Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 911 Truth Interviewed on Al uh Looyah show 2/15/06


Al Interviews professor Jim Fetzer of Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

We discuss why 911 is still the preeminent issue, how the events of that day can be scientifically proven to NOT be what the government tells us, and what we can do about it. Massive information!

Listen to the al uh looyah show live on wednesday nights on radioactive sandiego, 6 to 8pm, PST.

Audio: MP3 at 54.3 megabytes (download torrent)

You just need to link to it!

You just need to link to it! Add a short description, and we can start digging the article with the hopes of getting it on the front page.

We all know how good cousins

We all know how good cousins are to have around.


see post below for my take

see post below for my take on the Maxim piece. its not nearly as much of a hit piece as PM, but its not too great either. but at least its something i guess.they do mention PNAC,WTC7 and a few other good tid bits.i think they included the David Icke part just to make the whole movement look bad.



Benjamin Chertoff
Research Editor

Cousin of Michael Chertoff

yep, Chertoff was fully

yep, Chertoff was fully responsible for the 9/11 hit piece they ran.surprise surprise.

and you know, i never really

and you know, i never really thought too much about it before, but the fact that Popular Mechanics sees fit to run a piece about "Katrina Myths" makes me think the levees just might have been blown up. now i highly doubt it personally, but the simple fact that P.M. bothers makes me think.

I noticed the referrences to

I noticed the referrences to the Popular Mechanics hitpiece argument in the comments, so this post is sort of on topic. Furthermore, the March 2006 issue of MAXIM could make up for any damage to the truth movement that P.M. did.

It appears MAXIM magazine's March 2006 issue is going to cover 9/11 "Conspiracy Theories".

Is this going to be another Popular Mechanic's hitpiece?


"It’s four and a half years after 9/11, and there’s still much unknown about that day. We examine the theories, from remote–controlled planes to our own government’s intentionally letting it all go down, no matter how absurdly bat–shit crazy they happen to be."


After hearing this news, I ran out of my house and sprinted to my local convenience store to check out this article.

The heading across the top of the cover reads:


What? "Stranger than fiction"? The truth is stranger than fiction, could this be an article based on 9/11 truths?

Contrary to my original speculation, this was not a hitpiece. I was only able to skim the article. The gentleman behind the counter asked me 3 times if I was going to purchase the magazine. I left the house so quickly, I failed to grab my wallet, so I had to regretfully tell him "not right now".

From what I gathered, the article begins with an interview with Sander Hicks, then moves on to Jimmy Walter. There's a picture of David Icke at the bottom of one of the pages, although I didn't get a chance to read what they had to say about him.

For the most part, the article seemed to focus on the collapse of the WTC buildings, although I noticed some of it referred to the Pentagon.

I'll pick up a copy tomorrow, more to come...

No idea. I seem to remember

No idea. I seem to remember hearing about how Chertoff's something or other is the editor?

damn dude, that was fast.

damn dude, that was fast.

do you have any idea who

do you have any idea who their parent company is though?

come on S.King! you can do

come on S.King! you can do it! i just wanna know where a guy like you stands on the Commission.simple question.


Do you have a link for that

Do you have a link for that Popular Mechanics article Chris?

so S.King, i noticed you

so S.King, i noticed you failed to answer my simple question as usual. wanna try again? here goes:do you feel like The 9/11 Commission Report did its job? did the Commssion follow every lead and ask every tough question? are you happy with the final report?very basic, simple questions, try not to think too hard.



the picture of the article is in the top right hand corner, im not sure how to find the issue itself, i really dont feel like trolling around that pathetic site.

left hand corner, sorry.

left hand corner, sorry.

I'm having problems with

I'm having problems with digg... I can't vote on anything...

Consider it dugg sir.

Consider it dugg sir.


Go Fetzer! In other

Go Fetzer!

In other news...

OK, 911 experts... how many factual errors in this article?


Someone way more versed than I in the Secure air zones around the Capitol pointed out three.

