Dr. Jim Fetzer on Alan Colmes Radio Show - Open Thread

Jim Fetzer will be the guest on the Alan Colmes Radio Program [tonight] - st911.org

I have to apologize for not having this up earlier, but according to slaqqer the Fetzer segment of the show will start about 11PM CST (12PM EST). You can find the streaming link above, feel free to comment on the show in this thread.

Note: The recording of this interview can now be found here and here.

Also mirrored here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=126

Thanks Core and Neil for the audio hookup!

Holy shit, Bush just signed

Holy shit, Bush just signed into a law getting America closer to annexing with Mexicon and Canada to form the North American Union. And boy, is lou dobbs PISSED! I think he called them a bunch of elites trying to destroy America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A&search=american%20union

One World Government, here we come.

Jesus Christ Stuart! This

Jesus Christ Stuart! This guy is suppose to be a "Scholar", he should no better. Why is it that we do? WTF?! And now he's playing the "I'm just human" card. He has no busines speaking on 9-11 to a national audience period! So why was he allowed to? Fu*king duh!

Yes Fetzer is emotional but

Yes Fetzer is emotional but this is just a lot of infighting and second guessing. I'd love to see you guys do any better under the circumstances. There is a lot of info to disseminate in 1 hour and he is angry and rightly so.

So stop it already and be grateful anyone paid any attention to the movement at all!

Really just stop it. You guys are being hugely unfair to anyone who is trying to put any info out there. It's up to the listeners to decide what they do with the info. Continue to blindly and emotionally say that's not possible, or hey, this issue deserves further research on the listeners part. Fetzer viewpoints alter nothing.

Fetzer sealed it at end by

Fetzer sealed it at end by the "legal action of Judical Watch" that brought us from the creepy hands of government the Pentgon parking lot video..

That's evidence Fetzer is spreading disinfo quite systematically. They have it on their website and mentioned it on many other occassions.

So, the strategy is clear take "scholar" like Fetzer and let him "discover" 90% of the true story then mixed it with 10% of dissinfo traps. And finally after short wait just pull the rug under him at the best moment..

The "usefull idiot" or "mole" probabilities are 50%/50% for Fetzer as of now.

Hey Jim and all I'm not sure

Hey Jim and all

I'm not sure what show most of the above "critics" were listening to, but I thought Jim Fetzer did very well considering the "quality" of the callers and the obvious agenda of the host...

A couple of points...

I think he should have asked the caller for his uncles name, who was supposedly on flight 93, phoning his aunty...

When questioned about 7/7 - he should try and get it back to 9/11, if they persist then the "golden arrow" is Peter Power of Visor Consultants...

Listen to 9/11 - 7/7 Connection (about 22 minutes in)

Good luck to Jim Fetzer and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Cheers.

Professor Fetzer, Thanks

Professor Fetzer,

Thanks very much for posting. It just goes to show what a great job the administators of this site have done, and also that its supporters are tireless. Anyway, the point...

I think that some of the criticism of your performance is off-base, while some is valid. How's that for a wishy washy answer! The point that some have made is that your interview etiquette could have been better. Sometimes, you appeared combative unnecessarily, which only hurts the credibility of what you're trying to say. You seemed rude to callers at times, which tends to make hosts nervous and irritated. Also, I really don't think it's a race to push every theory that you can when you have the opportunity to make a media appearance. Perhaps the thinking is that, if you mention dozens of facts or possible scenarios, that you will be more likely to find an audience member's trigger point, and inspire them to action. Sort of like the shotgun effect. We've seen this with many interviewees who make it on the air, and maybe it works. I don't agree with this approach. While you obviously need to be spontaneous and sharp as a knife (and you are very sharp), I think that it would make you appear more credible to stick to the most provable theories and only recite that which we've come to know as factual information. No-plane theories, missile theories, the Skywarrior scenario, and some of the strange stuff have no place in the mainstream media. This is stuff that people can look up and research on their own, as it erodes away your believability like an acid. That not to say these ideas are not credible, though I believe many are not, it's just that most people (who don't already agree) are going to find such things as far-fetched. 9/11 Truth is not far-fetched. It's truth is very immediate, and we need to focus on the things that average thinking Americans will respond to. I believe, of course this IS just my opinion, that the coverup, stand down, and refusal to investigate the crime are our movement's finest tools to accomplish the job. I hope you are able to interact with the media again, and that you learn as much as you can from your last performance.

Thanks for being a Patriot!

Stuart Provine

Same CGI, same alleged real

Same CGI, same alleged real aircraft?
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 | 06.28.06 - 3:11 am | #

"No planes" = "No brains" asshole, even it's is valid pushing it is brainless, there's mountain of other credible info to advance, yet you think it's cool to f*ck everybody’s credibility and insult the victims of that attack. If you want an example of how damaging your "no brains" theory, sry I mean "no planes" theory is, look no further then the massive potential damage that Jimmy Walter has done chatting that sh!t in LA, and having on his webpage right under that one million challenge, which is a great idea totally ruined by the "no brains" at the WTC theory. Go start up "EWINGTV" or something and push that cointelpro bunk somewhere else you “no brainer”!

Fetzer came off bad on the

Fetzer came off bad on the Colmes show especially with the callers. He got shrill and let his ego get the better of him. Also, he is still talking about that small hole in the Pentagon on it's second floor but fails to mention the 90 foot hole below it on the first floor. What's up with that? This was discussed at the LA conference which he was at. When I first heard Fetzer I had a bad feeling about this guy and I'm still not sure if he's a mole or a "useful idiot."

There was a caller (Joe in

There was a caller (Joe in Seattle, @ 16m) whose uncle died on "flight 93", whose aunt had supposedly rec'd a phone call from the uncle. That was the great, perfect opportunity to request that the caller provide a copy of the credit card bill for the call!!!!!!!!!!!! (See, we've all heard, for years, about all these "calls", but I've never seen a shred of evidence that any of them really occurred and were genuine...)

In general, I think it's better to disprove/discredit the govt's theory without unnecessarily advancing any of our own. It's best to not speculate. At this stage, we can be much more sure about what did not happen than what did. People who insist upon answers to their nonsensical questions about fictitious elements of The Big Lie may cause you to be tempted to ridicule them, but try not to -- I've found that it is beneficial, in presenting 9/11 truth, to make it clear that the presenter derives absolutely zero pleasure in being right about this stuff, even to the point of wishing out loud that s/he was wrong about it! Instead of telling a flat-earther how stupid they are, try to come up with a parallel stupid scenario, and ask them if they'd believe (or how they'd answer) that.

Also, it was yet another blown opportunity when, @30min, Jim pointed out that (even Bill O'Reilly agreed that) the Pentagon video doesn't show a 757, but failed to mention that what it does show is TOO SMALL TO BE A 757! (Why does so much of the 911 truth movement insist upon always disregarding and thus helping to bury this huge, govt-lie-killing headline?)

And, BTW, there is still no known viable "pulverization" mechanism which can account for what happened at Ground Zero, so we should stop using that word; it's misleading and deceptive. (It's Pataki's and Giuliani's word, and it's part of The Big Lie...) Nor can "thermate" account for any of the phenomenal evidence above and beyond the falls of the towers.
______________________________________

Steve is worried that BLUE

Steve is worried that BLUE SCREEN can damage the "health of the movement" ..
if CNN or FOX will bring this up.

HA HA ha.. that would be GREAT!!

Its great to be ridiculed by FOX!
It's a sign of quality!!!

Like the original thought (911=inside job) NEVER CROSSED PEOPLE'S MIND .. and they needed to be told..

in the same way NOW people need to be told that TV manipulation was a part of the show... and they will laugh .. and it will take time before they think about it.. but the important thing is: THEY WERE TOLD.. and TV-image MANIPULATIONS ARE DONE.

again.. once people THINK

EYE-DECEPTION + CORPORATIONS

this can only be a good thing.

Also, don't you think that FOX and CNN would like to keep quiet about it?

And who are the bozos (not

And who are the bozos (not our bozo) who say the thermite issue is not too important. Get a grip!!! When did actual scientific evidence become unimportant?

I feel like I'm addressing

I feel like I'm addressing two different threads here--the real one and the disinfo one. Prof. Fetzer was great. These things are never going to go 100% our way, or else they wouldn't let us on in the first place. All of you who are claiming to be shocked--SHOCKED! that Prof. Fetzer doubts arbara Olson (note the spelling, shills) was killed on Flight 77 are just laughable. Of course she wasn't killed on a plane that never went near the Pentagon. Of course it was a missile that made the hole through to the 3rd inside ring. Of course WTC was pulled. Of course we know who was behind the demolition of the WTC (think corollary to the Pottery Barn rule--you buy it, you break it) The poor caller whose uncle died and whose poor crazy aunt now sleeps alone was a joke. I felt like calling in and telling them my entire family, a traveling band of gypsies, all died on flight 93, after calling me on their cell phone to tell me what tight buns Mark Bingham had. PROVE ME WRONG! Are you calling my family LIARS? Puh-leeze. Any of you defending that tactic should be forced to pay each of those liars hush mon- er victims compensation money out of your own pocket--maybe then you'd ask for some proof before forking over your sympathy AND cash. The disinfo on this thread is ASTOUNDING, and sticks out like a 47 story controlled demolition. Finally I did get throught o the Foxy Lady and specifically said I wanted to ask about Sibel Edmonds. Guess what? Sorry! We're not going to have time for you question after all. SIBEL EDMONDS. SIBEL EDMONDS. SIBEL EDMONDS. a) she's hot, b) she has the goods on money laundering drug smuggling, translation sabotaging TRAITORS and spies, and c)she's hot. So is Prof. Fetzer. Alan Colmes, not so much. Nuff said? No, not yet--COWER you shills--you do NOT blend in here, even if no one feels like calling you out. Truth thunders on, mad props to all the real truther in the house. WE ARE WINNING!

I like Jim Fetzer, but I get

I like Jim Fetzer, but I get where dudes like stallion4 are coming from if he really was chatting shit like that. I havenÂ’t heard the interview yet, but I recon what needs to be done to end all this infighting is for Jim Fetzer and say someone who's criticized him like Jim Hoffman, to go on camera and settle their differences. We all agree about WTC7 and the need to expose these crimes, let those be the unifying issues is what I say.

