James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support
other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11
A University of Minnesota philosophy professor, like an unexpected Christmas
snowstorm, has dropped a large bundle of holiday cheer on the 9/11 truth movement,
as this week he has thrown his hat into the ring with others seeking the truth.
“I stand with Steve Jones, professor of physics at BYU and David Ray
Griffin, professor emeritus of Theology at Claremont and other students and
scholars of 9/11, who believe that extraordinary times require extraordinary
measures,” said James H. Fetzer, PhD., a distinguished McNight University
professor at the University of Minnesota at Duluth.
Professor Fetzer now becomes another in a long list of academicians, including
Jones and Griffin, who have cast severe doubt on the credibility of the government’s
official 9/11 story, calling for a renewed debate and independent investigation
to get at the truth.
Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and reviews as well as 20 books
in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer
science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.
According to his biography on this web page, his publications have been divided
by area, including special vitae for computer science, artificial intelligence,
cognitive science, evolution and cognition, and his applied philosophical research
on the death of JFK.
Fetzer, who just entered the public 9/11 arena this week, agreed to appear
next Monday on Greg Szymanski’s nationwide radio show, the Investigative
Journal, on the Republic Broadcasting Network at www.rbnlive.com
to explain why he has joined in the 9/11 truth fight.
As expected, a philosophy professor digs deep into the heart of the matter,
dissecting words and meanings Before talking about specific evidence, Fetzer
provides this illuminating discussion on “conspiracy theories,”
relating to 9/11 in a recent paper he wrote called “Thinking About Conspiracy
Theories: 9/11 and JFK.”
“One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration
between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus
obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory,” wrote Fetzer.
“When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates
key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a ‘conspiracy
theory’, too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative
accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy
theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as
a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes,
which of two ‘conspiracy theories’ is more defensible?”
After setting the record straight on conspiracy theories, Fetzer in his paper
delves into an analysis of the 9/11 evidence, saying that the controlled demolition
of the WTC must be taken seriously.
“Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise building
has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil engineering, either before
or after 9/11,” wrote Fetzer. “If we assume that those fires have
occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a broad range of conditions, that
evidence suggests that these buildings do not have a propensity to collapsed
as an effect of fire. That makes an alternative explanation, especially the
use of powerful explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must
be taken seriously.”
Besides the WTC, Fetzer also provides a detailed analysis of the Pentagon crash,
questioning as many before him, “What Really Happened?”
In his paper, he states:
“If a small fighter jet rather than a Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon,
that would tend to explain the small impact point, the lack of massive external
debris, and a hole in the inner ring of the building, which the fragile nose
of a Boeing 757 could not have created.
“It would also suggest why parts of a plane were carried off by servicemen,
since they might have made the identification of the aircraft by type apparent
and falsified the official account. A small fighter also accommodates the report
from Danielle O'Brien, an air traffic controller, who said of the aircraft that
hit, "Its speed, maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought
in the radar room—all of us experienced air traffic controllers—that
it was a military plane.”
In concluding his academic look at 9/11, Fetzer boldly asks Americans to Endeavour
to seek the truth in every possible way, suggesting the “government-dominated”
mass media has presented one of the biggest obstacles.
“Which raises the question, who had the power to make these things happen
and to cover it up,” asks Fetzer. “Once the evidence has been sorted
out and appropriately appraised, the answer is no longer very difficult to find.
Like the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11 required involvement at the
highest levels of the American government.
“This conclusion, moreover, receives confirmation from the conduct of
our highest elected officials, who took extraordinary steps to prevent any formal
investigation of 9/11 and, when it was forced upon them by tremendous political
pressure, especially from the survivors of victims of these crimes, they did
whatever they could to subvert them. There are good reasons for viewing The
9/11 Commission Report (2004) as the historical successor to and functional
equivalent of The Warren Report (1964).
“I therefore believe that those of us who care about the truth and the
restoration of responsible government in the United States have an obligation
to make use of every possible media venue from talk radio and the internet to
newspapers and television whenever possible. The American people can act wisely
only when they know the truth.
“So, while the truth is said to "make us free", the truth only
matters when the American people are able to discover what is true. Obstacles
here that are posed by the government-dominated mass media, including the use
of stooge "reporters" and of prepackaged "news releases",
only make matters that much more difficult. As John Dean asks in Worse than
Watergate (2004), if there has ever been an administration more prone to deceiving
the American people in our history, which one could it be?”