JAMES FETZER PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST

JAMES FETZER PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST

A Dedicated Researcher for Truth or Shyster and Conman?

James Fetzer’s logic is so twisted and ludicrous that it could go without mention, but for the fact that it has such legs on the Internet. As a PR agent and salesman for “Conspiracy Theory” he has a substantial following of the not-so-bright. It is a testament to the ‘Dumbing Down of America’, that such a charlatan as Fetzer should have such a following – but also that he himself is a ‘Professor Emeritus’ at a prestigious university, and his field is no less than ‘the history and philosophy of science’…and he ‘teaches’ classes in ‘logic’ of all things. This can only take place in a paradigm of Kafkaesque absurdity.

Fetzer was finally caught out in his lunacy on the blog, ‘Truth and Shadows’, where he made the claim that an inert object, a building, would have the quality of ‘vector’__this after bleating about Newtonian Physics for months there. He has no more grasp of Newton than the average six year old. I will not go into his ‘argument’ for the no-planes theory further in this essay, but I will surely do so in the commentary section that will follow after this is posted.

LITTLE BIRD MEETS BIG JET PLANE: A Fetzer Fable

This is a tale told by James Fetzer to buttress his mass-ratio assertions to the plane impacts on the WTC towers. As many of those arguments, he does not argue to mass-ratio, but rather to crash dynamics and comparative materials strength. And he seems not to recognize this himself, as I have queried him on this myself extensively.

Nevertheless the ‘Bird and Plane’ story is another instance of arguing material strengths and crash dynamics. However in this story he defeats his own mass ratio argument he plays to the crash into the towers. This story is actually an allegory to the building hitting a stationary plane; same dynamics: huge mass hitting tiny mass.

First, ‘Comparative Materials Strengths:

What do you suppose the tensile strength of a bird’s skull is? We are talking bone, at most two millimeters thick. The skull of even large birds can be crushed by a strong mans hand. The structural strength of the bones of the rest of the bird is even less than the skull. So in all, the structural strength of the entire bird is very small, birds are very frail in this regard. Now we go back to the airplane strikes bird story: How is it possible that a bird of such frail structure, and a mass thousands of times less than the airplane, is capable of penetrating metal that is stronger than industrial steel?

Mass-Ratio v Crash Physics:

It is possible and has happened hasn’t it? Yes, and it has to do with speed, momentum and kinetics. Just like the impact of the jet into the towers – speed and kinetics and crash physics – not mass ratios; For what would you suppose is the mass ratio of our little bird and a 140 ton airplane? That mass-ratio would be just about 400,000 to 1. And the material strength ratio is literally inconsequential when one is comparing the crash physics of two metal objects to flesh, blood, and bones against metal.
* * * * * * * *

“Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage are the core of a limited hang-out designed to contain the breadth and depth of 9/11 research.”~Jim Fetzer

Imagine that, piss calling the lemonade yellow. Fetzer and the clowns at Veterans Today are the worst moles of the 9/11 movement. I have issues with Ryan’s views on the Pentagon, but as far as this bullshit from Uncle Fetzer … Lol Fuck the pretender and his “no planes” “holograms” “nukes” and “DEW”; the worst disinformation on 9/11 there is!

. . . . . . . .

Important Note: Anything I have to say here about the subject is purely my own personal opinion based upon my own encounters with him, and reading his various tales at the places on the web that he frequents.

~Willy Whitten  –  \\][//