Johnny-come-lately wrote:I'm

Johnny-come-lately wrote:I'm listening to this Michael Collins Piper guy talk at the moment, I'm not hearing anything I disagree with or find suspicious, save the advertising.

I'm the one that called in about Jimmy Walter's wild theories, Genius.

In short, I think the golden rule applies here as well as it does anywhere else.

So you're saying that people that spread lies should be allowed a free pass? Please educate yourself on the proven lies that "Dr." Fetzer spewed to a national audience before you pop off again, D.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm more upset at myself that I called into the Colmes show and promoted this "possible" disinfo agent.

So, Fetzer, did you not know that Flocco's story about Olson was bunk?! Is that what you're saying?

In case anyone's interested,

In case anyone's interested, here's the Jim Fetzer interview on Friday's Laura Ingraham Show. Boy is she a WITCH. She didn't give him a chance to cover the important points. She succeeded to a degree in portraying him as a 'nutty professor'. And Fetzer's maniacal giggle at the closing was the last nail in the coffin. That was a sad and strange interview.
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=CFDAB19B3ADC16D5

I couldn't sleep after

I couldn't sleep after listening to Fetzer's outburst and added speculative bullshit about 9/11 on the Colmes show. Man, talk about giving propaganda points to the other side! I hope none of the people that I regularly send "spam" emails about the collapse of the WTC buildings see this interview. All of that will be undone. Next time I hope they interview David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman or Steven Jones since they come off much better.

Thanks DBLS... It will have

Thanks DBLS... It will have to be later.

DBLS... is it as bad as

DBLS... is it as bad as everyone says?

Is it actually Jim Fetzer

Is it actually Jim Fetzer posting in this thread? it is the internet afterall where anyone can pretend to be someone else.

John Gold> also add to your

John Gold> also add to your list that Fetzer perpetued again that myth about Judicial Watch "legal pressure" released those Pentagon video clips

The Fetzer on Colmes MP3 is

The Fetzer on Colmes MP3 is posted on the ST911 site, as well:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/060627_Fetzer.mp3

DBLS... is it as bad as

DBLS... is it as bad as everyone says?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 9:01 am | #

I don't think it was that bad, but it wasnÂ’t what we need. He did a better job on the TV, what he should have done is stayed chilled and picked just a few sold topics instead of trying to present every single fact. And with the callers and Colmes he should have sympathized with their ignorance a bit more and explained the whole deal with a bit more understanding. This is very strong stuff, and people are going to want to reject it at first, by getting confrontational, defensive and chatting a bit of slightly uncredible stuff, Fetzer gave some people listening I'm sure an easy excuse to just dismiss everything else he said. Colmes started to get a bit pissed at him I think, and although I'm really not down with Colmes or anything like that I could definitely see where he was coming from.

How was it reprehensor?

How was it reprehensor?

Addition. A few days after

Addition.

A few days after his inauguration, George W. Bush asked his principals to find a "way" to invade Iraq. 9/11 happened, and we went to war with Iraq. It's not crazy to suspect that 9/11 was the Bush Administration's "way" to invade Iraq especially since that's what they used to do it.

Seems there were a few

Seems there were a few shills at the top of this thread, especially that "Brian" fraud. Of course Blim & A-man-da-recon- with had to throw some b.s. into the fray.

Fetzer should have said the

Fetzer should have said the following statement, and if I get on the radio again, I know I am.

A few days after his inauguration, George W. Bush asked his principals to find a "way" to invade Iraq. 9/11 happened, and we went to war with Iraq. It's not crazy to suspect that 9/11 was the Bush Administration's "way" to invade Iraq.

Colmes never said that he

Colmes never said that he believes that conrolled demolition brought the towers down. Unless you can quote this from the interview, (and you can't), please stop saying this. I think you guys heard Colmes simply repeating what Fetzer was saying, to clarify, but not to say that he agrees. Either quote him, or stop repeating this misunderstanding.

Daricus, Flocco "broke" the

Daricus, Flocco "broke" the Olson story- and it was quickly parroted by other sites. He's broken several other bogus stories- as noted in my post above. He breaks stories like the rest of us break wind - they're coming from his arse and they stink to high heaven like butt gas after five-hour binge on sushi and pork'n'beans.

If you don't have the good sense to know why talking about Barbara Olson being alive is absolutely offensive to reasonable people of any political persuasion, you need to spend less time focused on 9/11 Truth and more time just interacting with people- particularly people with demonstrable common sense.

I'll just have to listen to

I'll just have to listen to it later. Thanks for the brief.

I'm surprised ,238 comments

I'm surprised ,238 comments and Nico isn't around.

DBLS... "trying to present

DBLS...

"trying to present every single fact"

There are "good facts", and there are "bad facts"... which was being presented?

Point is Fetzer should know

Point is Fetzer should know better. Point is Fetzer would know better.

This Flocco nonsense has been debunked up one side and down the other for close to a year now. Why wouldn't a so-called "scholar" know this?

Still waiting to know who made the call to put "Dr." Fetzer on Faux News?

Did anyone record this? I

Did anyone record this? I would like to hear it.

Did anyone record this? I

Did anyone record this? I would like to hear it.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 8:58 am | #

Here dude;

http://loosechange.markblu.net/Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_...

>the no plane crowd? Why are

>the no plane crowd? Why are they >being so disruptive?

It's like when Alex Jones mentioned the "New World Order" global conspiracy on CNN: It might be true, but it's too far fetched from the "official truth" to be 'digestable'. And our goal is to spread the truth, isn't it? WTC7 falling like a house of cards is what everyone agrees with: no way was this accidential! But right away shocking people with something totally different from the official truth won't get any results.

Same with the 'bundling' that many have done with 9/11: Selling the 9/11 inside job together with Oklahoma City and Roswell UFOs etc. That won't work. Once 9/11 inside job is mainstream knowledge, many other cover-ups will tumble down automatically, because of the unrepairable trust in the U.S. govt.

Let me get this

Let me get this straight...

Jim Fetzer repeated the Tom Flocco Barbara Olsen is alive story.

Jim Fetzer talked about missiles at the Pentagon.

Jim Fetzer came off as a "lunatic".

Jim Fetzer was "hysterical".

Did I miss anything? I couldn't get the stream to work. A recap would be nice.

The Israeli hit team

The Israeli hit team probably placed the thermite and possibly also that pulverization effect - mini hydrogen device. That's how you achieve the following goals:

1. 100% bullet proof cover because Israeli spec ops don't talk, ever. So, just a few US commanders at the top so no US soldiers to blew the cover so to speak..

2. The mini hydrogen device for a lack of better term was a mil. test in the plane sight, mil.-industrial complex can't ask for more.

3. In any case of leak this story is a no go. You can't criticize Israel in MSM and this would sound like bad sci-fi.

>footage of it could have

>footage of it could have some >tampering.

Absolutely. Like with the Pentagon surveillance video frames, they fear nothing more but being caught in their crime, so they tried to hide photographic evidence in any material they had under their control.

People really need to stop

People really need to stop throwing the word 'shill' and 'cointelpro'. When 9/11 Truth started, it was merely people asking questions. Now we got people saying all sorts of wild stuff...however, that said just because someone says something you dont like, doesnt mean they are a shill.

Hell I used to call people promoting swapped planes andPentagon theories idiots, now I am very open to that idea.

Anyways, Im glad Fetzer stopped by. I saw him at the LA thing and I liked his talk...tho yeah, some theories virtually everyone agrees is false.

Ok guys, what do you make of the no plane crowd? Why are they being so disruptive?
I dont think what hit the WTC were not
757 or 767's, but its possible some footage of it could have some tampering.

Also I am now open to Israeli role in the attacks.

Fetzer starts off well, but

Fetzer starts off well, but he gets a bit erratic and way to defensive. He needs to concentrate on being calm composed and rational, he really shouldnÂ’t have attacked Colmes like that.

How can I support the work

How can I support the work you are doing?

CB: I really would have

CB: I really would have written back and told him that if he'd tell you why Jones' paper is embarassing or stupid you'd quit spreading it around.

Colmes knows the lie can't

Colmes knows the lie can't hold up to scrutiny much longer .Admitting to CD ,is a step in the right direction in a future where 911truth is accepted,To answer your question.

colin: What exactly did

colin: What exactly did Colmes say? I must've missed that part.

Real truther> and others

Real truther> and others whitewashers

All the rant about those terrible "gag orders" is just stupid in case you are a whistleblower you either go full steam ahead and take the consequences like seeking refuge in Europe in the end or you just shut up and obey.

Whistleblower who sais it only at half mouth means nothing. I'm not speaking just about Sibel Edmonds there are many more..

That's why my underlying thesis is if "whistleblowers" feel intimidated and gag ordered and don't go 100% out with their story you have already a totalitarian regime and the whole 9/11 movement is a joke of little importance in the light of the forthcomming events upon us..

Listen to it and make up

Listen to it and make up your own mind...

http://loosechange.markblu.net/ Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_- _June_27,_2006.mp3

Cheers...
a007 | 06.28.06 - 7:40 am | #

^ Thanks dude!!

http://www.gulf-times.com/sit

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=94425&...

"British Muslims are also by far the most fond of the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, with only 17%"

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23126

"In other words, in every one of these ten Muslim communities, a majority views 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the U.S. government, Israel, or some other agency."

Dem Bruce Lee Styles I

Dem Bruce Lee Styles

I honestly suggest you pay no attention to most of the above comments...

I'm suprised they could even take it in the way they were "machine gunning" criticisms every minute....

Sad...

Listen to it and make up your own mind...

http://loosechange.markblu.net/Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_-_June_27,_2006.mp3

Cheers...

Maybe take your own advice

Maybe take your own advice and stop painting such a gloom&doom picture of the movement. I know your only "protecting" us from these terrible agents ,but please give a little more credit than that.

Certainly the physics

Certainly the physics evidence and Jones' work is incontrovertible and what would be most productive looking at in the media. I say this partially because my own 9/11 trigger was WTC7, but also because it is backed up by so much volume of data.

