Letter in Support of Dr. Steven Jones

[ianrcrane]

To BYU President Cecil Samuelson:
On behalf of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
13 September 2006
Cecil Samuelson
President, BYU
Provo, Utah

Dear President Samuelson,

As the founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org), I want to write in support of Steven Jones, whom I invited to become my co-chair when I founded Scholars in December 2005. In the brief span of time since, the society has made a tremendous impact with the public relative to 9/11. We are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths and have more than 300 members divided into four categories, including civil engineers, mechanical engineers, aeronautical engineers, pilots, and other experts.

We have discovered that virtually everything the government has told the American people about 9/11 is not only false but provably false.
Learning from the efforts of those who have gone before, we have conducted our own research and have discovered that the official account is not only provably false but, in major respects, implies the violation of laws of physics and engineering that are inviolable and unchangeable. This means what we have been told is fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things:

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.

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions. UL estimated that the actual fires averaged only around 500*F, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt and melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least three to four 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.

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.

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 could occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the Twin Towers, only if every supporting column were removed simultaneously, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has pointed out to me.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in
9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, a civil engineer, and a materials science expert, has emphasized, an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that 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.

Massive 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.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET 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.

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, and no tail! Which strongly suggests that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

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 reinforces the conclusion that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory-- flying at 530 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, that would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no alternative explanation, which means that what we have been told cannot possibly be correct.

If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, as a former Air Force Inspector General has told me; but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of around eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as claimed.

There are more, 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 may be found at st911.org. What this means is that the official account the government has presented cannot possibly be true.

Demonstrating that the official position is false is different than establishing what actually happened on 9/11, especially since the government continues to withhold much of the most important evidence from public inspection. (See our Petition at the top-left of our home page at st911.org.) That is why Steve’s work, which is dedicated to establishing what actually happened in Manhattan on 9/11, is extremely important but also extraordinarily difficult to conduct.

We believe that discovering how and why the victims of 9/11 lost their lives is the highest form of repect that they could possibly be paid. To ignore what we have found and casually accept the government’s account, when we know that it is indefensible, would be grossly disrespectful. As a former Marine Corps officer, I consider my obligations to my country to take precendence over support for an administration that has been lying to the American people, not only about the reasons for going to war but on other major issues.

I imagine you are aware that President Bush recently acknowledged in response to a question at a press conference that Saddam Hussein had “nothing to do” with the events of 9/11. You may also know that a Senate Intelligence Committee Report, releases just this past Friday, observed that there had been no links between Saddam and Osama. But do you also know that, two months ago, our FBI admitted it had “no hard evidence” relating Osama to the events of 9/11? If neither Saddam nor Osama was responsible for 9/11, who carried out the attacks?

This means that the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from scratch. I must tell you that I am not alone in following the evidence where it leads and drawing the tentative and fallible inference that some of our highest officials, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, General Richard Myers, Paul Wolfowitz, Rudy Guliani, and Larry Silverstein have to have been involved. There is not only massive circumstantial evidence but even some that is direct.

Because of his understanding of BYU’s preferences, Steve has largely avoided public appearances, the vast majority of which have fallen to me. He is not used to being badgered by talk hosts or having his words “spun” to create the impression that he said something he did not say. This host would have been unable to abuse me. Because of differences in our character, background, and personality, I would have been far more aggressive in thwarting his behavior.

Which leads me to the crucial point. Steve Jones is a very fine, conservative, upright, and honorable man. He is a very gentle and kind human being, someone whom I greatly admire and would emulate if only I could. He certainly does not have a racist bone in his body.
If you consider my list of principal suspects, observe just how easy it would be to pick and choose and make the case that I was biased against blacks, women, or Jews, when the reality is that, like Steve, I am biased against the killers and traitors who are subverting our way of life.

Respectfully,
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.st911.org

[iro]

great letter - somehow i hope it works but knowing the way these things are set up (he did breach the uni's policy techincally....) i think prof jones may be looking for alternate employment soon.

i signed the petition twice (once on behalf of my mother) and i hope it turns out well despite the omens

[chek]