All,

John Bursill is making unjustifiable claims about the possible speeds
of Flight 11 and Flight 175. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but
this sounds preposterous on its face. Consider Flight 11, for example,
which the Naudet brothers filmed. Does anyone believe they can make out
the kind of plane that was involved there or even if it was a plane at
all? Yet we are supposed to believe that John Bursill has been able to
establish its speed and flight characteristics using a 767 simulator.

What's wrong with this picture?

Moreover, as I shall explain below, an impossible speed is only one of
many indications of video fakery on 9/11, which also include the manner
in which the plane entered the building with no loss in velocity, with
no crumpling, damage or debris, including no breaking off of the wings,
no passengers, seats, or luggage, with the tail remaining intact. This
situation has been summarized by Mark Smith replying to Ralph Omholt:
______________________________________________________________________

(A) Crash Summary: Quoting "Mark E. Smith" :

Ralph wrote:

"No planes? Then account (rationally) for the damage, based on highly
probable or undisputable facts, versus highly improbable or fantastic theory
and baseless claims."

Planes cannot account for the damage either.

Never before or since has a plane cut into a building like a cookie cutter,
or sliced through a building like a hot knife through butter. The whole
reason for the limited hangout of controlled demolition is that the planes
cannot account for the damage.

Neither can they account for controlled demolition. Nor can controlled
demolition in the basement and throughout the height of a building be set
off by an aircraft hitting the building.

What's planes got to do with it? Nothing. I don't know of any WTC damage
that could only have been caused by planes. If I see something flying
towards a building, I'll probably assume it's a plane rather than a missile,
as I don't expect to see missiles in urban areas. (Lucky me--knock wood!) If
I then see an explosion and what resembles an airplane-shaped hole in the
building, I'll think a plane hit it. But if I don't see the end of the
aircraft sticking out of the building and debris from the crash falling to
the ground, I have to rethink the whole thing.

People who will fake crash scenes are certainly capable of faking videos. I
think the kids call it FX. People capable of high-tech controlled
demolition, are capable of setting off small explosions and blowing out
specific shapes in building walls. When they use plastique to blow open a
door, they need to be able to enter that door, thus no fiery, flaming
inferno, which is why there was a woman standing in that cookie-cutter
plane-shaped hole with no flames and no fire.

This is so basic, I can't believe we're back to this again. When an aircraft
hits a building, the aircraft falls down, the building does not. Planes do
not pass through buildings. Not even wooden buildings, no less concrete and
steel buildings. To put it in Mensa terms that even the most brilliant minds
can understand, the mass of a concrete and steel building is denser than the
mass of a bird, and hitting a bird causes immense damage to an airplane. If
a plane cannot pass through the feathers, extremely light bones, and some
soft internal organs of a bird, it cannot pass through a much denser
building.

Faster than a speeding bullet! Mor powerful than a locomotive! Able to
penetrate tall buildings in a single bound! Look! Up in the air! It's a
bird.....it's a plane....it's super-psy-ops!

--Mark
_______________________________________________________________________

(B) Evidence Summary: Quoting "James H. Fetzer" :

The fact is that John Bursill appears to be grandstanding by presenting a
biased and selective case in light of the mass of evidence that supports
the possibility that no planes may have been involved on 9/11. Notice,
especially, we have much more evidence to work with in thinking about the
videos than the videos themselves. In earlier posts about this question,
for example, I not only reinforced the proof we have that the events we
see in the interaction of Flight 175 with the South Tower cannot possibly
be correct--since it would have been intersecting acres of concrete, 4"
thick, poured onto the trusses, which were welded to the external support
columns at one end and to the core columns at the other, which would have
created enormous resistance and caused the place to crumple and break up,
with massive debris falling to the ground, which did not happen in these
videos--but we have many other indications there may have been no planes:

(1) Kee Dewdney has shown that cell phone calls would have been impossible,
which means that those we have heard about are fabrications, some of which
must have been created using sophisticated "voice morphing" technology, at
some considerable effort;

(2) Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has no proof that Islamic
hijackers were aboard any of these planes, where such evidence as has been
provided (the list from Atta's suitcase, the miraculous passport, and all of
that) is transparently fabricated;