That said, unfortunately with a lie this big media often wants to steer the interviewed expert into a controversial spot (More often than not the Pentagon, today specifically was "what happened to the people on the planes." The expert is now expected to answer a question not only not of his expertise (and indeed, Colmes DEMANDED an answer to this) but the answer would be by default completely hypothetical to anyone but someone intimately knowledgable with all details of the operation from the inside.

Dave von Kleist handled this most eloquently on the Glenn Beck show when he dodged the conspiracy bombs that the talking head was throwing at him, replying that he was merely looking at photographic evidence for proof of the official story. He stuck steadfastly to his area of expertise and refused to speculate on anything else. (Prompting Glen Beck to scornfully say "That's part of the problem, you don't have a theory, it -could- be a plane, it could be a big white elephant!"

The argument is in itself kind of silly, everyone surely has some kind of inkling as to what they think happened as opposed to a blank. Beck was just frustrated in his non-ability to drive the expert into the trap that unfortunately Colmes, Carlson and others have successfully used upon their targets err I mean interviewees.

Mr. Fetzer if you are still

Mr. Fetzer if you are still on. Why you are still supporting on your site the Judical Watch story when it is documented that the tapes were released thanks FOIA request by flight77.info not Judicial Watch? Look at the background of Judicial Watch, their president is being sued by founders for fraud among other things. And if go deeper Judicial Watch main donors ran CIA propaganda front companies from 70s in Europe. Most propably connected to Gladio..

So my point is go back to research and pls. reconsider your position and support for Judicial Watch. Secondly that puts all the Pentagon story in very dubious light, this is most probably a trap..

So "Dr." Fetzer, was it a

So "Dr." Fetzer, was it a unanimous decision by the 9-11 "Scholars" that you appear on Faux News?

Please, If they come calling again, say no! Just say no!

Btw, Dewdney's experiments explained that cell calls could not be made above "8,000" ft. not "2,000". Where did you get that figure?

This 9/11 thing goes on

This 9/11 thing goes on forever and people in the US, if nowhere else, keep feeling amazed and stunned. Why ? What is so strange about the idea that someone orchestrated a massive psyops campaign against the people of the country that sends those campaigns everywhere else, that some buildings got blown up on purpose, that some people have disappeared by force, that there were lies and more lies and that things don't get better? Why the surprise? And please, for the sake of national security, let us speak no more of the tired tale of poor helpless Sibel Edmonds!

Whoops. :) That was me.

Whoops. :) That was me.

:) Enhance your calm, John

:) Enhance your calm, John Spartan.

To be perfectly honest with you, the sections of the 9/11 truth movement I am most skeptical of are the ones that spew hate, that scream at me, often about the messengers of controversial information.

So I am put unsettled by your tone. Drum them out of the movement? Look dude I don't know if theres some union I haven't set up with that I need to contact, but I think that a big part of becoming a "9/11 Truther" is done within yourself. It therefore matters little what others think of your status or credibility within the movement, only what you are willing to do with the information. I'm listening to this Michael Collins Piper guy talk at the moment, I'm not hearing anything I disagree with or find suspicious, save the advertising.

In short, I think the golden rule applies here as well as it does anywhere else.

Sorry again, that was me...

Sorry again, that was me... I'm drunk.

Interesting reading. Thanks

Interesting reading. Thanks for these comments. I can't understand the guy who keeps asking "Who put Fetzer on the program?" It was the same person who puts everyone on any program, the producer! He called me from New York the day after my appearance on Hannity & Colmes to invite me on. There is no mystery. That's what producers do. The very insinuation that there's something mysterious here is extremely odd, but I chaulk it up to ignorance. As for the Barbara Olson business, I mentioned it in passing and said as I did so that I had not been able to verify it. I think some of you are getting just a bit carried away with what might be called "inside 9/11" (in parallel with "inside baseball"). Just because someone talks about or even mentions--as I did in this case--something with which you happen to disagree should not cause you to disregard or discount everything else they are saying or have ever said. That is an example of special pleading by citing only the evidence that supports your side! I have offered a yardstick to evaluate what happened here. Make a list of my points and divide it into those you liked and those you did not. I must have made between 30 and 50 points, many of which, I would bet, are either not commonly heard on radio or television or are never heard on radio or televison. So get a life! I am a great fan of David Ray Griffin and of Steve Jones. If you like what they do better than what I do, great! But understand that we are all doing what we can to promote 9/11 truth--even if we are fallible human beings who are practically never flawness in what we say and do. Just think about it and do your best to get the word out. That's what I do! I appreciated having the chance to talk with Alan Colmes. You may not have that chance. But you talk with real people every day. Do what you can to make them aware of the issues. We need your help!

Sorry, DZ, but we need to

Sorry, DZ, but we need to put some freakin' lines in the sand here, or don't we???

PS. u2r2h, go fuck yourself

PS. u2r2h, go fuck yourself BEEOTH!

Blimpy, Blimpy, Blimpy?

Blimpy, Blimpy, Blimpy? Where did you go wrong>?!

This is a great

This is a great dissapointment so perhaps Prof. Jones will someday annouce that he actually had it wrong and there was no thermite. Fetzer would call it a mistake because he is going back to JFK research. Alex Jones would stay with Illuminati and Charlie Sheen gets standing ovations at Republican rally claiming the 9/11 episode was his best guest apperance he just played it wild to ridicule the pinkos and conspiration kooks..

In the 9/11 con world everything is possible and Carl Rove rocks guys.

Still waiting to know WHO

Still waiting to know WHO put "Dr." Fetzer in fron of FAUX News to later promote Flocco disinfo on the Colmes show?

I wrote a letter to Alan

I wrote a letter to Alan Colmes and thought I'd share it here:

To Alan Colmes,

Tonight you asked Jim Fetzer how a government conspiracy could've taken place on 9/11 without whistleblowers or leaks. Fetzer responded, in his usual blustering manner, by mentioning the Tuskegee syphilis study which lasted from 1932 until 1972. You asked him how that story eventually broke, and said that Clinton apologized for that crime.

Of course it might be worth noting that while a whistleblower did emerge regarding the Tuskegee experiments, it took nearly forty years for that conspiracy to be exposed.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point this fact out to your listeners?

Also I wonder if it has ever occured to you to go beyond merely inviting on men like Fetzer, who make both seemingly rational and irrational claims alike, onto your radio program and instead take up the task of investigating the story. Or maybe you're not qualified to do that. Perhaps you know an actual investigative journalist who could? After all you work in that industry, and there must be at least one journalist left in the media...somewhere?

Just a suggestion.

Cheers,

Douglas Lain

PS. I'm drunk! Whatever.

PS. I'm drunk!

Whatever.

Go back to sleep America!

Go back to sleep America! There's more imortant things to discuss!

Eddie,' beloved terrier from 'Frasier,' dies at 16
http://www.yahoo.com/s/335348

Front page no less!

Front page no less!

I haven't yet listened to

I haven't yet listened to the audio (thanks for the MP3, Anonymous; 32 Kbps would have been plenty, though), so my comments are based purely upon what I've seen here.

1. I've never before seen a comments thread like this here.

2. I wish more people were as critical of all 911 truthers as they were of this radio appearance by Jim Fetzer.

3. I wish Fetzer would be much more rigorous in all his presentations. If he's so sure -- as he should be -- that no "hijacked commercial Boeing passenger airliners" hit the buildings, then he shouldn't keep referring (as he has so often in the past) to "the planes" (sic -- he should say "the planes in question" instead...), and the burning temperature of "all that jet fuel". The Big Lie is big and powerful; we shall never vanquish it if we keep referring to its fictitious elements (especially red herrings related to "suicidal Muslim hijackers", like wire transfers to Atta, and "Able Danger") as if they are real. (Even just pointing out that WTC7 wasn't hit by any planes is risky: to most listeners it implies [that the speaker thinks] that WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by what the government says they were hit by. Big Lies must be dissected very carefully...)

4. Jim Hoffman is a known gatekeeper: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/HoffmanOmittedFlashFrame+.gif (An honest incisive 911 truther ought to say stuff like, "We know that we can't blame the 'collapses' on 'airplanes', so why should anyone still blame 9/11 on 'hijackers'?". Jim Hoffman, OTOH, says stuff like "We know that we cannot blame the collapses on airplanes, but if you dare even suggest that it wasn't hijacked airplanes which hit the buildings, I'll attack you on behalf of the lying government which said they did." How any honest 911 truther could suggest that Hoffman still has any credibility left at all as a 911 researcher is beyond my comprehension.

5. Steven Jones has consistently focused people's attention on what brought the towers down, even though A)we already knew that gravity couldn't have brought them down, as observed, without a lot of help, and B)the deverticalizations of the towers cannot begin to account for what became of them! That is why I find all the attention being paid to "thermite" and/or "thermate" (ie, 4th-of-July-sparkler-like chemicals) to fit the definition and function of both a red herring and a limited hangout. I am concerned that Dr. Jones' past ties to the U.S. Dept of Energy may still run too deep for him to feel that he can freely examine the WTC dust sample(s?) in his possession for signs of molecular dissociation (as he told me months and months ago he'd do; as of 4/21 it was "next week"...), which would constitute evidence that temperatures hotter than the Sun (which is, BTW, much hotter than "thermate") had been present at "Ground Zero". Jones' work may seem "brilliant" to Fetzer (his st911 co-founder), but it's not.

6. Some people around here worry more about the messenger(s) than the message.
______________________________________

To each his own. But don't

To each his own. But don't say I didn't warn ya!

Good luck with all that !

listen to you guys either

listen to you guys either dissing mr. fetzer or giving him advice - ha - you guys would pee your damned pants if you were in that situation -
support jim fetzer!
__________________

We need to drum the fucks

We need to drum the fucks out of the movement who want to drum fucks out of the movement.

We cannot use people with ELITE-mindset.. they drag down the spirit.

colin wrote: " I'm surprised

colin wrote: " I'm surprised ,238 comments and Nico isn't around.

Spoke too soon!

Helllllooo, Nico.

Thanks for nothing.

Here's something you'll enjoy:

Forward to 48:40 of this audio broadcast from today on Michael Collins Piper's show:

The Piper Report

Tue., June 27, 2006:
M3U
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.m3u
RAM
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.ram
Individual MP3: Click Here"
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.mp3

We need to drum these fucks out of the "moevement" before it's too late!

