14-03-2010, 05:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 14-03-2010, 06:02 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
Adrian,
If you are only going to believe in those who agree with you about every
controversial issue of our time, such as JFK, moon landings, and 9/11, you
are not challenging yourself to think these things through based on logic and
the evidence. I am sure you have reasons for believing in the moon landings,
but there are many reasons to doubt that they occurred, including extensive
studies that Jack has done of hundreds of Apollo Mission photographs. The
documentaries, including "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon",
"Conspiracy Theory: Did Man Land on the Moon?", and, most recently, "Moon
Movie", advance dozens of reasons why they probably were staged for (what
many may have regarded as worthy) political purposes, given that the USSR
had launched "Sputnik" and appeared to be far ahead of the US in the so-
called "space race". The most convincing proof that we really did go to
the moon, I believe, has been the moon rocks, which geologists confirmed
were of lunar origin. As "Moon Movie" reports, however, Werner van Braun
himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to retrieve moon rocks that had
been dislodged from the moon's surface by the impact of small astroids and
captured by Earth's gravitational field, which brought them to our surface.
The "Conspiracy Theory" film, which is very hard to find, advances a host
of objective, scientific reasons why it is most unlikely that we traveled
there, including the risks of navigating the Van Allen radiation belt in
those virtually tin-foil "space suits", the absence of physical effects in
disturbing the surface of the moon with the lander, the fashion in which
it "lifts off" from the moon as though it were being yanked on a cable,
and a large number of additional reasons that cast the whole matter in
doubt. And please consider ONE SMALL STEP: THE GREAT MOON HOAX
AND THE RACE TO DOMINATE EARTH FROM SPACE (2007) by Gerhand
Wisnewski, an explanatory framework for understanding what happened.
For an introduction to these issues--where I am hoping that you will be
willing to spend a little time on this, in spite of the indication of your
subjective conviction--you might visit my public issues web site, which is
http://assassinationscience.com, and review the five pieces that I have
archived there in the upper left, including a link to "Moon Movie" and
to Jack's Apollo studies, an article from PRAVDA, and some other stuff.
You may or may not have noticed, but NASA recently acknowledged that
it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is
on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film,
perhaps the world's other most precious footage. The material I have
cited, assuming it is authentic, provides ample grounds to falsify the
claims made about these space missions, where I could add much more.
On 9/11, however, the official account is just fine as long as you are
willing to believe impossible things. The 767 shown hitting the South
Tower in videos is flying impossibly fast, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has
confirmed; its interaction with the building violates Newton's laws of
motion; the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the
steel to weaken, much less melt; the buildings do not "collapse" but are
transformed into billions of cubic yards of very fine dust; WTC-7 was
brought down by an obvious classic "controlled demolition"; no 757 hit
the Pentagon; billowing black smoke observed by members of Congress when
they rushed out of the Capitol after the announcement that there was the
possibility that building would be next emanated from a series of huge
dumpsters, which were in front of the building, not from the building
itself. I have given hundreds of interviews about these things, where
some of my most important are found at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.
You might not be willing to invest a lot of time in this research, either,
because your mind about 9/11 may also be closed. If I am wrong and
it is just the least bit ajar, please visit the web site of Scholars for 9/11
Truth, a research society that I founded in December 2005. Take a look at
"Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper left-hand corner for a summary of twenty
or so findings that refute the official account of 9/11. Then turn to the
icon for http://patriotsquestion911.com in the upper right-hand corner,
which will lead to an extensive web site featuring photos, bio-sketches,
and statements from over 1,700 experts in different fields, including a
host of military and intelligence expert, academicians across the board,
pilots and aeronautical experts, architects and engineers, on and on. If
you are still willing to consider evidence, then read Elias Davidsson's
"No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11", David Ray Griffin's
"Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" at GLOBAL RESEARCH and my article,
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", OpEdNews. Then please visit my blog
at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and review "New 9/11 Photos Released",
Jack White's "9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation",
my "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11
an 'Inside Job'?", and "The Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement:
The Media's Response". You may know the site, where I have three blogs
about INSIDE THE ARRB. Since I am confident you aren't going to do any
of this--I'm not even sure that you are going to read this far in this post--
let me boil it down to 20 minutes of effort: read "Why Doubt 9/11?" and
watch "This is an Orange" and "9/11: The Towers of Dust" on YouTube. It
will take less than half-an-hour of your time. Then, at least, you will have
the least idea what is at issue when you dismiss research on this subject.
Make up your own mind, Adrian. But base your reasons on the evidence.