(3) John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, has observed
that, before a commercial carrier can pull away from a terminal, the pilot
must submit an "envelope", including his flight plan, passenger manifest and
check list for fuel load, operation of electronics, and all that), yet not
one of the envelopes for any of these planes has ever been produced;

(4) George Nelson, a former USAF air crash investigator, has observed that,
although each of these planes had hundreds and hundreds of uniquely identi-
fiable, safety-related component parts, the government has yet to produce
even one from any of the four alleged plane crash sites;

(5) Joe Keith, John Lear, and various aeronautical engineers--even persons
at Boeing--have explained that no Boeing 767 or 757 could fly as fast at the
altitudes involved--700-1,000 feet in New York, skimming the ground at the
Pentagon--as the videos show or as the government has claimed;

(6) Multiple pilots, including some from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, have said
how difficult it would be to hit one of those towers at 500+ mph (where one
group tried it with their flight simulators shortly after these events and
found they were unable to do it after multiple tries, at best 1 time in 5);

(7) Video experts, including Ace Baker and killtown, have explained how easy
it would be to create fake videos and even have them played in very close to
real time (with a 17-second delay) or ever in real time (using compositing
by imposing a layer with the plane over images of the buildings themselves);

(8) 175 footage shows a plane traveling faster than aerodynamically possible,
entering the buildings with no loss in velocity (passing through steel and
concrete as effortlessly as it passes through air), with no debris or damage
to the plane and passengers (no luggage, no seats, no bodies);

(9) Jack White has discovered FOX footage that shows FBI agents offloading
something heavy at Church and Murray shortly before an engine alleged to be
from the impact was found, where the sidewalk is not damaged, it is sitting
under a canopy, and it was from a 737, not a 767; and,

(10) as David Ray Griffin has emphasized, some six or seven of the alleged
hijackers have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East, which
would not be possible if they had sacrificed their lives in acts of terrorism
by crashing these four aircraft as the government maintains.

We also have videos whose authenticity is not in doubt that were taken before
and after the purported "impacts" with the buildings, which provides further
bases for figuring out what was added to them or subtracted from them. Some
of those who have done the most work on video fakery, Ace Baker and killtown,
for example, have theories about how it was done, which implicate the media,
especially FOX television, if I understand them correctly, as the original
source, where FOX subsequently deleted its own feeds out and began playing
the videos from other networks as feeds in to conceal its role in putting
them into the public domain, which gives us insight as to how it was done.
We need explanations that can account for all of the data, not just some.

That is crucial if we are to avoid being played for suckers again and again.
We may be dealing with computer generated images or sophisticated holograms.
It may have been done by using video compositing. Indeed, the whole business
appears to have been "stage managed" using actors as well as special effects.
Check out some of the latest about the fellow in a baseball cap who rushed to
a reporter at the scene to "explain why the towers were 'collapsing'", when
nothing remotely like that should have been taking place: "911 Harley Shirt
Guy is Mark Adrian Humphrey, actor - All-Knowing Witness Fake", archived at

This is the guy who claims that the Twin Towers fell "mostly due to structural
failure because the fire was just too intense", a claim contradicted by the
physics of the situation, since the fires burned neither hot enough nor long
enough to weaken steel, which I have summarized in "Why doubt 9/11?", upper-
left-hand icon on 911scholars.org. So we have more material to use in sorting all this out and tracking back to sources. What Bursill is doing, needless to
say, is taking one part of point (8) and treating it as though its refutation
would constitute a refutation of all ten data points, which is patently false.
Moreover, John Lear has demonstrated that Bursill is not right even about this
in a recent response he has made to outspoken no-planes critic Anthony Lawson:
_______________________________________________________________________

(C) Impossible Speed: Quoting "John Lear"

RE: The plane was in a shallow dive

Anthony,

You continue to misrepresent and misunderstand VD. Every time I
explain it you claim you understand and then the next day there you
are misrepresenting it again. I am beginning to think that you are
being intentionally deceitful.

What to do?

Each time you misrepresent VD, I?ll be right there trying to explain
it to you again as I am gong to do again today.

Below are the specifics of how you flight test a transport category
airplane under FAA regulations.