Daricus, now you're citing

Daricus, now you're citing Dave von Kleist as some kind of authority? He who gave us the "pod" theories, among other bogus ones? Huge explosions at WTC 6? Who else do you admire in the 9/11 Truth movement? Richard Perle? Philip Zelikow?

I'll say this much for you- at least you're consistent!

Fetzer is still doing

Fetzer is still doing great,
but i agree, no global warming Club of Rome BS, and no JFK distractions.

And there is only one holy grail he has to add ASAP on TV:

http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 27, 2006

FOX Local 5 'broadcast' CGI contradicts FOX News angle and 'live' CGI

Correction of wrong assumption and new findings of contradiction
June 27, 2006

Up until 4 months ago, i assumed that FOX Local5 (NYC) picked up
the very same LIVE BROADCAST from FOX News (Cable Channel), which decided
to air the synchronized W-ABC7 live feed.
More logically, i assumed, as also all other News Cable Channels did, they picked up their feed from the local station.

But this was wrong. The local station of FOX5 had their own "live filmed" and "live broadcasted" footage.

As recently provided uncropped footage (*thx to the Loose Change Crew) including 2 zooms and ongoing timestamp) proves (see 06/26 screenshot photo),FOX LOCAL 5 showed at the VERY SAME TIME a contradictive incoming flight angle of alleged real aircraft which we classified as a CGI.
Positions of both Towers clearly proves this:
ABC7/FOX NEWS shows North Tower covering the South Tower, while FOX LOCAL has BOTH TOWERS NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
However the aircraft silhouette (also contradicting in shape) still comes from a straight right angle.

This 2nd "LIVE" CGI triggers therefore another LIVE smoking gun:
If camera position (incl. the tower position) changed, then how was FOX LOCAL able to 'show' a contradictive incoming flight angle in opposite to FOX NEWS, who broadcasted live the ABC7 (local feed)?

While i have to correct my assumption now because i logically concluded, that the FOX LOCAL footage must have been aired later (after 9:03), it now contradicts even more.

It also still shows this other 'smoking gun' of the double-zoom:

The uncropped footage (06/26, YOUTUBE link) shows how far away the helicopter must have been, which proves even more the geographical contradiction and a illogical violation of standard camera procedures, once a new real 'object' arrives on the screen.

Here is again the flight path LIVE contradiction (as proven by position of towers):

UPDATE

Here is an explanation, where a confusion, a wrong collection of memory and my wrong assumption must have been based on:
At around 8:55 AM EST (as proven with split screen live footage of 911chronology.com), almost 8 minutes before the second hit, it was actually CNN, but not FOX NEWS, who decided to synch a feed from FOX LOCAL ("Good Day NY") !:

That brings us to more questions:

If the WESCAM helicopter feed was 'synched' as broadcast for ABC, NBC and CNN at the same time, why did FOX NEWS decide to synch to ABC7 as well instead of using an own local FOX 5 LOCAL FEED, which was already available for CNN since 8 minutes?

Why did CNN also not synch to FOX LOCAL again?

Most important however, who was in charge in all these helicopters?
Are these in reality already the U.S. Military Choppers, as seen on the Rick Siegel/911eyewitness.com footage?

And how can FOX NEWS explain away clear live broadcast contradictions and multiple live broadcast irregularities compared with the FOX LOCAL 'feed'?

(Compare:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/rrr3.html

Comparison: another CNN non live footage with FOX Local LIVE (!) shows conflicting smoke directions = different positions and therefore proves CGI fakery

Same CGI, same alleged real aircraft?

colin: I guess that means

colin: I guess that means Colmes didn't say he believed controlled demolition after all.

I give up on this thread

I give up on this thread folks . Too much smearing, flocco infighting. Goodnight all ,thanks dz.

Mr. Fetzer.... you are a

Mr. Fetzer.... you are a typical (faulty human) American. You have the truth in your pocket.

This may actually work. It just means that you will have to go through the purgatory of Interview-Hell... and people will accept that.

You are genuinly angry.. you may be.

But you can do much better.

The best faces for 9/11 Truth for mass media consumption are the gentle geniuses David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Their humility and thoughtfulness is so appealing, so disarming, it is all but impossible to disbelieve them. They are logical and methodical- easy to follow and easy to trust.

Jim Hoffman also deserves more credit than he sometimes gets as a rational advocate for 9/11 Truth.

I agree.

However I like to see the anger.

I am a great fan of PARENTI. He SHOUTS when he means it!! Mr Fetzer, please do it too!

Shout .. near the top of your voice:

"THESE MILITARY PEOPLE MURDERED 3000 AMERICANS"

and another time.. yes, do it now, please!

"THESE MILITARY PEOPLE MURDERED 3000 AMERICANS"

a bit louder:

"THESE MILITARY PEOPLE MURDERED 3000 AMERICANS"

good, now do that in your next interview... it will be good for all of us.

many thanks for reading this.

I'm listening to Fetzer on

I'm listening to Fetzer on RBN 06/23, and he is all over the place, hot and cold. Lot of good info, thrown in with lots of trivial facts. I wish he could learn to drum drum drum the top anomalies over and over again - the most basic - WTC7, Commission's Conflicts of Interest, Free fall speed, all the other others in the list of the top 15 anomalies, top 40 anomalies, etc. I guess it is up to us to call him when he is on the air, and ask him softball questions. We all can do something, especially telling our friends and distributing CD's or DVD's to friends and family.

Haha! this is great! These

Haha! this is great!

These crazy conservatives call in and Alan lets them have it with a little common sense and reasonable argument. Cant wait for Fetzer.

p.s. Does anyone know if the stream stops at 12? I thought that was what he said.

Anyone have the alex jones

Anyone have the alex jones recent interview with fetzer- about his previous interview with colmes , and his upcoming appearance on colmesradio?

I hope Fetzer crushes Colmes

I hope Fetzer crushes Colmes tiny little balls.

If I understood the exchange

If I understood the exchange correctly, Colmes said that the show ends at 12:00 for that one particular caller's local radio station. He didn't say the stream ends. I assume the stream will run for the whole show, until 1:00.

Sitting in for alan colmes

Sitting in for alan colmes tonight , will be Dick Cheney joined by Oliver North." so proffesor , you teach terrorist conspiracy theories to unwitting college students?"
"No."
"Let's just be clear on this ,you teach..."etc.

RP: He will. In the

RP: He will.

In the meantime, enjoy again the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0oCRKV_hQ&search=boondocks%201
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK7J2XP54oE&search=boondocks%201

Hurry and watch though....the fine Dr. goes on in 20 minutes...

-slaqqer

I wish Stewart would have

I wish Stewart would have fetzer on the daily show.

Listening right now...

Listening right now...

Colmes is actually pretty

Colmes is actually pretty sharp on the radio when dealing with the issues presented so far.
I hope he doesn't change faces when Fetzer gets on.

I am cynical and skeptical

I am cynical and skeptical regarding anyone either IN Main Stream Media, or allowed ON Main Stream Media, re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"

C&S: He did sing parts of

C&S: He did sing parts of "God Bless America" earlier...points off for that.

-slaqqer

LOL, that Boondocks episode

LOL, that Boondocks episode talking about 9/11 truth was hillarious.
"tell me this, why was all the footage of the pentagon attack seized, and never seen again?" Actually Aaron Mcgruder has hit on 9/11 truth in his newspaper comic for years.

oh man did he actually just

oh man did he actually just say "blown up with bombs" lol

Please Jimmy DO NOT say there was no plane that hit the pentagon!

Can we call in? Is it live?

someone just called in about

someone just called in about 9/11, just caught the tail end of it when i switched back to it..

Have Your Say! Call Alan at 1-877-FOR-ALAN (1-877-367-2526)

fetzer coming on after this break

I WILL SAY THIS! In my 3+

I WILL SAY THIS!

In my 3+ years dealing with this crap, it's F'n great to see some Main Stream coverage... slow and steady wins the race....

1 mind at a time, folks.

Since one of the main issues

Since one of the main issues surrounding 9/11 truth is the mainstream media's blackout, I find it interesting that the preceeding issues discussed on Colmes' show before Fetzer gets on is to support the free press because they supposedly refused to be lapdogs - therefore, how can they be part of a blackout?

C&S: If I get through I will

C&S:

If I get through I will ask a question regarding that.

fetzer is on.

fetzer is on.

damn, Colmes is going after

damn, Colmes is going after the "courses" angle again.

meh, he was just clearing it

meh, he was just clearing it up..

anyone know how long this segment will be? will it be the rest of the hour?

Fetzer is going pretty damn

Fetzer is going pretty damn fast.

Lots of points.

"Everything that the

"Everything that the government has told us about 9/11, turns out to be provably false"

Is this really a true statement? Has everything really been proven irrefutably?

Fetzer is kicking ass.

Fetzer is kicking ass.

Building 7 Building 7

Building 7

Building 7

Building 7

Building 7

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

It can be proven with

It can be proven with science, loguc and reason and Jim Fetzer can do it!

i hope fetzer slows down

i hope fetzer slows down just a bit ;)

Go Jim Go! Please tell me

Go Jim Go!

Please tell me someone is recording it- I am listening to the stream (and it rocks!) but have to go!

Jim, we're ten minutes in and YOU ARE KICKING ASS!.

Don't want him to overheat.

Don't want him to overheat.

Fetzer is being too

Fetzer is being too emotional, and sounding irrational because of it.

OH NO GET AWAY FROM THE

OH NO GET AWAY FROM THE PASSENGERS/PLANE ISSUES PLEASE.

damn, the phony Barbara

damn, the phony Barbara Olsen is alive story.

No! No don't talk about

No! No don't talk about Barbara Olsen! NO!

yeah, this is going way too

yeah, this is going way too fast, and getting way too irrational..

But still kicking ass. He

But still kicking ass. He has a right to be pissed.

NO!!!!!!!!!!1111111 Not the

NO!!!!!!!!!!1111111

Not the Barbera Olsen is alive Tom Flocco story.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!111

Is this guy a patsy or what?

Is this guy a patsy or what? Pulled? Impossible cell-phone calls? This is like 2004 shit.