S.King, i try not to talk to

S.King, i try not to talk to you, i just dont like shills very much,and i know for a fact i have NEVER discussed evidence of any kind with you. i find you highly suspicious and annoying, but beyond that i havent said much to you. thanks for noticing me though.

The Central Intelligence

The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

"No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original)."

In summary:

• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."

• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.

• United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA,thats my favorite.well if the CIA said it,it must be true, HAHAHAHHAHAH.

yeah, im actually checking

yeah, im actually checking that stuff out right now.hilarious indeed.

Jon Gold wrote... "Why don't

Jon Gold wrote...

"Why don't you respect his wishes, and promote 9/11 Truth,..."

The Professional wrote....

"Then I propose that the source of this infighting be banned. By source I mean S. King."

On the homepage of this site:

"All comments are welcome! but please avoid hate speech and profanity, and use references when possible."

"911blogger.com does not seek to push any specific 'theories' about 9/11, but rather seeks to cover 9/11 related 'alternative' news. As such all readers should do their own research and develop their own opinions on the news and information covered."

That about covers much my participation in getting to the truth about 9/11.

Even though it seems to bother some who apparently don't like some evidence. Look at Chris, for example.

i just noticed Popular

i just noticed Popular Mechanics had an issue called:Debunking Katrina Myths.goddamn, that magazine never stops serving its government.who is their parent company?



i know most of you have probably seen this before, but its too friggin ironic, i had to post it again.

Chris... ever see

(emotion is not intended to

(emotion is not intended to be read here, just cold facts)

Reminder: WING TV, the duo who recently labeled 911Truth as "war criminals" and has slandered most decent 9-11 reseachers and activists.

At the very tail end of Monday's (2-12-06) WING TV friendly interview, "Scholar's for 911 Truth" representative James Fetzer thanked patriots Victor and Lisa for doing "a lot of good for the 911 truth movement".

James also praised 9-11 on Trial, and promoted Loose Change and In Plane site as the best dvd educational tools.

(Monday's Fetzer interview is still in the today's show section of WINGTV.net)

Jon, check "remember my

Jon, check "remember my info" so you stay logged in!


Hi All, This was posted at

Hi All,
This was posted at Loose Change 2 Forum by Ram Time, everyone who has read it has expressed it is a "MUST READ"! Please take the few minutes to read it and you'll understand that this is great and must be passed on to everyone. Make copies, send emails, but please do something if this article makes you "THINK". It's time the "TRUTH" be known!!! The rest of the world "KNOWS" what happened that terrible day, this is "OUR COUNTRY" open your minds and think!!!!!! Thank You Scaffold Rider

Posted: Feb 15 2006, 03:44 PM
Report Post


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Member No.: 163
Joined: 15-February 06

You sat for hours on September 11th 2001 watching the events unfold. You watched the towers collapse into their own footprint; perfectly, symmetrically and totally. But something was odd. You could not put your finger on it but something was definitely strange about the whole attack. From the airplanes (or lack there of) to the late response of military fighter jets to the complete and total collapse looking much like a controlled demolition.

However a few hours later after the FBI had a good lead on the case and you heard the song, "Proud To Be An American" 30 or 40 times everything began to make sense.

Still a bit puzzled on how the hijackers could plant bombs throughout both towers it was quickly realized that all of the booms and bangs that were reported by those on the scene didn't actually happen. So you didn't have to worry about those cumbersome reports of explosions, bombs and detonating charges anymore.

You tried to forget that you really did not see an airplane at the pentagon however you saw the fire and smoke and you were told that a plane had crashed there.

You remember that some silly reporter was foolish enough to make a statement publicly saying that "no plane had crashed anywhere near the pentagon."

Then there was that crater where flight 93 crashed straight into the ground at 500 miles per hour and damned if you could see any pieces of airplane there either. What was happening here?