Under Code of Federal Regulation CFR 14 Part 25 Airworthy Standard:
Transport Category Aircraft paragraph 25.253 High Speed Characteristics:

(a) Speed increase and recovery characteristics. The
following increase and recovery characteristics must be met:

(1) Operating conditions and characteristics likely to
cause inadvertent speed increases (including upsets in pitch and roll)
must be simulated with the airplane trimmed at any likely cruise speed
up to Vmo/Mmo (max operating speed 360 knots for the Boeing 767).
These conditions and characteristics include gust upsets, inadvertent
control movement, low stick force gradient in relation to control
friction, passenger movement, leveling off from climb, and descent
from Mach to airspeed limit altitudes.

(2) Allowing for pilot reaction time after effective
inherent or artificial speed warning occurs, it must be shown that the
airplane can be recovered to a normal attitude and its speed reduced
to Vmo/Mmo without-

(i) Exceptional piloting strength or skill
(ii) Exceeding VD/MD, VDF/MDF (demonstrated flight diving speed) or
the structural limitations; and
(iii) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the
instruments or control the airplane for recovery.

(3) With the airplane trimmed at any speed up to
Vmo/Mmo, there must be no reversal of the response to control about
any axis at any speed up to VDF/MDF (demonstrated flight diving
speed). Any tendency to pitch, roll or yaw must be mild and readily
controllable, using normal piloting techniques. When the airplane is
trimmed at Vmo/Mmo the slope of the elevator control force versus
speed curve need not be stable at speeds greater than VFC/MFC (maximum
speed for stability characteristics 390 kts.) but there must be a push
force at all speeds up to VDF/MDF (demonstrated flight diving
speed)and there must be no sudden or excessive reduction in elevator
control force as VDF/MDF (demonstrated flight diving speed) is reached.

25.335 Design airspeeds

(b) Design Dive Speed, VD. VD (design diving speed) must be selected
so that Vc/Mc (design cruising speed) is not greater than 0.8 VD/MD
(design diving speed), or so that the minimum speed margin between
Vc/Mc (design cruising speed) and VD/MD (design diving speed) is
greater than the following:

(1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at Vc/Mc, the airplane
is upset, flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5? below the initial
Path, and then pulled up at a load factor of 1.5 g. The speed increase
occurring in this maneuver many be calculated if reliable and conservative
aerodynamic data is used. Power as specified in 25.175(b)(iv) is assumed
until pullup is initiated, at which time power reduction and use of pilot
controlled drag devices may be assumed.

Now, Anthony, listen up while I put all this together for you. What
this says is that during flight test the airplane must be trimmed at
360 knots, pointed down 7.5? for 20 seconds and then recovered to
level flight without exceeding VD (420 knots). Now the FAA could have
said 10? for 30 seconds but they know and everybody else knows that
because of parasite drag rise characteristics 7.5? for 20 seconds the
airplane is going to be going as fast as it will ever go.

Now also please note this sentence:

The speed increase occurring in this maneuver many be calculated if
reliable and conservative aerodynamic data is used.

This means that the test didn't even have to be performed if the
calculated increase was from reliable and conservative aerodynamic
data. That means the Boeing 767 may not have actually been flown out
to 420 kts.

So please stop saying that "it is only supposed to be flown at that
speed once; during its flight testing program." It doesn't have to be
flown there at all. But whether it is or not 420 kts. cannot be
exceeded by more than few knots and certainly cannot be exceeded by 40
knots. The airplane is designed so that it cannot exceed 420 knots.
The plane is designed so that the drag rise will prevent it from ever
exceeding 420 knots whether you point it steeper in a dive or not.

That is the characteristic of drag rise. The airplane will simply not
exceed that value. It cannot exceed that value. You fail to understand
that there are several aerodynamic principles that prevent this. You
seem to think that an extra factor of 40 kts. is negligible. You seem
to think there is an extra safety factor beyond 420 kts. You seem to
think it is no big deal to go beyond 420 kts. And you could not be
more wrong. But the fact is the safety factor is the speed between 360
kts (design cruise speed and 420 kts VD). That?s 60 kts. of safety
Anthony. There is no extra safety factor.

The Boeing 767 is designed with a supercritical wing which has a
higher drag divergence Mach number which means they develop shock
waves farther aft than traditional airfoils. The disadvantage is that
when you reach the critical airspeed it causes transonic wave drag and
induces flow separation behind it. This means no air is going over the
control surfaces enabling the pilot to control the airplane.