Olsen. Oh my god. Attah

Olsen. Oh my god. Attah next?

the tactic of the conspiracy

the tactic of the conspiracy theory debunker - make them explain EVERYTHING and every possible outcome.

Colmes is good at this.

Jim use the SCIENCE!

Jim use the SCIENCE!

hmmmmmm We're on shaky

hmmmmmm
We're on shaky ground before the break.
Interested to see what callers have to say.

Yea like "who exactly did

Yea like "who exactly did this and why?". We can't quite answer those questions yet. Perhaps we never will.

Anyone going to call? Some

Anyone going to call? Some of you could bring in some good talking points...

"i hope fetzer slows down

"i hope fetzer slows down just a bit"

FU*KIN' A!

He needs to regroup during this break because that Flocco/Olsen nonsense is NOT what I wanted to hear. WTF? Now I'm sorry I told people to take notes!

anyone know the number?

anyone know the number?

If anyone gets thru, please

If anyone gets thru, please let us know what the screening process was like.

dammit they told me they

dammit they told me they have too many callers...

i told them I wanted to discuss Ahmad/$100,000 -> Atta amongst other items.

damn.

Fetzer needs to calm

Fetzer needs to calm down....

The information does leak

The information does leak out!
Hello, Sibel Edmonds!

Anything but Attah, dude.

Anything but Attah, dude.

He's getting emotional

He's getting emotional

Anything but Attah,

Anything but Attah, dude.
Brian | 06.28.06 - 12:31 am | #

???

Fetzer is out of control.

Fetzer is out of control.

he's too dismissive of the

he's too dismissive of the victims survivors.

This is quickly turning into

This is quickly turning into a disaster.

Fetzer is coming off Nucking

Fetzer is coming off Nucking Futz!

I am mortified as a 9/11

I am mortified as a 9/11 truther.

Take a deep breath

Take a deep breath Jim...focus on the facts.

Have Your Say!   Call

Have Your Say!   Call Alan at 1-877-FOR-ALAN (1-877-367-2526) 

this is not going well. he

this is not going well. he seems unbalanced. he's going for the shotgun effect. he needs to be laser focused and not try to answer every possible contigency. he doesnt sound like a philosophy/crtical thinking professor, he sounds too exciteable.

If anyone can get in please

If anyone can get in please tell him to calm down and move away from any speculation!

How is colmes reacting to

How is colmes reacting to all this?What fetzer saying that is so nutty?

Operation Northwoods. Nice

Operation Northwoods.
Nice recovery

I just tried to call in, I

I just tried to call in, I got through to the FOX secretary, and she asked "What do you want to talk about" To which I replied "I wanted to respond to the assertation that noone has come forward, specifically FBI agent Robert Wright and Sibel Edmonds the translator." She sounded tired all of a sudden, and put me on hold. She came back, asked again, I repeated, and she said that there was no more time for questions. I am sorry Mr. Fetzer.

It is nutty because it is an

It is nutty because it is an orgy of useless evidence bracketing valid claims.

He needs to ask Colmes if

He needs to ask Colmes if he's seen building 7 fall down!

WTF!

Incubator stories. Not too

Incubator stories. Not too bad of a bounce-back in that sense. More people should know about this.

This time it will be

This time it will be "stolen" for Democrats to look fair.

Sweet! DRG! New Pearl

Sweet! DRG! New Pearl Harbor BEEIOTCHES!

If he doesn't mention

If he doesn't mention building 7, he ain't down with me.

YEAH CALLER!!! WTC7! WAY TO

YEAH CALLER!!! WTC7! WAY TO GO!

BUILDING 7! YEAH! Props to

BUILDING 7! YEAH! Props to the caller!

This is a 9/11 Scholar's

This is a 9/11 Scholar's commercial.

Daricus: I got the same jive

Daricus:

I got the same jive when I tried to bring up Mahmoud Ahmad

Colmes believes controlled

Colmes believes controlled demolition. he laid it out pretty good just now.

Jim needs to learn some

Jim needs to learn some basic etiquette of intelligent debate/discussion. Hes a mess. He just broke out laughing when that guy was talking. He sounds like a lunatic now...

colmes basically claimed for

colmes basically claimed for us that the planes were a diversion to allow the controlled demolition to take place after the strikes.

Things seem to be going more

Things seem to be going more sane now.

fair and balanced, my ass.

fair and balanced, my ass.

Yea, to the caller. We need

Yea, to the caller. We need to rely on the true voice of the people rather than these fake ass professors handed to us by our "alternative" media.

I just tried to call in, I

I just tried to call in, I got through to the FOX secretary, and she asked "What do you want to talk about" To which I replied "I wanted to respond to the assertation that noone has come forward, specifically FBI agent Robert Wright and Sibel Edmonds the translator." She sounded tired all of a sudden, and put me on hold. She came back, asked again, I repeated, and she said that there was no more time for questions. I am sorry Mr. Fetzer.
Daricus | 06.28.06 - 12:41 am
=================================
When she put you on hold, she had a check list of things to review which specified what could not be allowed on the radio, and I bet Sibel Edmonds was around the top.

colmes for cd , you gotta be

colmes for cd , you gotta be kidding.

Are they going to take any

Are they going to take any more calls?

Call in and tell the

Call in and tell the secretary you want to give Fetzer a piece of your mind. Maybe she'll bump you to the top of the waiting list.

Cloak And Swagger: I

Cloak And Swagger: I understand... People should call and act angry at Fetzer just to get on, then strike with a truth bomb.

OH NO! NOT THE PENTAGON!

OH NO! NOT THE PENTAGON!

I am open for debate, but I

I am open for debate, but I think we should boycott the scholars. Very squirrely bunch a' guys and gals.

"Call in and tell the

"Call in and tell the secretary you want to give Fetzer a piece of your mind. Maybe she'll bump you to the top of the waiting list."

LOL!1111

Noooo... not the Pentagon

Noooo... not the Pentagon missile theory!

Ack! He's talking about no

Ack! He's talking about no planes. Colmes is giving him rope and he's hanging himself.

Fetzer is angry...oh this isn't good.

"I think we should boycott

"I think we should boycott the scholars. Very squirrely bunch a' guys and gals."

^funny and somewhat agree.

Fetzer is being too rude.

Fetzer is being too rude. Dont insult the callers.

He's defensive and he asked

He's defensive and he asked a caller what's wrong with her?

Holy shit...

Holy shit...

I pray that 9/11 truthers

I pray that 9/11 truthers are smart enough to abort this bozo.

Damn. Fetzer is too

Damn. Fetzer is too hysterical. He's rabid right now. too "authorititive" and "bossy" to the callers.

this is a blown opportunity.

this is a blown opportunity.

Finally- FINALLY- he's

Finally- FINALLY- he's talking thermite, thermate, sulfur residue found on the steel from WTC.

But why oh why did we have to take a diversion down super-kook speculation avenue and talk about Barbara-Olsen madness? Even Rense knows better, and he's a freakin' bugnut!

Crap- now we're back from commercial and talking about the bloody Pentagon!

Shite! The sound of thousands of minds snapping permanently shut on the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories is deafening!

Fetzer=the real "controlled

Fetzer=the real "controlled demolition"

At this point I think Alex

At this point I think Alex Jones would have been a better guest -- a WAAAAY better guest.

Does he not hear himself?

Does he not hear himself? We got lucky that they only let him on for a second on TV.

WEll, it's over

WEll, it's over

or daid icke

or daid icke

Never got a chance to get on

Never got a chance to get on with my question

Someone call and please make

Someone call and please make the pont that the burden proof is on the government to prove their conspiracy theory . Lets stick to the incontravertable evidence.

"We are experts." What a

"We are experts." What a tool.

oK HE WAS OUT OF control and

oK HE WAS OUT OF control and he didn't use the SCIENTIFIC evidence but he got the word out, the st911 webiste is the key. People are going to want to know for thesmselves. I wish he had stuck to the scientific evidence but Colmbs outfoxed him this time. hey shook him up somewhe, He still did a good enough job. I'm disappinted but I'm still proud of him. He sould have challenged them to a debate on the SCIENTIFIC evidence.

We have to remember how much

We have to remember how much pressure there is when you are on a show like that. Mr. Fetzer takes it very seriously, and people were asking him questions loudly while his volume levels were dropping, making it hard to respond. That is very aggravating, and please remember how sensitive an issue this is. We should stand united behind -anyone- who gets on the air about this, not resent Fetzer b/c he got mad on a guest. He's trying to spread truth, not wait a table or make friends after all. God bless him.

Bush is a manufactured

Bush is a manufactured speaker for a munufactured version of 9/11 truth.

Fetzer:9/11truth

OK. Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN

OK.

Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN himself incapable of intelligent discussion. I hope he doesnt do anymore mainstream media interviews to represent 9/11 truth, and they get somebody more competent.

I think I'm gonna have to

I think I'm gonna have to have another drink after THAT fiasco! NO I KNOW I'm going to have another drink!

OMG! Joon Conner just got on! LOL!!!!111

Man...that hour just flew

Man...that hour just flew by. More time is needed to go through all of the evidence in a pragmatic way.

These people are funny.

These people are funny.

Well said, Daricus! "We

Well said, Daricus!
"We should stand united behind -anyone- who gets on the air about this, not resent Fetzer b/c he got mad on a guest. He's trying to spread truth, not wait a table or make friends after all. God bless him."

If Fetzer didn't disparage

If Fetzer didn't disparage the question askers, his other comments would've been fine. Yelling at the people we're trying to get to learn the truth doesn't help the cause.

I heard John Connor too.

I heard John Connor too. LOL

he gets on everything.

damn i got through on the

damn i got through on the graffiti thing and hada good sentence for it but didn't know it was me (should've had the volume down)...

anyway my sentence was gonna be:

"FBI translator Sibel Edmonds tried to blow the whistle on 911 but was fired and gag-ordered for doing so."

you guys sound like a bunch

you guys sound like a bunch of nervous mom's teaching their kids to drive stick shift.

colmes believes fetzer. don't you get it.

fetzer got nervous but the program ended on a good note.

colmes gave alot of national airtime to the cause. time to start writing the thank you notes.

"Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN

"Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN himself incapable of intelligent discussion. I hope he doesnt do anymore mainstream media interviews to represent 9/11 truth, and they get somebody more competent."