There was a hole in the ground about 15 feet deep and 30 feet wide. There is smoke coming from the hole where the airplane crashed. Your common sense told you that for a legitimate airplane crash there needs to be an airplane. I mean you can not have a car crash without a car so it just figured that airplane crashes would involve an airplane. Just one airplane would be enough to legitimize the airplane crash. To make matters worse there was that reporter again making the statement publicly that there were no pieces of airplane at the airplane crash site. Rats!

You knew that what ever happened on that flight was heroic. "Lets Roll" heard over a cell phone from 32,000 feet was a little easier to believe then another plane missing from an airplane crash site. Its a good thing we have such competent FBI agents otherwise these questions may have lingered around taking up a good portion of the common sense areas in our minds.

You wondered, why did those damned Arabs do this in the first place? What would cause these kamikaze Arabs to take their own life and the lifeÂ’s of innocent Americans?

Well its a good thing the president knew cause I sure didn't have a clue, Furthermore, if I tried to guess I probably would have come up with a theory lacking substance befitting of the crime.

But the President was there with answers.

"America is the brightest beacon for freedom in the world".
"They hate Americas freedom!"

There you see? A perfectly reasonable explanation.
ThatÂ’s why he's the president.
Mystery solved.

Furthermore Osama must be much happier with the U.S. now because we have done plenty about the freedom problem we were having over here. Notwithstanding our history teachers interpretation of the constitution we didn't realize that "the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper" as our president in shining armor has recently taught us.

Returning to the FBI agents, lets not forget about the job that the FBI did. Wow! Fast! unreal, I mean really unreal. Think about it; these FBI agents knew exactly which flight school(s) to investigate. Damn they are good.

Indeed, at an almost eerie pace, photos of Osama Bin Laden were everywhere.

Sometime late in the afternoon of September 11th another building nearly half the height of the twin towers fell to the ground. Though it was not hit by an airplane or had any significant fires in it, another perfectly reasonable explanation for its collapse was told to us by reporters.

"Because of the devastation earlier today World Trade Center Building number 7 collapsed."

There you see? Another perfectly reasonable explanation. Obviously the building was heart broken due to earlier events.

The President knew Osama had to be behind this attack because decades ago Osama attacked other Americans in other lands and not once did he fail to take the credit. Furthermore he hates Americas freedom. What more evidence do you need?

Osama denied and denounced the attacks of 911 but lets not get caught up in rhetoric regarding the fact that he has always claimed responsibility in the past. Indeed he tried to trick us by denying the attacks. Furthermore we said he did it and by God that means he did it!

As you watched in anger, you talked about what we should do when we caught Osama Bin Laden. You couldn't pass by a September eleventh collection fund without dropping at least a buck into the kitty.

The administration asked you to immediately support a war against terror and a war against the Taliban government. The President gave you a choice. Two choices as a matter of fact.

The choices were, "Your either with us, or your with the terrorists."

Now I didn't need any help from the president on this choice, I just did what everyone else did, I accepted the only choice there was. We are with you Mr. President. Let's bomb em!

The Taliban, (after muttering "Is it October already?") refused to extradite Osama bin Laden and all other Al-Qaeda leaders that were based in Afghanistan to the United States without evidence. However, the Taliban did agree to extradite to an Islamic country.

To my simple mind this seemed like a fair offering but again that's why I'm not the president.

The white house responded only like the white house can. No! Were not going to provide evidence when we can just come and bomb you. We may loose a few hundred maybe a thousand American soldiers and kill twenty or thirty thousand Muslims but asking a democratic country for evidence involving criminal activity is, well, well, we need to bomb you just for being so naive.

In other words the Taliban had two choices either we were going to bomb them or we were going to drop bombs on them.

That evidence was not given and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion in to Afghanistan on October 7. Secretary of State Condelezza Rice said, "The U.S. has evidence of Bin LadenÂ’s role in terrorists acts that it will present in due time". Its February 2006, No Osama Bin Laden, No Evidence except for the following absurd story:

19 Islamic hijackers entered the United States, some of the hijackers left parts of their applications blank, some with no specific reason to be in the United States, some with destinations such as hotels.

