Friday Grab Bag

I fully expected the James H. Fetzer story to break wide open today, but nothing yet. Spread it around if you can, this can be as big as the Steven Jones article.

So, while we're waiting, here are a few links to check out:

Anyone know if official airline manifests exist out there somewhere that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that no hijackers were on those planes?

Here's a fellow that has a few opinions of Michael Moore that most of us would probably agree with:

Here is an article by Eric Hufschmid that may offend some, so click at your own risk:

Here is a little index of articles related to various facets of 9/11. Again, click at your own risk:

turns out I just wrote a

turns out I just wrote a piece about the passenger manifests:
here. Though I don't have a great answer to the hijacker issue, I have ideas.

I'm not so sure the Fetzer thing is going anywhere. He is already a well-known conspiracy guy-- into the JFK assassination, and he recently wrote a book saying Paul Wellstone was assassinated.

Just my opinion but

Just my opinion but attacking Michael Moore is counter productive to busting the bush crime family.

Michael Moore is an author and film maker and produces great product.

When I've seen in live, he talks about the Bushes starting wars and questions some of the pillars of the 9/11 myth.

I think he's been climbing for along time and F911 put him on top of the mountain. He's taking a break, enjoying his success.

My opinion is that he is timing his next release with the 06 elections.

Remember that the guy is just another human being and has put his body in harms way doing something he believes in.

Lets all stay focused on why wtc7 fell. Lets all ask where the remains of the jet hit the pentagon are.

Staying focused is important and the side shows turn people off who are already pre-desposed to thinking we're a bunch of nuts.

My two cents . . .

From Raw Story's front

From Raw Story's front page:

9/11, UFOs and Bush: The complete FOIA requests, 2000-2005

Eric Hufschmid has recently

Eric Hufschmid has recently done a marvelous job of thoroughly destroying his own credibility.

So I wish to thank Daryl Bradford Smith for luring Eric out of the closet so we can finally see the real(?) Mr. Hufschmid, who'd successfully fooled me for quite a while.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment or with Mr. Hufschmid, isn't it odd that Mr. Hufschmid has multiple domains and web sites (and books and videos) of his own, yet has only recently begun spewing articles with a much different flavor(s), on someone else's web site?

Will the real Eric Hufschmid please stand up?

Eric Hufschmid is a whiner.

Eric Hufschmid is a whiner. Yes, judging from this article and an appearance I heard of his on Coast to Coast AM, I have to conclude he is a whiner. I mean, Loose Change rocks! So what if it doesn't turn over every stone; no one person can (that is why it is a 9/11 truth "Movement"); and is it not somewhat subjective what one considers the "really important" aspects of 9/11 truth? Do we have to follow lockstep w/ Eric in terms of what to focus on? And finally, Lew Rockwell and the Libertarians have some really good ideas to offer. I don't agree w/ all of it, but many are very sincere in their scholasticism. Truth is, the truth is bigger than your paradigm Eric.

eric needs to realize that

eric needs to realize that this is a long distance marathon relay race. He can't fathom passing on the baton to other runners.

he is making himself look bad.

Paul Revere didn't insist on being at every RW battle. He did his role, pivotal as it was, and let others carry the banner too.

I concur about Hufschmid. I

I concur about Hufschmid. I even complained to Daryl Bradford Smith about the Hufschmid piece that Smith has linked on his homepage -- an article that has a ridiculous notion that the company Network Solutions is in on a government conspiracy -- a notion that is so easily debunked that it's ludicrous. Smith wrote me back and said I should contact Hufschmid. I'm not wasting my time, but I will say that Smith lost credibility with me in his response. Why would Smith want that garbage on his site?

Visit Smith's site at and scroll down about 1/3 to "Hufschmid's comments on how they get away with these crimes"

As for Michael Moore, the guy who created that 911michaelmoore site has a long way to go to make his case. Notably absent from his list of questions about Michael Moore is the following (my biggest question for some time now):

WHY did Michael Moore omit the most obvious and publicly available non-conspiratorial piece of information regarding the neocons from his movie Fahrenheit 9/11? That would be the PNAC and their public document of 2000 that openly states what their agenda is and how it wouldn't be possible without a "new Pearl Harbor." That omission by Michael Moore is in itself VERY telling.

Correction to above link:

Correction to above link: Smith's site is

Al Gore's Current TV is

Al Gore's Current TV is looking for truth...submit your own short video for viewing on Current TV...

has anyone tried to get something published here yet?

I'm a little confused about

I'm a little confused about Eric as well. It seems he has stopped writing and educating about 9/11 and instead is spending all his time bashing everyone.

After all the good he has done over the years, he has become just another instigator.

And those who post his

And those who post his stories to... ;)

do we love the internet so

do we love the internet so much? Because it gives us an opportunity to show other sides of the story, whatever theory you want. Your tools are facts and logic. People can subsequently decide for _themselves_ how they feel about it. That's what freethinking/skepticism is about; and that's the most important thing to promote.

New ideas are the basis of progress. Fight ideas, not people or creation of new ideas.

Smith, has become quite

Smith, has become quite angry because people won't help pay his bills. His lashing out probably does not help the amount of listeners he maintains.

Less attacking listeners = more respect.