Best wishes,
Jim
If you are only going to believe in those who agree with you about every
controversial issue of our time, such as JFK, moon landings, and 9/11, you
are not challenging yourself to think these things through based on logic and
the evidence. I am sure you have reasons for believing in the moon landings,
but there are many reasons to doubt that they occurred, including extensive
studies that Jack has done of hundreds of Apollo Mission photographs. The
documentaries, including "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon",
"Conspiracy Theory: Did Man Land on the Moon?", and, most recently, "Moon
Movie", advance dozens of reasons why they probably were staged for (what
many may have regarded as worthy) political purposes, given that the USSR
had launched "Sputnik" and appeared to be far ahead of the US in the so-
called "space race". The most convincing proof that we really did go to
the moon, I believe, has been the moon rocks, which geologists confirmed
were of lunar origin. As "Moon Movie" reports, however, Werner van Braun
himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to retrieve moon rocks that had
been dislodged from the moon's surface by the impact of small astroids and
captured by Earth's gravitational field, which brought them to our surface.
The "Conspiracy Theory" film, which is very hard to find, advances a host
of objective, scientific reasons why it is most unlikely that we traveled
there, including the risks of navigating the Van Allen radiation belt in
those virtually tin-foil "space suits", the absence of physical effects in
disturbing the surface of the moon with the lander, the fashion in which
it "lifts off" from the moon as though it were being yanked on a cable,
and a large number of additional reasons that cast the whole matter in
doubt. And please consider ONE SMALL STEP: THE GREAT MOON HOAX
AND THE RACE TO DOMINATE EARTH FROM SPACE (2007) by Gerhand
Wisnewski, an explanatory framework for understanding what happened.
For an introduction to these issues--where I am hoping that you will be
willing to spend a little time on this, in spite of the indication of your
subjective conviction--you might visit my public issues web site, which is
http://assassinationscience.com, and review the five pieces that I have
archived there in the upper left, including a link to "Moon Movie" and
to Jack's Apollo studies, an article from PRAVDA, and some other stuff.
You may or may not have noticed, but NASA recently acknowledged that
it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is
on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film,
perhaps the world's other most precious footage. The material I have
cited, assuming it is authentic, provides ample grounds to falsify the
claims made about these space missions, where I could add much more.
On 9/11, however, the official account is just fine as long as you are
willing to believe impossible things. The 767 shown hitting the South
Tower in videos is flying impossibly fast, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has
confirmed; its interaction with the building violates Newton's laws of
motion; the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the
steel to weaken, much less melt; the buildings do not "collapse" but are
transformed into billions of cubic yards of very fine dust; WTC-7 was
brought down by an obvious classic "controlled demolition"; no 757 hit
the Pentagon; billowing black smoke observed by members of Congress when
they rushed out of the Capitol after the announcement that there was the
possibility that building would be next emanated from a series of huge
dumpsters, which were in front of the building, not from the building
itself. I have given hundreds of interviews about these things, where
some of my most important are found at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.
You might not be willing to invest a lot of time in this research, either,
because your mind about 9/11 may also be closed. If I am wrong and
it is just the least bit ajar, please visit the web site of Scholars for 9/11
Truth, a research society that I founded in December 2005. Take a look at
"Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper left-hand corner for a summary of twenty
or so findings that refute the official account of 9/11. Then turn to the
icon for http://patriotsquestion911.com in the upper right-hand corner,
which will lead to an extensive web site featuring photos, bio-sketches,
and statements from over 1,700 experts in different fields, including a
host of military and intelligence expert, academicians across the board,
pilots and aeronautical experts, architects and engineers, on and on. If
you are still willing to consider evidence, then read Elias Davidsson's
"No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11", David Ray Griffin's
"Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" at GLOBAL RESEARCH and my article,
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", OpEdNews. Then please visit my blog
at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and review "New 9/11 Photos Released",
Jack White's "9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation",
my "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11
an 'Inside Job'?", and "The Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement:
The Media's Response". You may know the site, where I have three blogs
about INSIDE THE ARRB. Since I am confident you aren't going to do any
of this--I'm not even sure that you are going to read this far in this post--
let me boil it down to 20 minutes of effort: read "Why Doubt 9/11?" and
watch "This is an Orange" and "9/11: The Towers of Dust" on YouTube. It
will take less than half-an-hour of your time. Then, at least, you will have
the least idea what is at issue when you dismiss research on this subject.
Make up your own mind, Adrian. But base your reasons on the evidence.
Best wishes,
Jim