Jim Fetzer
Eric Larsen is the editor and publisher of The Oliver Arts and Open
Press, which has published WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010) by
Judy Wood, Ph.D. In his zest to attack anyone who has been critical of
Judy, he published an "OPEN LETTER TO PATRIOTSQUESTION911",
a marvelous web site featuring photos, biosketches, and statements
about 9/11 from thousands of experts and scholars across multiple
different disciplines. Eric was protesting that Judy is not among
those listed among the "architects and engineers", of which I was
unaware until I received a copy of his OPEN LETTER. I wrote to him
to explain that I supported Judy and had long strongly supported her:
Eric,
As I explained in my voice mail message, I am a huge fan
of Judy Wood. I have her book, which I have just started
to read. And I am recommending it at every opportunity. I
have recommended it at the Deep Politics Forum, the Above
Top Secret forum, and on several lists where I participate
that discuss 9/11 research. This is an important book. I
featured her at my Madison conference in 2007 and gave her
THREE HOURS to present her material, which is unprecedented
in my experience for a speaker at any meeting I know about.
Here is an example of something I posted to a 9/11 thread:
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:19:55 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: DEW
To: "Jack & Sue White"
Cc: "Clare Kuehn"
baker"
brucerideout@yahoo.com,"John Lear"
coffinman@ntlworld.com, dhendrickson3@wi.rr.com, politicstahl@hotmail.com,
camjnbp@aol.com, "spiney kelly"
Excellent, Jack. I am starting to read Judy Wood's new book, WHERE DID
THE TOWERS GO? (2010), and, even though I am very familiar with her work, I am leaning something new on almost every page. I think it is important that we spend a lot of time on this new resource and discuss it extensively here. It is loaded with photos, diagrams, studies and extremely well-done.
Quoting "Jack & Sue White"
Excerpt from a DEW article bookmarked years ago. Notice the reference
REDUCED TO DUST.
. . .
So I want you to understand that I am NOT an enemy of
Judy Wood. Nor have I ever been. It has dumbfounded
me how some of Judy's supporters have come after me,
hammer and tong, as though I were not among her very
strongest supporters. They have acted as though they
were the members of a cult, which is rather absurd.
See, for example, the comments about this blog of mine,
where I republished the color photo section from the
same book in which one of Judy's first articles appeared:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-
of-death-and.html
In any case, I write to invite you to be my featured
guest on "The Real Deal", an internet radio program
that is broadcast from 5-7 PM/CT on revereradio.net.
We would have four 25-minute segments for discussion
with five minute breaks. We need to connect via Skype
or by your calling me at (608) 344-4996 five minutes
before the show is scheduled to begin, which would be
at 5:55 PM/ET. Let me know if this works for you. It
will be archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Best wishes--and congratulations on publishing this!
Jim
Subsequently, I read his letter more carefully and noticed a paragraph in
which I was being attacked personally for real or alleged offenses against
Judy. This struck me as most unfortunate, since in addition to publishing
her work and presenting her as my premiere speaker at the Madison conference, I had also featured her on my earlier radio shows fifteen (15) times or so. I therefore regarded it as important to set the record straight about these issues and wrote to correct them:
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:50:51 -0600 [03/07/2011 02:50:51 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: eric@oliveropenpress.com, jwjfk@flash.net, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: lisajudy@nctv.com, econrn@suddenlink.net, Jsleaphart@cs.com, ralph@jusbelli.com
Subject: My response to your "OPEN LETTER" . . . (with attachments)
Eric Larsen, Publisher
http://www.ericlarsen.info
http://www.oliveropenpress.com
Mr. Larsen,
Saturday, I noticed assertions you have made in your "OPEN LETTER"
(copied below) that are baseless in fact and reckless in character.
I am attaching an email to Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and Jerry
Leaphart, where you, Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd, and Jack White
are copied. (Mr. Winterrowd seems to have made it his mission to
disseminate this letter as widely and as publicly as possible: I
have personally now received no less than FIVE (5) copies from him!)