You nuckin' think?!! Just nuckin' with ya. I agree.

Colmes beleives CD?Maybe we

Colmes beleives CD?Maybe we could salvage this wreck.

Did Martin Luther King get

Did Martin Luther King get the truth out by screaming generalities and unfounded statements on national radio shows?

I caught the show in the

I caught the show in the middle so I missed Fetzer's performance in the first half.

Right now Fetzer is saying at least a couple of things that are wild conjectures. He is saying that he is certain that the reason Mineta resigned the other day was because Fetzer had mentioned MinetaÂ’s testimony the night before on Hannity and Colmes TV. How could he be certain of that?
I love it when Fetzer mention facts, but I cringe when I hear him make wild speculations and conjectures. I also cringe when I hear him go into depth on unrelated issues like JFKÂ’s assassination.

He's going some of the distracting evidence, and not focusing enough on the core issues.

Good discussion on Operations Northwoods and other scams to start past wars. Good mention that the FBI has no hard evidence on Bin Laden.

HeÂ’s changing the topic to NAFTA superhighways. This is not 9-11 related.

He’s talking about cell phone calls from planes being impossible. The “hello I’m Mark Bingham” story.

Caller brings up speed of collapse, which is good. Colmes interrupts and doesnÂ’t want to listen to this, and changes the topic.

Jones has found thermite residue on the steel. That does seem like pretty strong evidence, although they may in the future try to refute it.

I wish they would start out with the facts that the matter was never properly investigated, that every Commissioner had conflicts of interest such as members of intelligence committees,

He is speculating an A-3 came into the Pentagon. Talking about small impact point, no evidence of a 757 at Pentagon. The mass media loves to talk about the Pentagon.

That was not an easy interview, or a very friendly format. The host lets aggressive, verbally combative callers stay on the line and interrupt Fetzer several times, making it very difficult for him to get a word in at times.

Fetzer is strong, courageous, and good when sticks to solid evidence. The more he sticks to solid evidence and solid, provable points, and questions that remain unanswered, the better he is.

What do others think of his performance?

Despite him sounding crazy,

Despite him sounding crazy, I think he did a good job with the time to information ration. Plus, you can tell that everyone who called in opposing the truth movement didn't know JACK SHIT and obviously has done NO research...

Plus, you can tell that

Plus, you can tell that everyone who called in opposing the truth movement didn't know JACK SHIT and obviously has done NO research...
ChrisB | 06.28.06 - 1:06 am | #

That's because after doing SOME research, its hard to oppose the "truth movement" and not join it.

I don't think it's true that

I don't think it's true that we should stand behind anyone who speaks "truth" about 9/11. After all there is a guy named David Icke who says that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the British Royal family who are, after all, really alien lizard people in disguise.

Fetzer either doesn't know how he sounds or doesn't care. Somebody needs to let the air out of him.

I did enjoy the one sentence sign offs at the end of the program, but again inserting the WTC 7 stuff into that context makes the WTC 7 stuff sound nuts.

The entire movement will

The entire movement will probobly collapse when Prof. Jones suddenly says "I was wrong about the thermate, CD et al" just like when he brought down cold-fusion research own his own with one statement.

I wish Jim had stuck

I wish Jim had stuck strickly to the SCIENTIFIC evidence. You take all the emotion out of it and you're left with the scientific facts. I wish he could have done that. Thanks guys for all you do.

Did Martin Luther King get

Did Martin Luther King get the truth out by screaming generalities and unfounded statements on national radio shows?
Brian | Edit comment Delete comment | 06.28.06 - 1:06 am | #

ding ding ding, have a winner!

This is a tremendous moment

This is a tremendous moment in the forwarding of 9/11 Truth. Thank you, Professor Fetzer for all you are doing and have done; that was a magnificent presentation you just did on Alan Colmes' show.
Navigating the call-ins freak show . . . geez, that's like being asked to juggle greased pigs . . . but given the show format you did a most commendable job of fending off the Ignorant Loud.

Credit too, to Alan Colmes, who really helped to keep things on track. I was surprised that he asked timely, good questions, and shut down the foaming-at-the-mouth rabble.

Prof. Fetzer, you are one of my heros. Your passion for this country and the truth is entirely clear, and your intellectual rigor is a mighty weapon.
Very few can present information like you just did.

Bravo!

You don't have to have done

You don't have to have done the research to support the official story...that's why it's the official story.

Fetzer asked an angry caller what was wrong with her. I can't believe it.

He presented information

He presented information like an 8th grader, reading off of a 9/11 website.

cormorant: Are you related

cormorant: Are you related to Fetzer or something? Please. It was a disaster.

I'd like to make a

I'd like to make a prediction at this point- though it is the stuff of 9/11 Truther nightmares...

Right-wing radio show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity may seize on this opportunity to infuriate their own listeners and permanently prejudice them against 9/11 Truth. Only a few choice soundbites from that exchange would be needed to push the vast majority of potentially reachable minds completely into outright contempt for skeptical inquiry about 9/11. As a paranoid person, I can't help but believe that this exchange is going to come back to haunt the movement. (I hope I'm wrong and nobody's listening...)

The seeming inability or unwillingness on Fetzer's part to stay within the orthodoxy of 9/11 Truth is crushing. When we lead with WTC 7, the thermite/thermate issues, the Mineta testimony, the Norad standdown, the FEMA-arrived-in-New-York-on-9/10, the Hijackers-Are-Partly-Still-Alive- we have the potential to really provoke reflection.

But when we spout about Olsen, holograms, de-planing events, missles/fighters hitting the Pentagon, the Bali bombings, etc.- we do more damage than we can possibly imagine to our case.

We must choose the battles that can be won- and avoid those that could, at best, produce a stalemate. Tonight, it feels like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory...

(I still can't believe it. The Barbara Olsen thing is making me want to cry!)

Anyone have a link to the

Anyone have a link to the audio on this? I missed it.

"sounded crazy" - he's just

"sounded crazy" - he's just not used to being on national media.

part of his problem was that he assumed that Colmes was going to bust his nuts.

i posted here that we should all avoid prejudice.

fetzer will get better at this.

colmes repeated many times that he was a professor and former marine corp officer.

and . . . nothing is stopping anyone else from forming an organization, publishing press releases and appearing on national media.

i loved the hill billy woman that called - do you think she was for real?

Brian: Thermate and even

Brian: Thermate and even building 7 is not the whole story. The fact that Bush had foreknowledge is a fact. The very best defense they have is negligence, probably willful.

Although I do sometimes wonder if Ruppert has a point about pursuing physical evidence and hanging too much on the controlled demolition hypothesis.

He did fine on t.v., then

He did fine on t.v., then got all up his own asshole.

i was afraid of this

i was afraid of this whenever i read Fetzer's arguements with Hoffman.. i thought he might be a bit past the irrational point, unfortunately he was for sure tonight.

Can you prove that Bush had

Can you prove that Bush had foreknowledge? Are the people who did this stupid enough to cast a president who can't be used as a scapegoat in this situation?

jim is family to all of us.

jim is family to all of us.

it was not a disaster.

jim convinced alan, alan will get lots of feedback and maybe have mr. sheen on.

i'd love to hear the hill billy woman again? she was right out of central casting.

I think the hillbilly lady

I think the hillbilly lady was real. That's part of what we're up against, unfortunately.

Ahem. Mr. Sheen? Thank

Ahem. Mr. Sheen? Thank goodness my prayers are finally worth their while.

You guys are right about one

You guys are right about one thing "they" are gonna use this to hammer away at it in the following days. This was a relatively small audience compared to hannity/ colmbs but we are gonna here these sound bites coming back at us in the following days. you guys are really sticking together on this. wish I could be involved more here in Houston. We need a more organized community and most important of all a united front. God I wish he refused to talk about anything but the SCIENTIFIC evidence. Any feedback on this? It's just one battle in a longer war.

i know, my name is bozo, so

i know, my name is bozo, so my opinions are a little suspect.

i listened tonight on XM-168.

jim did get a little over-amped.

damn human beings!

Brian, the guy could have

Brian, the guy could have done better, we all understand that, he got a little too emotional, became a bit snappy with the callers, this wasn't the best of ways to make a first impression with 9/11 truth.
However, after making your point, already like several times or so criticizing Fetzer, I don't understand why you must continue driving the point. What is it that you are out to prove? Is it something personally against Fetzer, or is it 9/11 truth in general?
Just asking.

Trust me mark, what they

Trust me mark, what they choose to sample will be really ugly.

Yes, I believe there is a

Yes, I believe there is a good lesson to be learned about dealing with Professor Fetzer on the radio. What the people need to do it call in, tell the screener you are going to give Fetzer a piece of your mind, make up some difficult or stupid question to ask him, and then when you get on the air, lob him a softball that will create a home run: like ask him about Building 7, the conflicts of interest on the 9/11 commission, the Norad standdown, the speed of collapse of all the buidlings straight down and multiple explosions heard by multiple witnesses....
We need to call him to keep that man on track.

i'm not sure about hill

i'm not sure about hill billy lady, i didn't hear any chickens or kids screaming and she didn't mention jesus christ one time!

This won't be a bid deal or

This won't be a bid deal or hurt the movement. Some media attention is better than no media attention. Plus, nobody really listens to this show in the first place besides truck drivers who like to call in to pick a fight. So, it's not like this was on prime time TV. No big deal.

softball questions are a

softball questions are a good idea.

I have nothing against the

I have nothing against the 9/11 truth movement personally,most have good intentions. I just happen to think that we should be very suspect of these "experts" being flung at us. We have been let down countless times by the "alternative press" and fake alternative spokesmen since the deaths of the great MLK and Ghandi. Look into the history of many of these 9/11 people. Do they really have credibility? Have you read any of Fetzer's books? The history of prof. Jones in detail?

The August 6th memo is the

The August 6th memo is the proof of foreknowlege, and I understand the "declassified" version released is only a partial version.

Yup, but the battle goes on.

Yup, but the battle goes on. God I wish I could get into the fight! He did make some points about the scientific evidence but they won't emphasise that, they will use the over emotion of it. We are going to be hearing those sound bites come back to haunt us. I guess you guys are on this forum often. Hope I can talk to you later.

i agree - no harm, no foul.

i agree - no harm, no foul.

where are the talking points?