When you state "it does not mean that the aircraft cannot possibly
exceed that speed" you are wrong. It cannot exceed that speed for 5
reasons:

(1) drag characteristics
(2) transonic wave drag
(3) Parasite power considerations
(4) engine incapability
(5) trim

The parasite drag rise (varies with the square of the velocity) would
prevent the aircraft from going any faster (or more correctly any
faster and it would be irrecoverable because of flow separation and
adverse pressure gradients on the aft portion of the wing.

The transonic wave drag is an increase in drag caused by the formation
of a shock wave on the upper surface of the airfoil which can induce
flow separation and adverse pressure gradients on the aft portion of
the wing. (That?s where the ailerons are Anthony.)

Parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity which means to
double the airspeed you have to cube or have three times the power
which means to increase your speed 19% would require an impossible
amount of power. Think about that Anthony. If it takes the cube of the
power to double the speed, what is it going to take to increase the
speed by 19%?

And the engines could not possible ingest 3 times the density of the
air at sea level as it does at cruise altitude. Its impossible. It
can?t happen. It didn't happen. Those Pratt and Whitney engines
(JT9D-7R4D) simply couldn't keep running while ingesting three times
the amount of air at sea level than at cruise.

As airspeed increases, the nose tends to gradually pitch up. That is
the way planes are designed because they want the airplane to
automatically recover itself. So to counteract this you have a trim
switch that puts in nose down trim. But just over 400 kts you run out
of nose down trim and you have to now start pushing with all your
might to keep the nose from coming up. Now just imagine how much that
nose down force would have to be if the airplane exceeded 420 knots.
Now the alleged planes in the videos didn't look like the Arab pilot
was fighting to keep the nose down. It looked like smooth controlled
flight. That's because the videos did not show a real airplane. They
were faked.

I just called Boeing Flight Operation to get VDF (demonstrated flight
diving speed) to see what the Boeing 767 was actually flown at but
they said unless I was with an airline that operated Boeing 767 that
they couldn?t give that information to me. But regardless of what VDF
was, it was not over 420 kts.

So Anthony, get a grip. No Boeing 767 went 540 mph at sea level on 911
or any other date. You are welcome to speculate that but know this: I
will be right there to explain the facts of why a Boeing 767 could not
possibly have accelerated to 540 mph. Not in straight and level
flight. Not in a recoverable dive

John Lear
______________________________________________________________________

(D) Situation Summary: Why Bursill's "simulation" cannot be trusted

Bursill is committing several logical fallacies in his attacks on those
of us who are responding to evidence that indicates the strong possibility
that no planes were involved in any of the 9/11 attacks, including, of course,
Newton's laws of motion, which are clearly violated by the physics of the
crash shown in the Herzarkani video. That he is committing blunders from
scratch should be apparent from his initial statements of his "summary":

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds
quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a
summation of the facts;

1. 1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11,
2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of
experts, so it stands as fact.

Since we only know the speeds of the plane from studies of the videos, where
the authenticity of the videos is in dispute, it is absurd to claim that "the
aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001". This is a
blatant example of begging the question by taking for granted the conclusion
you want to prove, which has to be established on independent grounds. The
suggestion that "This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or
team of experts, so it stands as fact", is completely ridiculous. John Lear,
Joe Keith, Morgan Reynolds, killtown, Ace Baker, and others--including, I am
inclined to believe, Russ Wittenberg, if I may extrapolated from his remarks
about the impossible speed of a 757 flying at 500 mph at the Pentagon, as he
explains in the 9/11 DVD "Zero"--have challenged it directly, and many others,
including Kee Dewdney, Elias Davidsson, George Nelson, and others indirectly,
by demonstrating that there is no evidence that these flights actually took
place. As Jerry Leaphart and others have emphasized, moreover, the witness
record is chaotic, with vast inconsistencies in reports and where some of the
best positioned witnesses reported observing explosions but no planes! John
Bursill would like you to ignore all of this by suggesting that, if the speed
seen in the videos is not impossible, then there must have been planes! But
that obviously requires disregarding the totality of the evidence, which is
far more equivocal and seems to support the absence of planes more strongly
than their presence. Indeed, using likelihood measures of evidential support
where the likelihood of hypothesis h, given evidence e, is equal to the prob-
ability of e if h were true, it should be apparent that the probability of (1)
through (10) given the presence of planes is extremely low, but the probability
of (1) thought (10) given the absence of planes is very, very high. Indeed,
it is difficult to see what alternative hypothesis could explain (1) to (10).