This is an informal response to your assertions about me to set the
record straight. I thus invite your attention to this paragraph:
"Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after the
Supreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidence
the aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 were
these photographs "newly released"with the claim that they had
never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of
Dr. Wood's RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they already
been posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she prepared
the legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzer
to be used for a photo section in his book only to have him give
credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even
worse example of the distortion the "truth movement" is capable of,
Dr. Fetzer, with the "new" release of the aerial images, treated
them publically as images being seen by him for the first time."
This is an allusion to the color-photo section of a book published
by Open Court Press under its Catfeet Press logo. It is entitled,
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007) and
includes a chapter by Judy Wood, "A Refutation of the Official
Collapse Theory", pp. 83-100, which, to the best of my knowledge,
is the first time her work on 9/11 had been published in a bound
paper book apart from her web site studies at http://drjudywood.com.
It was preceded by a color-photo section by Jack White, which is
"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation", pp.
75-82. Jack, as I believe you now know, prepared it based upon
his own extensive research about 9/11, with the exception of a
photo of the bathtub, which I suggested he copy from one found
on Judy's site. So far as I know, Judy does not hold copyright
to any of these. I republished it on Tuesday, 26 January 2010,
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-
of-death-and.html
The last sentence of the subject paragraph appears to be directed
at another blog of mine, "New 9/11 Photos Released", which I posted
on Wednesday, 10 February 2010. That blog may be found at this URL:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
Among the many places these photographs were published, I linked to
this one in the first sentence of my second blog of 10 February 2010:
http://galleries.statesman.com/gallery/world-trade-center-attacks-021010/#59970
where you will note that the first words of the caption to the first
photo is "This previously unreleased photo taken Sept. 11, 2001, by
the New York City Police Department . . ." (see attached). And, of
course, if you were to google, "New 9/11 Photos Released", you would
find that other news sources identified them similarly (see attached).
Based upon the information provided here, I trust you understand that
the claims made in the paragraph you distributed about me are false
and unwarranted. Since you observe that you wrote this letter a year
before you sent it out, did it cross your mind that it might be a good
idea to have checked with me first? Given Judy's appearance on Ralph's
show last night, I sincerely hope that you can rein her in from making
more of these distorted attacks upon me, which range from fabricating a
YouTube falsely attributing to me the views of Phil Jayhan right up to
the false denial that she ever talked about "space beams" or a "space
based" DEW, which she did during an interview with me on 11 November
2006. It has become the most infamous in the history of 9/11 research
and I predict that you will be hearing more about it in time to come,
not from me but those offended by her suggestion that Steve made it up.
With appreciation,
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org
WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:15:01 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11.com"
To: "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd"
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: "Alan Miller"
Steven Jones"
"Kevin Ryan"
Ralph, I have already responded to this. You don't need to send it
over and over again. I agree with your and Eric's request. Thanks!
Ralph,
Just for the record, I am a huge fan of the work of Judy Wood and I
completely support her reinstatement on patriotsquestion911.com. I
cannot imagine why she would have been taken off Alan's admirable
web site. I am reading and recommending Judy's new book, WHERE DID
THE TOWERS GO?, and, even though I am very familiar with her work,
I am learning something new on virtually every page. So know that
I am in agreement with you about this, and I support your request.
Best wishes,
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org
Quoting "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500
To: Alan Miller
From: Eric Larsen
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11.com"
Cc: Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan
PREFATORY NOTE TO ALAN MILLER:
I composed this letter almost a year ago but held off sending it in
the hopes that, by waiting, I could send it on the occasion of the
publication of Dr. Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go?
incalculable importance to the entire world. It is time, now, for me to send you this letter.
Eric Larsen
February 17, 2011
=======================================================
March 1, 2010
Dear Alan Miller,
I've noticed that Dr. Judy Wood isn't any longer listed or cited on
"Patriots Question 9/11." Why is this? I know that earlier she was
on the list of professors as well as the list of engineers. What
happened?