These hijackers then moved freely about the country obtaining pilots licenses and learning to fly. Somehow these hijackers learned how to fly and navigate these jumbo jets without the aid of air traffic controllers.

These hijackers have no record of purchasing tickets, do not show up on the flight manifest nor are they listed in any autopsies report.

None of the American pilots or co-pilots or navigators on any of the 4 flights thought to send a distress signal while these hijackers were beating down the cockpit doors.

The hijackers were somehow able to get through locked cockpit doors and with nothing except razor blades, plastic knives and/or box cutters these amazing Arab pilots took control of all 4 airplanes even though some of the American pilots that gave up their airplanes had a military background.

Indeed, the hijackers were a perfect 4 out of 4 in take-aways.

The carefully worded 911 commission report would lead you to believe that they lost flight 77 from radar for 40 minutes because the hijackers turned off the transponder.

They hope you do not realize that turning off the transponder does not cause the flight traffic controllers or the military air defense system to lose an airplane for 40 minutes especially when they are looking for it.

Notwithstanding that the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the PentagonÂ’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder. and if Flight 77 had entered the PentagonÂ’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses. This Pilot somehow out smarted this missile battery.

The Arab pilots had enough skill to fly close to the ground without anyone hearing the loud roaring jet engines. Engines that are powerful enough to have blown automobiles off of the roadways as they roared over.

It is important to understand that the official conspiracy theory does not show (as one would think) flight 77 diving into the pentagon.

The official conspiracy theory holds that flight 77 flew parallel to the ground just inches above the grass and slammed into the ground floor.

In other words, if the pentagon had not been in the path of the aircraft the pilot could have simply pulled back on the yoke and regained altitude.

These are some amazing piloting skills. To think your going to hit a cement wall at 500 miles an hour in just a few seconds and your able to keep a steady hand.

Even as you hate these Arab Pilots one

Everytime I try to vote it

Everytime I try to vote it asks me to login, even if I'm already logged in.

I've noticed that this site

I've noticed that this site is becoming an "infighting" extravaganza.

I know that's not what dz intended this place to be.

Why don't you respect his wishes, and promote 9/11 Truth, and working towards that goal rather than fight amongst yourselves.

Then I propose that the

Then I propose that the source of this infighting be banned. By source I mean S. King.

i agree with Pro. the guy is

i agree with Pro. the guy is like a broken record. every post is:Steven Jones is a moron, the government is telling the truth.

The Taliban, (after

The Taliban, (after muttering "Is it October already?")
great line.great read altogether.

Will digg.com take a 700MB

Will digg.com take a 700MB Divx? or should I use the

Steven Jones presentation

Steven Jones presentation has been approved on Google Video, I uploaded it last night..


That's auesome DHS! :)

That's auesome DHS! :)

DHS submit it to digg.com!?

DHS submit it to digg.com!?

ultimately, the Maxim piece

ultimately, the Maxim piece is a good thing.it may not be perfect, far from it actually, but like i said, they dont actively try to toute the official line like PM(well,not as bad as PM), they leave people to make their own call on 9/11(even though they are very selective in what they put in the piece).in the end, this can only help open a few more eyes.Maxim has a pretty big audience.

it does take on the usual

it does take on the usual "are these people crazy" tone though. dissapointing.


Excellent mp3 of Jim

Excellent mp3 of Jim Fetzer!

Can't wait for the reviews of Jones' seminar today

When I saw parts of the

When I saw parts of the Larry King Flight 93 show while I was at work, and you hear the guests and some statements seem strange, then they play the Mark Bingham piece and he says "It's Mark Bingham" to me it almost feels like something is being shoved in my face. Almost taunting.

Maybe I'm weird.


I trust that some who

I trust that some who listened to the interview of Jim Fetzer saw the strawman arguments and rhetorical devices he used to get his "point" across in the section dealing with the building collapses.

Here's a real doozy which illustrates the point I make about accepting Fetzer's and Jone's "physics" uncritically. And the evidence is available for you all to check directly.

