory." It almost feels with this salvo like Fetzer the mental “muscle hijacker” is letting us know the pilots have the cockpit; he tells us never mind the doubters, move to the back of the plane. No need to investigate for yourselves, we have it all figured out. We are returning to the airport. We just need to agree on this and move on.

But what if the Pilots intend to crash this plane? It’s happened before. That's not even a box cutter Fetzer's holding, people. It's a carbdoard prop. We can take this plane back. Let's Roll.

Sources:
[1], [2], [3], [6], [7] Fetzer, James/Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.” June 21 2007.
Trackback URL: http://prweb.com/pingpr.php/Q291cC1NYWduLVRoaXItQ291cC1UaGlyLVplcm8=
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20070621/bs_prweb/prweb534642_1
[4], [5] John Doe X. Official Comment/corrections. Pilots for 9/11 Truth Discussion Board. Posted Jun 23 2007, 12:36 AM. http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=ec3b737719855ae19fc27c1b5a81c7b0&showtopic=7372&st=15&#entry9361808

7 comments:

Arabesque said...

I was so disturbed by Fetzer's press release (that has now been picked up by ABC news), that I had planned to write my own reply to it. You beat me to it, but I will probably still write one.

Fetzer is a deliberate fraudster who promotes the most ridiculous "evidence" and "theories" to distract attention away from the important 9/11 questions. He is a self-proclaimed expert on disinformation who has even written articles about the subject of disinformation.

I've written an article about the tactics of disinformation that has been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies which ironically references the definitions as well as some examples of disinformation by Fetzer himself:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Disinformation;DefinitionsAndExamples.pdf

I've included a few examples of Pentagon disinformation in there of course.

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks for the comments. I thought I was being slow but still I beat you to it. ;) I'm neither shocked nor surprised, after tracking this tenacious meme for almost three years now.

That's cool you were published in the journal - and ironic that a long Fetzer quote opened it. Right at first I see his own clues to disinfo help clue me in on his own disinfo.

"“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true... "

Then a week ago: "The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

Too strong to be true by a long shot. I'd hesitate to flip the statement completely inverse (it's beyond reasonable doubt a 757 DID hit), but I think that's closer to true by several degrees than what he's saying. Whaddyou think? Does it matter?

Anyway, thanks for being out here with me. I hope simply bein right for long enough and making the case might just turn this misinfo/disinfo trend around.

Which reminds me - I like what you said about fighting mis and disinfo regardless. In fact, since dis is a subset of mis (purposefully and strategically incorrect), and true motives are of course impossible to prove, I agree we need to simply tackle and counter misinfo. As we have. And those that persist after they should know better, well motives can't be proven, but they can be illustrated, and that's a clue... Like Fetzer - he's had this long to learn, he's a smart man, and here he is. Time's up. FRAUD.

MOD said...

Great article! The only problem with people who otherwise have great credentials in their field, is proving they are wrong.

If it overflew, where did it go? Where are the ATC tapes?

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks MOD - (Mirage of Deceit?)

The only things I regret here are:
1) not explaining the Pilots' take better - their use of the "FDR data" is selective.
2) Taking Fetzer as seriously as I did. I don't really keep up with all this, but I guess he's a proponent of both Woods' space laser demo theory and Haupt's no-WTC-plane "TV fakery" theory. So in an odd enough twist of fate, this is the one case it seems where he's willing to admit a plane was involved (??) if tagentially. Perhaps this is a sign he's coming around? Whatever, no time to wait.

Arabesque said...

I referenced your reply to Fetzer:

Fetzer proves no 757 at the Pentagon with... 6 year old Liana Vines?

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/fetzer-proves-no-757-at-pentagon-with-6.html

Be sure to listen to the Fetzer mp3 at the bottom of the post--if anything else you'll get a laugh out of it.

Caustic Logic said...

Sweet! Apologies for the delayed response, but I'm honored. :D
No time to listen to the clown in voce right now... lotta catching up to do, but thanks for adding that interview to my attention.

Anonymous said...

Jim Fetzer is a disinformation specialist and he has a gig with the US government.
Poor Jim's getting old and fat and as a professional liar he just had to lay his hands on a secure future,
Anybody can see he's a liar.