In my own view, Dr. Wood's being omitted is like dropping
Shakespeare from an anthology of Elizabethan literature. Alone among
the most highly visible of 9/11 analysts, Dr. Wood is the one
truth-seeker who sticks precisely and only with one thing, and that
one thing is the truth about what physically happened on 9/11
insofar as it can be known through the scientific study of all— not
some, but all— of the available empirical, observable evidence that
pertains solely to the "what" of what happened on that day. Dr. Wood
purposely stays clear of any forays into politics, innuendo,
guesswork, or supposition. She will have nothing whatsoever to do
with the question of "who 'did' it". That question, in her view, is
meaningless until the scientifically true "what" of what happened is
known. This "what" is what she sets out—successfullly—to show. That
is, she does not say that "9/11 was an inside job" because that fact
has not been scientifically established. Her focus is solely on the
empirical, measurable, and observable study of evidence of any
relevant kind—from analysis, measurement, and study of the "remains"
of the WTC buildings through analysis of the seismic record of that
day's events, study of anomalies in the earth's magnetic field at
the times of the destructions, and even study of the field effects
of the massive hurricane off the east coast of the U.S. on that day
(and especially of that storm's field effects in relation to the
enormous high pressure cell that was simultaneously approaching NYC
from the west).
Dr. Wood's study, research, and analysis reveal, among many other
things, that the WTC buildings did not collapse, explode, or
implode, but that they DISAPPEARED into dust. Multitudes of evidence
prove her case, but that hasn't kept 9/11 pseudo-truth seekers from
ridiculing her by smear, innuendo, name-calling, neglect, and
disinformation in whatever ways they are able. With courage,
strength, and a scientifically-based factuality, Dr. Wood has
experienced more malicious contumely, more smears and fraudulent
attacks than any other single member of the scientific, political,
philosophical, or historical 9/11 truth-seeking community. Yet Dr.
Wood has continued to stand up for the truth. Those who choose not
to accept the evidence-based conclusions of Dr. Wood's studies, or
who, perhaps, are either afraid OR "afraid" to accept them, take the
fool's option of ridiculing them, or, equally often, of most, most
blatantly ignoring both those results AND Dr. Wood's efforts in
determining them. The 9/11 truth community greeted Dr. Wood's
Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007) with scorn,
despite her being the first person to confront NIST formally about
their fraudulent report of the demise of the WTC towers. It was as
if the fraud of the NIST report, a report whose integrity was
absolutely essential if the official story were to be undergirded,
was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 community.
Dr. Wood's federal qui tam case, filed 4/25/2007 against the
contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) for science fraud also received virtually no notice or
indication of interest other than ridicule from the 9/11 truth
community. Again, it was as if the federal case being brought by Dr.
Wood against the NIST contractors for science fraud (in its
Congressionally-mandated task that it determine how and why the WTC
buildings were destroyed)—as if this entire and absolutely centrall
question was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 truth community.
That case, further, was itself improperly dismissed as those hearing
it treated the case— incorrectly— as if it paralleled the views of the
general 9/11 truth movement. Those determining whether the case
would be allowed to go forward incorrectly assumed, for example,
that Dr. Wood (a) blamed the US military (which she does not); (b)
they incorrectly assumed that Dr. Wood held the view that there was
"substantial evidence that all three buildings collapsed from
explosive devices" and that this view was "at the heart of the Wood .
. . litigation" (entirely incorrect); and (c) they incorrectly
assumed that Dr. Wood claimed "that the towers were struck by high
powered energy beams [from space]" (things that are not in any way
her position). All of these issues were addressed, although to no
avail, in the Motion for Reconsideration:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Wood_motion_reconsider.shtml
And now the case—due who knows how much to the ridicule and lack oof
support from the truth community —has been denied a Writ of a
Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, meaning that the
Court will not hear it or allow the factual evidence to be presented
in a courtroom, and therefore that the case is dead. How can it be
that this is not seen by the 9/11 truth community as an exceedingly
enormous defeat? Yet virtually no mention whatsoever of the Supreme
Court'™s rejection of the case has been forthcoming. It causes me to
question the entire purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" (as well as
the purpose of your Patriots Question 9/11 website). Anyone who read
the document submitted to the United States Supreme Court (available
on Dr. Wood's website) should be appalled by what has taken place.