When Fetzer starts talking about the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, at about 25:35 (minutes:seconds) into the interview, he starts his discussion with this statement:

"...it is for example not even physically possible that the buildings fell in accordance with the government account because for example you are not at liberty to change the melting point of steel."

You got that? Fetzer is saying that the "government account" bases it's claim on steel melting to cause the collapses of the tower.

So what is this "government account"?

The account detailing the causes of the collapses is the "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" issued by NIST in September 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf.) This is the "official story" as 9/11 conspiracists like Fetzer instruct us repeatedly. NIST, the government agency charged with the "offical" investigation of the WTC collapses, their causes and recommendations for better building standards, was actually made up of government and non-government experts. In addition, the Bush Administration caused there to be created an independent oversight committee to review the results and methodologies of the NIST team, something 9/11 conspiracists neglect to report.

What does NIST have to say about "melting steel?" In its 298 page report it says precisely and ONLY this:

"Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value reached by fires of common building combustibles." Page 29.

That's it.

So, if that's it, what does NIST say about the steel? Here is the report:

"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to
temperatutures above 600 degrees centigade [1,112 degrees fahrenheit] for as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that
established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter steel microstructure." P. 180

"In the simulations, none of the columns with intact insulation reached temperatures over 300 °C. Only a few isolated truss members with intact insulation were heated to temperatures over 400 °C in the WTC 1 simulations and to temperatures over 500 °C in the WTC 2 simulations. In WTC 1, if the fires had been allowed to continue past the time of building collapse, complete burnout would likely have occurred within a short time since the fires had already traversed around the entire floor, and most of
the combustibles would already have been consumed. In WTC 2, if the fire
simulation were extended for 2 hours past the time of building collapse
with all windows broken, the temperatures in the truss steel on the west side of the building (where the insulation was undamaged) would likely have increased for about 40 min before falling off rapidly as the combustibles were consumed. Temperatures of 700°C to 760°C were reached over approximately 15 percent of the west floor area for less than 10 min. Approximately 60 percent of the floor steel had temperatures between 600°C and 700°C for about 15 min. Approximately 70 percent of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500°C for about 45 min. At these
temperatures, the floors would be expected to sag and then recover a
portion of the sag as the steel began to cool. The temperatures of the insulated exterior and core columns would not have increased to the point where they would have experienced significant loss of strength or stiffness." P. 184

Structural Response and Collapse Analysis

"The core columns were weakened significantly by the aircraft impact damage and thermaleffects. Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC 1. As the fires moved from the
north to the south side of the core, the core was weakened over time by significant creep strains on the south side of the core. Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2. With the impact damage, the core subsystem leaned to the southeast and was supported by the south and east perimeter walls via the hat truss and floors. As the core weakened, it redistributed loads to the perimeter walls through the hat truss and floors. Additional axial loads redistributed to the exterior columns from the core were not significant(only about 20 percent to 25 percent on average) as the exterior columns were loaded to
approximately 20 percent of their capacity before the aircraft impact." P. 185

So, in this entire "official" account, NIST says that all the temperatures found through their tests were well below the 1,600 degrees C NIST says is necessary to melt steel.

So, why is Fetzer saying otherwise? Why would he misrepresent the "government account" so blatantly? Why would he even find it necessary to do so if he believes he has a strong case?

Do you all realize that he has been doing it all along? Do you have an explanation?

This is just the first of many times Fetzer played with the facts just in the building collapse section.

If anyone expresses interest, I'll post more.

Chris, re: "...it is for

Chris, re:
"...it is for example not even physically possible that the buildings fell in accordance with the government account because for example you are not at liberty to change the melting point of steel."

I think he's saying if NIST said things didn't get that hot, how was there molten steel at the scene?

Holy F-ing Sh-t... Ron Paul

Holy F-ing Sh-t... Ron Paul just laid it out for us...


Pacifica Radio just ran a

Pacifica Radio just ran a 9/11 special; they ran clips from Barrie Zwicker's film as well as some others. It was good stuff.

chris, can you get the maxim


can you get the maxim scanned and emailed to us? it would be much appreciated.. otherwise ill try to pick it up tommorrow on lunch.. thanks.

chris and s. king,

stop referencing one another when posting comments please. if you want to direct all of your comments towards each other use email please.

dz requested... "stop

dz requested...

"stop referencing one another when posting comments please. if you want to direct all of your comments towards each other use email please."

Will do.

thanks for the summary of

thanks for the summary of the maxim article Culhavoc, let me know if you can get some scans..

DHS wrote... "I think he's

DHS wrote...

"I think he's saying if NIST said things didn't get that hot, how was there molten steel at the scene?"

No, he actually makes the same strawman argument here:

"The extremely high melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above the maximum (around 1,700° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel under optimal conditions. Underwriters Laboratories had certified the steel used in the World Trade Center to 2,000° F for up to six hours. Even lower maximum temperatures result after factoring in insulation, such as asbestos, and the availability of oxygen. Since steel is a good conductor, any heat applied to one part of the structure would have been dissipated to other parts. WTC1, the North Tower, was hit first at 8:46 AM/ET and collapsed at 10:29 AM/ET, whereas the South Tower, hit second at 9:03 AM/ET, collapsed at 9:59 AM/ET. They were exposed to fires for roughly an hour and a half and an hour, respectively. Insofar as most of the fuel was burned off in the gigantic fireballs that accompanied the initial impacts, that these towers were brought down by fuel fires that melted the steel is not just improbable but physically impossible."



yeah,Ron Paul seems to be

yeah,Ron Paul seems to be fed up. good for him.hopefully more will follow his lead.

Chris, As dz requested


As dz requested yesterday, I will respond in this forum to personal attacks, insults, and blatant misrepresentations.

Read above "will NOT

Read above "will NOT respond."

dz, I picked up a copy. I'm


I picked up a copy. I'm having them scanned now. I'll post them on my blog, feel free to mirror them on 911blogger.


Culhavoc, Sweet, thanks! I


Sweet, thanks! I just went on lunch to a few stores and they all had the Feb issue.. im assuming its in the march issue since i couldnt find it..

Yes, it's in the March. I

Yes, it's in the March. I went to 4 different stores and all I could find was the Feb. I finally broke down and went to the Borders that I frequent, which is the last place I wanted to be seen purchasing MAXIM, lol.

I just sent these out to be scanned, they're going to be emailed back to me by a friend... shouldn't be long.


Culhavoc, next time you're

Culhavoc, next time you're at Borders, can you get me a copy of Jugs?



I am responding to Ram Time

I am responding to Ram Time and 911 Scaffoldrider about the longer article posted above. First, thanks, its a great read. But I do have a bit of a problem with one aspect...Flight 93.

Yes, there was a big hole. But are you saying Flight 93 did NOT crash there? You see, I accept that either a missile or mid air explosion caused the collapse (because of the spread of debris and one engine in particular).

But I have some trouble with any suggestions that 93 did not crash there. I say this because high impact crashes DO result in massive shredding and fragmentation of the plane body, as various military pilots have affirmed.

On my reading of it, 93 did crash at the site after it was (likely)shot down.

The rest of the article is great. I'm just wary when hints and suggestions are made that flight 93 actually may not have crashed there, just a bomb or something.

Anyway, can anyone clarify for me?

dz, all set, I had it

dz, all set, I had it converted to pdf


(check the update at the bottom of the page)


culhavoc, great stuff..


great stuff.. thanks for the scans, we will get them posted this evening.. i am pretty blown away at the level of coverage there is in this magazine.. whether or not the coverage is even handed, the fact that that many 9/11 skeptics were covered is a first for any magazine.

dz, You're quite welcome. I


You're quite welcome. I can't comment more on the content, since I haven't had a chance to read it. (I'm still at work)
Also, I'm going to capture the text in an OCR. I should have that up later tonight.