I'm not sure what to make of

I'm not sure what to make of Eric Hufshmid, either. He is the source of the phony baloney 8.4 second time for the "shattering of the steel structure" , which was previously represented as how long it took the buildings to fall.
I wrote to to complain about this, but they are still making this claim.

Eric's web site also pushes notions of faked lunar landings, which I think is preposterous.

"And those who post his

"And those who post his stories to..."

Sorry Jonny, but as you are well aware, not everyone agrees with your opinions either. And yet, I post your stories...

Hamas Wins Key Local

Hamas Wins Key Local Palestinian Elections

Now THIS is an interesting change of events.

"Sorry Jonny, but as you are

"Sorry Jonny, but as you are well aware, not everyone agrees with your opinions either. And yet, I post your stories..."

Opinions are like *&#$@)%... everybody's got one. Unfortunately, some are more damaging than others.

You are correct, however.

Rep. Weldon Refers To The 93

Oh no, not the 'no Islamic

Oh no, not the 'no Islamic extremist hijackers on the flights' thing. I can accept PNAC wanting sept 11th, I can accept the CIA spying on the 2000 Malaysian plot, tracking Atta, Cheney ordering planes to stand down, and WTC explsions. But no Mohammed Atta and company on the planes? So...those pix of the hijackers on the airport security cameras the morning of 9/11 is what, faked? Plane swaps, faked cell phone calls, missles, orbs, remote control. Doesnt it make more sense that a select few got wind of the 9/11 plot, and allowed(and or helped facilitate it by ordering stand downs and other stuff)? Hey, I thought that Lone Gunmen pilot was pretty interesting myself, and I agree with a lot of the 9/11 Truth movement...but saying there was no hijackers is ridiculous(especially given there is pix of the hijackers from airport cameras AND we can hear one of them on the FAA tapes) Again, I feel 9/11 Truth should mean "truth", whether it debunks or solidifies theories(or points to an even different route) Saying one feels that common sense should be used is not gatekeeping disinfo.

Thanks for the Weldon link. I've heard some people bash the Able Danger/Weldon story calling it disinfo...well, that may be the most "9/11 coverup" youre going to get in the mainstream for awhile, so it's not all bad. Now if only more people knew about the truth behind the World Trade Center 1993 FBI/informant tapes.

Oh yes, Michael Moore. I find him entertaining, tho in recent years I dislike what he's become. He hasn't even tried to wiggle even generic 9/11 unanswered questions into his platform. Not the fringe stuff, just the very basic ones.

This is a video clip I just

This is a video clip I just picked up at another BBS:

Alegedly some guys at the 911 scene, overheard remarking re WTC7, "that building's coming down soon". The speaker is not seen.. opening the door to editing smoke/mirrors, but interesting clip nonetheless.

Pockybot: Those security


Those security tapes could have been taken on other dates or even totally different people. There is simply no reason to just 'take their word for it'.

Well to me Mohammed Atta

Well to me Mohammed Atta fits perfectly with virtually any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is the guy the Pakistani General allegedly wired the money too. The guy the CIA was supposedly tracking with German intelligence from Hamburg to Brooklyn.

As for WTC7...I've seen/read so many "that building is coming down' statements regarding WTC7...I'm wondering if maybe to the people on the ground it seemed like the building was going to fall. The cameras were all trained on it. I don't believe for a second firefighters would be in on some inside job. I know Larry Silverstein couldnt mean "pull it" to refer to pulling guys out of the building, since there really was no firemen inside. So it's all confusing. It sure looks like a perfectly controlled demolition to me. If only we could see this "25% scooped out" photos they keep claiming.

The "25% scooped out" theory

The "25% scooped out" theory is nonsense, how can a building with a quarter of it fall straight down into its own footprint?

Logically, wouldn't it have toppled over? Or remained standing? Remember the Oklahoma building? That was about 50% "scooped out"

We have never seen a building collapse like we did on 9/11 for any reason other than controlled demolition, therefore, thats what it is. "25% scooped out" is a last ditch attempt by the government to sell the official story.

Regarding the pictures of the hijackers, I believe they were in fact from an earlier flight that morning. Furthermore, since 7 to 9 of them have been proven to be alive, why would we have any reason to believe the hijackers were on the flights?

Lets take a hard look at Operation Northwoods and decide if the whole plane swapping, drone theories are really all that preposterous.

I've got mixed feelings on

I've got mixed feelings on Hufschmid's series of rants in recent months too; doing more harm than good, offering little actionable value.

But I do lean towards the Apollo moon landing (one of Hufschmid's issues), indeed being another grand hoax. see:

The owner of this site/movie was on with Greg Sysmanski, Nov 15 radio show, listen here:

Not to change the subject,

Not to change the subject, but thats quite a foxy lady in that Flash intro...

SBG: Not to digress further

SBG: Not to digress further still, but I would agree with your assessment.

About that Apollo moon

About that Apollo moon landing thing... Didja hear the one about the UK reality TV show that convinved it's participants that they had gone into space? Wicked!

How's that for a subliminal message in reality TV?

JV, nice find: " a

JV, nice find:

" a warehouse in Suffolk"

You mean they fake space missions in warehouses??? Get out of town!!!