The Court of Appeals essentially stated in a footnote of its written
decision that it knew that the law applied to Dr. Wood's case, but
that the court was ignoring the law in order to dismiss her case.
In fact, the evidence of science fraud submitted by Dr. Wood is
irrefutable. NIST itself admitted to Dr. Wood that its report was a
fraud. And not one of the contractors hired by NIST denied her
allegations. Then the Court of Appeals ignored the law in order to
dismiss the case. What could conceivably explain the lack of
interest or response by the 9/11 community? This travesty of
justice, the unfounded and prejudicial derailing of Dr. Wood's case,
should be of significant concern to the entire constitutional
republic. If laws are ignored for ease of dismissing cases, then we
are no longer living in a constitutional republic. We are living no
longer in a republic of laws, but in a state where factions of any
kind can usurp power through ignoring or pre-empting laws, however
ancient they may be, or however firmly embedded in the nation's
founding documents.
Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case in April 2007. Since that
time the "9/11 truth movement" has grown, with your own Patriots
Question 9/11 website now reporting "1,060+ Engineers and
Architects." Especially in light of the collection of so many
engineers and architects, I find it troubling that, to this day, Dr.
Wood is the only engineer, architect, or person of any profession to
have filed a federal qui tam case challenging the science fraud in
NIST's report of what destroyed the WTC towers. Those who truly
wanted "a new and independent investigation" into what caused the
destruction of the WTC should have enthusiastically supported what
she did. Such as federal case as she attempted to bring WOULD ITSELF
HAVE RESULTED IN a new investigation. There it was, a genuine
opportunity for achieving what so many people have been claiming all
along to want above all. But now the opportunity has been destroyed
by the essentially unaccountable court system as well as the lack of
interest in accountability by the so called "truth movement." All
those who scorned Dr. Wood's work and failed so notably to support
her qui tam case may have done so at the expense of this nation.
Wood sacrificed her career when she spoke out about 9/11. But
instead of praising her heroism, many in the "official-truth
movement" have accused her of being an agent or "COINTELPRO" or
disinformation agent. Such accusations can easily be dispelled by
noting that it is a crime to defraud the government and it is
treason if done so by a government agent (see the Smith-Mundt Act).
A government agent submitting disinformation to another government
agency would amount to the government attacking itself in a
psychological operation. Perhaps this explains why no one has
submitted "thermite evidence" to NIST. Perhaps this explains why no
one has submitted "thermite evidence" in a federal qui tam case.
Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after the
Supreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidence
the aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 were
these photographs "newly released" with the claim that they had
never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of
Dr. Wood's RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they already
been posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she prepared
the legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzer
to be used for a photo section in his book —only to have him give
credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even
worse example of the distortion the "truth movement" is capable of,
Dr. Fetzer, with the "new" release of the aerial images, treated
them publicly as images being seen by him for the first time.
I have never met Dr. Wood, but I have been aware of her work and
have corresponded with her for many years. For the past six of those
years, she has been working on a book, due out this year, that will
present her work and its results in totality. I know the book very
well, since— in consideration of my qualifications as essayist,
writer, novelist and author, retired professor of writing,
publisher, editor, and 9/11 truth-seeker myself—I have edited it in
its entirety two times, once chapter by chapter and then again when
the book was pulled together into its entirety. In my own view, Dr.
Wood's book will prove, in a great number of ways, to be very
possibly the most important book yet to have been published in the
21st century.
So strongly do I feel about the extraordinary importance of Dr.
Wood's research, and about its incalculable superiority to the
research—and the "conclusions"—of any and all others in the 9/11
truth movement, that if she isn't reinstated on the "Patriots for
9/11 Truth" site in acknowledgment of what she has done for this
country, I will ask you—and in fact ask you here and now, should Dr.
Wood not be reinstated— also to remove me, my picture, my biography,
and my 9/11-related comments from the site entirely. Those who do
not support Dr. Wood's work are not patriots. It may be concluded
that those who do not support Dr. Wood's work have an unpatriotic
agenda that I do not want to be associated with.
My best to you, and my gratitude for your attention,
Eric Larsen
http://www.ericlarsen.info
http://www.oliveropenpress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment