Original Message
Subject:[911InsideJobbers] Re: new fetzer/wood response to jones on
pianos etc
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:10:12 -
From: Lynn Ertell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A primer on the standards of classical scientific method; as contrasted with
the methods
of its principle antagonists.
This is what real education looks and feels like.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Total Information" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On grand pianos and terminal velocities
> by James H. Fetzer with Judy Wood and Anonymous Scholar
> 22 November 2006
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/GrandPiano.html
>
> Steve reports here that a "poll" taken on the Scholar's forum showed 60%
> favored a web site run by a 5-person committee, 32% favored voting on what
> appears by all members, and 8% favored the current arrangement, where I
> manage the site with advice from the steering committee. This result might
> be a bit more impressive if he had observed that only 25 out of some 400
> members of the society cast votes, each weighing in at 4%.
>
> Posting by a committee is guaranteed to produce mediocre and uninteresting
> posts. Only the most widely accepted views are going to be represented.
> Votes by the whole society would be absurd. It would take forever to secure
> a quorum, for example, and most of those that eventually appear would be out
> of date by the time they were put up on the web site. Based upon my
> experience, the ideas under consideration have little merit.
>
> Steve does not mention that I advanced a proposal to resolve tensions within
> the society just yesterday, which, I suggest, are more deserving of being
> taken seriously. They are these:
>
> . . . . . . .
>
> All,
>
> Here are my proposals, which I invite all of you to consider:
>
> (1) Steve and Kevin will strengthen the editorial board of the society's
> journal by adding up to a dozen highly-qualified hard science types,
> possibly drawn from the membership of SPINE;
>
> (2) The editors will be more even-handed in processing papers that represent
> non-standard points of view, where there is some evidence of partiality to
> positions preferred by the editors;
>
> (3) The web site will be overhauled to clearly demarcated be- tween proof
> that the official account is wrong and attempts to explain how it was done,
> which is overwhelmingly more difficult;
>
> (4) The founder will make an effort to emphasize problems with the official
> account and be very careful in his discussions of the state of research to
> not create false impressions thereof.
>
> (5) All parties will cease and desist from attacks upon each other, where
> objective discussion of the merits of different theories about the case
> should be done in a respectful manner.
>
> We need resources to overhaul the web site, which may require some time and
> effort. Suggestions are welcome. Perhaps we can recruit professionals who
> will assist us in doing this. I will be glad to undertake the supervision of
> the project with advice from a new set of co-chairs or the steering
> committee. Perhaps this list would be willing to serve as that committee.
>
> Jim
>
> P.S. Steve and I have been invited to appear together at The
> National Press Club on Wednesday, 10 January 2007. I
> suggest we both accept the invitation and do our thing.
>
> . . . . . . .
>
> I have accepted the invitation to speak at The National Press Club, and I
> hope that Steve will as well. We could focus on what happened to the World
> Trade Center and discuss some of our differences in point of view. For
> example, after studying Judy's work, I am convinced that the problem we
> confront in explaining what happened is vastly greater than just what
> happened to WTC-1 and WCT-2, even if we toss in WTC-7! That still leaves out
> WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6! Take a look at Judy's photographs and
> diagrams. It will blow you away!
>
> Moreover, thermate increasingly appears to be an inadequate cause of the
> devastation of the complete World Trade Center. EVEN IF IT WERE GOOD AS GOLD
> REGARDING WTC-1 AND WTC-2, we would still be left with a monumental task in
> explaining the devastation to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, which, to the
> best of my knowledge, Steven Jones has never addressed. His evidence of the
> use of thermate also seems to be undermined by the discovery that thermate
> appears to have been used to bring down what little remained after the
> towers went "poof"! But if that is the case, then its presence is
> explainable on grounds other than its use to destroy the Twin Towers and it
> too, as a framework for explaining the evidence, goes "poof"!
>
> Now it is certainly true that I used the figure of 30 seconds to
> characterize the time of free fall for a piano from atop a 110 story
> building. Steve has made a great to-do over this, posting his own
> calculations that the correct time for such an event should have been 11
> seconds! (I was actuall