Bursill also employs the ad hominem in an attempt to smear John Lear, me, and
by extension everyone who has advanced arguments that suggest the possibility
that no planes may have been present at any of the alleged "crash sites". He
remarks in passing, for example, that "This theory of 'No Planes at the WTC'
has been used by our adversary's to discredit, divide and undermine our
efforts to attain a new investigation into the crimes committed on the 11th
of September 2001 in the US." Notice the insinuation that anyone who takes
the possibility of no planes seriously is thereby associated with those he
calls "our adversary's" (sic), as though Kee Dewdney, Elias Davidsson, George
Nelson, John Lear, Joe Keith, Morgan Reynolds, killtown, Ace Baker, and many
more (where Russ Wittenberg may also qualify) are supposed to be members of
that group, implicitly if not explicitly. That is outrageous and takes for
granted not only that he is right about the merits of the argument about the
possible speed but that, if he were right, that would settle the question of
video fakery, for example, much less of the existence of the alleged planes.

I would like to believe that any objective student of 9/11 can acknowledge
the existence of evidence like (1) though (10) and admit that, whether or not
he likes the inference, it appears to support the existence of no planes with
a greater likelihood than it does the existence of planes. It follows that
those who are inclined to take the no planes hypothesis seriously are not in
a state of denial nor seeking to "discredit, divide and undermine our efforts
to attain a new investigation". Indeed, notice how, once again, he inserts a
subtle smear by implying that the 9/11 movement falls onto two camps: the
real truth seekers, who affirm the presence of planes; and the disinfo ops,
who are seeking to discredit, divide and undermine "our efforts"! Someone
may be attempting to "discredit, divide and undermine" our effort, but it is
not those who are responding to (1) through (10) by acknowledging that the
strength of the evidence supports no planes more strongly than it does plane.

Indeed, some of those who are most adamant about planes in New York are also
adamant about no planes in Shanksville or at the Pentagon. I offer as a nice
example Ralph Omholt, who cannot abide the very idea that there may have been
no planes in New York even while he is adamant about the absence of planes in
Shanksville and at the Pentagon. I wonder if that makes him a "half-hearted"
disinfo op! Clearly, research on 9/11 cannot possible succeed if individuals
like Bursill are going to launch stinging attacks on those who are studying
the evidence, including (1) through (10), and arriving at conclusions that
are at variance with his personal beliefs. Notice, in particular, that even
if he were right--that the speed of 542 mph is aerodynamically possible at 700-
1,000 feet altitude--that would only affect one part of point (7) and nothing
else. NOTHING ELSE! So the purported force of his argument derives from his
use of fallacies of begging the question (by taking for granted what he wants
to prove), special pleading (by citing only the evidence favorable to his
side of the argument), and ad hominem attacks (by implying that those who do
not agree with him are attempting to "discredit, divide and undermine our effort"). Moreover, by asserting that the demonstration that the speed was
possible has thereby shown that "the no planes hypothesis" is untenable, he
commits the straw man fallacy (of exaggerating a position to make it easier
to attack than a readily available but less vulnerable version), which he has
done by ignoring the rest of the evidence that makes a difference to whether
there were planes or no planes on 9/11, including, of course, (1) though (10).

Now the question of simulations happens to be an interest of mine, where my
most recent professional presentation (at the Central Division Meeting of the
American Philosophical Association, which was held in Chicago on February 19,
2009) was devoted to the theoretical prospects of non-trivial simulations of
human behavior. I have devoted a considerable portion of my career to the
study of the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intel-
ligence, and cognitive science, which anyone can determine for themselves
by reviewing my curriculum vitae (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer). Bursill
claims that, by the use of a simulator, he had been able to prove that the
speed represented in the Hezarkani video is possible or even "probable" as
he maintains. But a simulator is a representation of the performance of an
aircraft that may or may not correspond to the real thing. We are talking
about a vast number of variables, each of whose values would have to be set
at the right values, where even if each of them were set at the right values,
their causal interaction would have to correspond to that of the aircraft
that is represented in the video. But we do not know this to be the case.

Prominent critic of the no planes hypothesis, Anthony Lawson, for example,
has insisted that what we are viewing might be a different kind of plane
that has been disguised to resemble a 767. So even if Bursill were right
in taking for granted that the simulator "corresponded to a 767", that is
not enough to show that it corresponds to the airplanes represented in the
videos. We do not know (a) that the simulator was in the proper state to
simulate a 767, (b) that the plane shown in the video was a 767, much less
(c) that the results of this simulation settle any question at all, except
his claim about the simulator's performance. This matter has become such
a bone of contention that none of us should take for granted that it had
not been tampered with. We are talking about complex interactions between
hardware and software, where the manipulation of programs to bring about
an intended effect is commonplace! Most of us regard the NIST studies of
the "collapse" of the towers, for example, to be reprehensible, because it
involved the manipulation of values of variables for the precise purpose of
misleading the public about what it had shown. I suggest that, if such a
manipulated effect was presented by the NIST, we cannot rule it out here.

Bursill himself might not even know the score. I have had prior encounters
with this guy, whom I personally regard as untrustworthy and unreliable. I
say that because what he has offered here is an argument that depends upon
our taking him to be a trustworthy and reliable source. Absent the study
in detail of the software and the hardware responsible for his simulation,
it should not be taken seriously as "evidence" of any kind. Once the soft-
ware and the hardware have been subjected to detailed study, then the use
of the simulator could be used to simulate performance corresponding to the
values of the variables that determine that performance, which, in turn, in
principle, would need to correspond to those of the aircraft shown in the
Hezarkani and Naudet videos. Since we do not know what aircraft are shown
in either of the videos, we are clearly unable to determine whether or not
the Bursill simulation does nor does not resolve issues of possible speed.
Personally, I regard John Lear as an expert on these issues and regard his
argument as having more weight than any simulation. After all, as in the
case of animations, simulations can be adapted to present any result that
one might prefer by appropriate manipulations of the values of the relevant
variables. The laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, by
contrast, cannot be violated and cannot be changed merely by manipulation.

Let me conclude by citing a passage that reflects the lack of character and
weakness of intellect of John Bursill, who has not only gone out of his way
to impugn the integrity of John Lear, Joe Keith, Morgan Reyonds, killtown,
Ace Baker, and many others, including me, but, by extension, that of all of
those who have advanced evidence that collectively supports the possibility
of no planes, such as Kee Dewdney, Elias Davidsson, George Nelson, and many
more. His vicious attacks upon us all are not actually justified but are
predicated upon the use of an assortment of logical fallacies, including
the straw man, special pleading, ad hominems, and question begging. He has
gone to far as to propose that John be dismissed from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

I thought I could solve this problem by addressing the need to revoke Lear?s
membership at Pilots for 9/11 Truth as a way of undermining his credibility.
So I wrote to Robert Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to discuss
this video and Lear?s membership. He subsequently refused my request to
remove him from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and actually defended his right to his
opinion, as he was ?qualified to have it.?

But if the criterion for membership in Pilots or any other 9/11 organization
is supposed to be the integrity of their research and their responsiveness to
evidence, it should be apparent that it is not John Lear, Joe Keith, Morgan
Reynolds, or any of the others I have cited here who ought to be dismissed
but the author of a vicious attack that employs logical fallacies to smear
those of us who are trying to figure out what happened on 9/11 and whether or
not planes were involved. This is one of the most challenging questions that
confronts students and scholars of 9/11. It is disgraceful that John Bursill
has launched an assault that is logically unjustifiable and morally corrupt.

His sophistic arguments even seem to have taken in--actually duped!--others,
such as Bob Bowman, Janice Matthews and Frank Legge. My guess would be that
they have not considered data points like (1) through (10) or the violations
of the laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics that are present
in the Hezarkani and Naudet videos. As I have observed about the official
account, "It is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible
things". It is sad to see that those of us who are not willing to believe
impossible things are being pilloried for our commitment to the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the events of 9/11 by others
who are less responsive to reasoning that is based upon logic and evidence.

James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

NOTE: If anyone wants to publish or distribute this piece of intellectual
rubbish from John Bursill, then please include this critique with it.

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au