I kind of doubt this

I kind of doubt this movement is mainstream enough yet for Fox to feel the need to repeat edited sound bites from it. Hopefully, this will go down as a good learning experience of what not to do.

JFK assassination theories

JFK assassination theories got plenty of coverage from what relatives tell me. People will believe anything comfortable, and more so if the unconfortable scenario is presented in a jumbled way.

I admire Fetzer's guts! The

I admire Fetzer's guts! The guy stands and fucking delivers. It doesn't bother me whatsoever that he got emotional: NEWS FLASH: your government murdering 3000 of its own citizens IS WORTH GETTING FUCKING EMOTIONAL ABOUT.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

No, he wasn't perfect. But my respect and admiration for him stands as high as ever.

To hell with you idiots suggesting alienating this man.

I just got off the phone

I just got off the phone with the man, he sounds exhilerated and still a touch frustrated with his treatment, I had to thank him in person. He thought it went very well, called it the best *bleep* 45 mins on 9/11 ever. :)

He asked my opinion on that statement and I responded that I thought the Showbiz Tonight appearance was more of a watershed event b/c you could see in AJ Hammer's eyes that he believed it and it was emotionally powerful, regardless of specific factual content.

In retrospect, I should have stated that it was perhaps the most effective scholars for 9/11 representation of their case, (if only for the difficult nature of the discourse and impact on listening audience).

Further, he didn't believe that I was being screened neccessarily because they only had 5 callers on, and 2 were supportive, which was (pleasantly) surprising to him.

I mentioned people here rankling about his demeanor and he was upset only until he found out that it wasn't on his forum, but this one. :)

One more tip of the hat to a very smart individual, and regardless of what you think of how he did, I'd say he has plenty of reason to be proud.

"It is not the critic who

"It is not the critic who counts . . ."

Thedore Roosevelt

August 6th only proves that

August 6th only proves that Bush is the perfect presidential candidate. Too stupid to pay attention to a terror warning if his advisors say not to worry.

Brian wrote: "The entire

Brian wrote: "The entire movement will probobly collapse when Prof. Jones suddenly says "I was wrong about the thermate, CD et al" just like when he brought down cold-fusion research own his own with one statement."

You've been listening to Fintan Dunne too?

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he did.

Janedoe, you know these guys don't you? Who made the decision to let Fetzer go on FOX News? I want details.

support jim fetzer! _____---

support jim fetzer!
_____---

"Jim is family to all of

"Jim is family to all of us..." - Bozo

Is this some form of subtle joke?

Speaking of subtle jokes- did you hear the one about the controlled demolition of the 9/11 Truth movement? Jim Fetzer told it tonight on the Alan Colmes radio show.

Getting emotional is a o.k.

Getting emotional is a o.k. with me. But to ask a caller "what is wrong with you"? To say "no, listen to me".

Support getting at the

Support getting at the truth and reign in idle speculation and wild eyed pontificating.

I'm sure Fetzer has a lot to contribute, but somebody he respects needs to talk to him honestly.

How many people have been

How many people have been listening?

more than one million? I don't think so.

Of these: 20% needed no convincing
60% were thinking about something else (their ratched lives)
19% were not impressed... Fetzer just another nutter

1% maybe want to know more... but don't have internet.

You need to set up a FLYER_postal_Mail service.

For information, write to

BOX 23

Lesson learned, lessons

Lesson learned, lessons learned, Jim Fetzer will learn from his mistakes. I thought for sure he was the best one to represent us, I still think so but now I have my doubts. He should be on rBN aam thu morn. We're still preachin to the choir. We desperately need a strong leader to emerge. Who could it opssibly be, it looks like it will turn out to be Alex JOnes. what do you guys think about that? I don't like him one little bit but I have got to admit that he does document fairly well. Ont thing I try to remember is that the truth, if it can revealed, will stand on it's own.

Audio file coming soon...

Audio file coming soon...

I love you guys! Some of

I love you guys! Some of these comments are too ridiculous for words. I started out with the scientific evidence but, in case you missed it, Colmes cut me off and headed in a different directions. Let me suggest that you make a list of points I made, one those you like, one those you don't, and take an objective look. I am very confident that some of the posts on this very list are deliberate smears. I might be wrong, but think about it. How many important points were made? Just do a little addition and subtraction to measure how it went. I had to talk fast because he was trying to manipulate the conversation to preclude any serious discussion. I am not going to apologize to anyone for this. Just do the arithmetic and discard the remarks here that are purely ad hominem. The number is far higher than could ever be justified on the basis of this conversation. Which tells me something about some of the members of this forum. But thanks for listening! Just make your own list and think about it.

stallion it was amazing to

stallion it was amazing to find Fintan, after having my own doubts about Jones. Mr. Dunne has his own flaws that can be picked at, but as far as getting to the bare bones there is none better. Just recently signed on to the forum there, haven't posted much.

Mr. Fetzer are you confident

Mr. Fetzer are you confident that you can prove every detail you mentioned on the air today? Not looking for an arguement here. If you are willing to learn from mistakes your organization can be a powerful and beautiful thing. However, I have seen no evidence of this on your website or in your statements.

Hell I think I can do that

Hell I think I can do that Brian. Let's go one by one.

I think an effective thing

I think an effective thing you can do is reach out to the people you know: work colleagues, friends, family, and make a CD with some of the best video clips from the web. Start out talking about the coverup and how 9/11 was never investigated properly. Show them vidoes of WTC7 falling. And encourage them to make their own copies and distribute to others. Also email articles or website to friends. This can make a difference on the grass roots level.

I have to say, this whole

I have to say, this whole experience tonight was just totally surreal. I wish I could stay up all night to see what happens. I've been sitting here hitting the refresh button for about two and a half hours straight.

Aside from obvious things,

Aside from obvious things, hit me with Olsen, the Pentagon, "Whistleblowers".

Jim: Do you really want to

Jim: Do you really want to hear what critics like me have to say? Are you willing to not take it personally?

The scientific evidence, Jim

The scientific evidence, Jim did get it in there under difficult circumstances. He made the points about building 7, Thermite, what else, the Pinetta testimony is on video, the cell phones, flight 93, no wreckage there or at the Pentegon. No werekeage, no plane, video tapes being kept secret. NO WRECKAGE NO PLANE HE GOT THAT IN, HE DID THE JOB!

Also, is it wise to stick to

Also, is it wise to stick to the claim "controlled demolition" for all three of the towers? Is it possible that the demolition could be explained without such a speculative word before it?

Here's an MP3 of the entire

Here's an MP3 of the entire interview...

http://www.filefactory.com/?87578f

Brian, It's all good man.

Brian,

It's all good man. Dunne makes some good points. I'm not sold on the Jones thing... yet. Time will tell.

But one thing is for sure, the 9-11 "truth" movement has been infiltrated. The evidence is in this thread.

It's all good, though! This shit is only motivating me to keep on keeping on!

A great quote:

You wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.

stallion4- Where in this

stallion4-

Where in this thread is the evidence that the movement has been infiltrated? What do you mean? Please explain.

OK, I'll start. Prof

OK, I'll start. Prof Fetzer, don't ever talk about the Barbara Olsen bullshit again.

It is possible that these

It is possible that these videos could be released later. If calls were not possible why does Griffin quote this as evidence to prove a theory?:CeeCee Lyles "...husband then heard screaming in the background followed by a "whooshing sound, a sound like wind," then more screaming, after which he lost contact".
The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin

I have observed that certain

I have observed that certain words get a reaction that tells me they are buying the real deal scientific story. Words like Science, Controlled demoliton and especially Newtons law of motion. They love Newton. They swing right around when they hear Newtons Law of motion things like that. I would like to get it down to a finer spiel. There has got to be a way to study this the way advertisers study peoples reaction to certain workds. A marketing sudy. We could do this amoung ourselves.

I disagree with you a bit on

I disagree with you a bit on that one stallion. It is POSSIBLE that a so called "Agent" has visited these pages, but it is our minds that have been truly infiltrated.

What happened to Dr. Fetzer?

What happened to Dr. Fetzer?

OLSEN ARRESTED IN

OLSEN ARRESTED IN EUROPE:
http://tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm

PENTAGON: What specifically would you like to know? I think a brief summary of the collected data is "where is the plane?", perhaps represented best by Dave Von Kleist's video "9/11 In Plane Site"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+s...
Although that video really focuses on the lack of a plane visibly at the crash site, David Ray Griffin makes a good case for more investigation on this matter in "The New Pearl Harbour". For further details, this is the website where Loose Change gets most of their info on the pentagon:http://www.geocities.com/killtown/

WHISTLEBLOWERS:
-Mary Schneider
http://www.maryschneider.us/
-Robert Wright
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00001.htm
-Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

There's actually quite a few though, but there's three for you to peruse.

I hope that helps. Any other questions?

Fucking Flocco story? Need

Fucking Flocco story? Need I say more?

The new ESPN/USA Today poll

The new ESPN/USA Today poll is out. After this loss, Jim Fetzer has slipped from number one guy you want interviewed about 9/11 Truth to number five. Here are the current standings.
(1) David Ray Griffin.
(2) Alex Jones
(3) Steven Jones
(4) Mike Berger
(5) Jim Fetzer
(6) Morgan Reynolds
(7) Nico Haupt

Hey Jimbo? Who made the

Hey Jimbo? Who made the decision to put you on FOX News?

Why is everyone ignoring the

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Colmes admitted CD ? Jim ,any idea whats going on in gatekeeper Colmes little head? Is this not significant for a fox employee ?

The best voices to represent

The best voices to represent the movement to the outside world aren't Fetzer or Alex Jones- they are too emotional and unpredictable, and too often provide their critics with the very soundbites necessary to destroy their own credibility. Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer seem better suited to rally the troops. If Fetzer goes off on a nutty tangent like Barbara Olsen may yet live, the 9/11 Truthers aren't going to suddenly repudiate him. And if Alex Jones goes thermo-nuclear and starts screaming about something, it'll get truthers blood pumping (and often outsiders blood boiling).

The best faces for 9/11 Truth for mass media consumption are the gentle geniuses David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Their humility and thoughtfulness is so appealing, so disarming, it is all but impossible to disbelieve them. They are logical and methodical- easy to follow and easy to trust.

Jim Hoffman also deserves more credit than he sometimes gets as a rational advocate for 9/11 Truth. He is Fetzer's emotional polar opposite- cautious and self-controlled- but he is his intellectual equal, he is as well-versed in the 9/11 subject as anyone in the movement. His caution has, in some cases, led him to reject certain matters that most of us believe deserve a fair hearing. But I think most of us would agree that tonight would've been a lot better had the guest been a little overly cautious- refusing to render opinions on subjects for which there wasn't definitive proof. Steering away from the fantastic- and forcing the callers and Colmes to refute that which can not be refuted.

Those of you who are telling yourselves (and the board) "it wasn't that bad" are deluded. A few moments of greatness + a few moments of abject nuttiness = a lot of time with a great nut... And that's not what we want the public to perceive.

When doing a blogsearch this second for Fetzer (fearing badmouth posts from listeners of the interview), I just saw this story. The title made me laugh- but the article did not. In light of tonight's roller-coaster-that-went-off-the-tracks ride, it made me sad.

How did he admit it? What

How did he admit it? What did he say?

I have told Jim Fetzer and

I have told Jim Fetzer and if you are listening, I think you have a lot of strong points, including your drive, dedication, energy, knowledge, and ability to think and talk under pressure.

I think you are most effective when talking about clearly provable evidence. I think you should study the most effective points, and shy away from areas of conjecture. I don't think you should ask a questioner if there is something wrong with them like you did in tonight's interview. I think you should definitely never talk JFK or Global Warming, or any other diversionary topic when you are talking about 9/11 on a media program as a guest. When you are given valuable time on the air you should use all of that time to communicate 9/11 truth. I don't believe that a moment of air time should be spent on irrelevant topics. You need to learn to get off a bad topic quickly when you are asked a bad question by answering it quickly, and changing subject and quickly putting in a strong talking point. You probably should study talking points, and put them in the order of importance. You can control the subject of information you talk about, so you might as well talk about the most effective things.

So, I admire you Mr. Fetzer, I thank you for the time, energy and effort you have put in for 9/11 truth. I encourage you to continue what you are doing, and I hope that you will use the counsel of some of the serious points discussed on this board to think seriously if there are ways you can be more effective. You effectiveness in communication can and likely will make a great deal of difference in the course of history. So please use your unique talents and your unique personality to its greatest use in furthering the cause of 9/11 truth.

Daricus, that Mary lady is a

Daricus, that Mary lady is a Flocco sycophant and every bit as nuts.

Whistleblowers who are

Whistleblowers who are indirectly connected or are not allowed to say anything are useless. I will let in Plane Site refute itself. That Olsen article is no proof. Even if it were true nobody would buy it. You may as well be handing out Bohemian Grove Dvds.

@Brian: Well Im glad your

@Brian: Well Im glad your open to 9/11 Truth.

I dont think Steven Jones will say "I was wrong about thermate". And I'll tell you why. In the final cut of Loose Change they'll have what I would only call the "smoking gun", several actually, proving some of our arguments.
Loose Change Final Cut is going to change a lot of things, and I cannot wait. This plus 9/11 Pres For Truth is really going to bring our case to a new level.

And of course Colmes accepts controlled demolition. Only an idiot can sit here and say it was "pancake".
Only thing is, people will say al Qaeda did it. I bet you thats what right wingers will say. They will say al Qaeda had operatives in the building. Just you wait.

And Fetzer...fuck. Im sorry, NO people from 9/11 on the flights are alive. Sorry to say. And whether it was 757 or 767's, planes hit the towers. But I do think now it was a small millitary jet that hit the pentagon. Again, you guys are going to be shocked whats in Loose Change final edit, and the people who have come forward. Ive been assured its going to be truly a new frontier.

OMG! Here come the

OMG! Here come the sycophants!

WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!

I'm naturally suspicious of

I'm naturally suspicious of people who post here to bash relentlessly. Brian , I think we get your point.Your coming across real clear.

Mr. Fetzer: I'm going to

Mr. Fetzer: I'm going to assume you do want to hear it.

1. When Colmes asked you what hit the Pentagon you didn't emphasize the problem of lack of evidence. That is the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon has been classified. This is a problem for the official story, instead of talking about problems with the official story you quickly supplied answers that without a lot of background sound nutty. Hell even knowing a lot of the background these theories about drone planes are highly speculative. A lot of this stuff is speculative, and it's okay to speculate and brainstorm, but only after you've thoroughly dismantled the official story. That takes time.
2. You seemed to miss the central problem you face. The problem is conscision. Everything has to be concise, even when you're on for almost an hour, because of the format. Colmes kept switching subjects on you and you tried to answer all the questions in the time limit, which is a problem and not easily overcome, but it seemed to me that you didn't even acknowlege the problem or weren't aware of the problem.

I could go on, but I won't. I actuall think that if you understand the problem on conscision, refrain from speculating, and reigned in your frustration you would have done well.

3rd Letter to Structural

3rd Letter to Structural Engineering Professors (send out a couple hours ago) available here:

http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?p=35252#35252

I missed a bit of the

I missed a bit of the beginning? Did Colmes really admit the Controlled demolition theory was sound? If so then I take back all of my comments. That would be significant I think.

OMG! Here come the

OMG! Here come the sycophants!

WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!
Anonymous | 06.28.06 - 2:06 am | #
______________________

That was me.

So, Mr. Fetzer, who made the decision to put you on FAUX News?

Yeah Fetzer f'd up big time,

Yeah Fetzer f'd up big time, and I just met the guy. He gave a powerful speach, but he does get impassioned. He did a much better job with Blink 182 on the radio.

But we got one thing: Colmes believes in CD now. Score.

Oh and Brian, I believe in being skeptical, and Im sure you dont believe the official story...but Im guessing your still LIHOP?

Did anybody record the

Did anybody record the Colmes Fetzer interview, and will it be posted somewhere?

You don't like Flocco? I

You don't like Flocco? I haven't read much of his stuff. Here's the same story from some other sources, for your reading pleasure. Do you have google? It's surprisingly easy to use.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-barbara-olson-still-alive.html
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=89307
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1129922597...,
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/

Is that enough?

Once again, here's an MP3 of

Once again, here's an MP3 of the interview:

http://www.filefactory.com/?87578f

I'm not sure if the MP3

I'm not sure if the MP3 should be posted on the 911blogger front page though...

Perhaps I do bash

Perhaps I do bash relentlessly, even when speaking the truth. I think that I can relate to Dr. Fetzer in this way, letting the wrong emotions overtake me to create a lousy debator. Hopefully, we can all just collectivly learn from this experience. All I can say is that everyone has to sort out 5 years of disinfo, and hopefully as a collective source! The people leading the movement are as full as disinfo as any of us so they need to be directly communicated with as much as possible.

You don't like Flocco? I

You don't like Flocco? I haven't read much of his stuff. Here's the same story from some other sources, for your reading pleasure. Do you have google? It's surprisingly easy to use.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/200...till- alive.html
http:// forums.therandirhodesshow...showtopic=89307
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi- loc...129922597,53369,
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/

Is that enough?
Daricus | 06.28.06 - 2:11 am | #

___________________________-

I'm confused? Are you saying the story is legit? It's fucking crap!

LIHOP? Yuck! Hell no!

LIHOP? Yuck! Hell no!

And everyone knows it's

And everyone knows it's fucking crap... except FETZER!

By the way, Fetzer or

By the way, Fetzer or Griffin or Hoffman or any of these people put up webpages or get on TV or write books, that might make them visible, but it doesn't make them representatives or leaders.

If they are trying to get

If they are trying to get the truth out, power to them. However, the fact is that the many a 9/11 truther is a few pages ahead of the scholars, with a few pages ripped out that the prof. are still studying.

Here's an introductory

Here's an introductory document I give to newbies either by email or CD:

The most fundamental problem with 9/11 and the official story of 9/11 is that 9/11 was a crime that was not properly investigated.
Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….
Communication Regarding 9/11
Based on an article originally written by Damien Haining

The challenge of 9/11 is to penetrate public consciousness. We need to give people reasons why they should open their minds to consider the matters of 9/11. It has to be made approachable for people - because many people are frightened, don't understand the evidence, or have other issues which make them feel there is no reason for them to question the official government story.
First and foremost, we need to help people understand that 9/11 was a crime - with no real investigation! We need to help people understand that the whole deal has been swept under the rug. We need to convey to people that they have been betrayed in their reasonable expectation that their government would conduct a proper investigation.
Here we could mention some features of the official “9/11 Commission”:
The 9/11 Commissioners were specifically chosen because of profound conflicts of interest that would limit their investigative zeal.1,2 Half of the assistants employed by the Commission likewise had conflicts of interest.
It was forbidden to spend significant effort investigating 9/11 – instead the vast majority of the effort was spent investigating how to forestall a repeat of it.
It was forbidden to examine anything about the war games that paralyzed military responses.
It was forbidden to examine the planesÂ’ 'black boxes' - their existence was concealed from the Commission.
It was forbidden to examine any intelligence agency reports to the Bush Administration made prior to 9/11.
It was forbidden to examine any aspect of the financing of the 9/11 terrorists.
It was forbidden to examine 9/11 terroristsÂ’ support networks within the US.
It was forbidden to investigate any leads, or include in the report any events, facts, or testimony, that contradicted the official story which had already been spun by the government prior to the formation of the 9/11 Commission.
The person chosen to be the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, the one who called all the shots as to what issues would be investigated and what issues would not be investigated, was an insider from the Bush administration who had incredible conflicts of interest. This man, Philip Zelikow, was in the position of greatest power on the commission, since he was in charge of who the witnesses were going to be, and what evidence the commission and its staff were going to look at. Zelikow had previously worked under the Bush Sr. administration on the National Security Council. He had also co-written a book with Condeleeza Rice, and when G.W. Bush was elected, he was given a position on G.W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Zelikow, upon the request of Condeleeza Rice after 9/11, also wrote a White House document which brought forth (promulgated) and promoted the unprecedented U.S. doctrine of aggressive pre-emptive first-strike military warfare against other countries. One other astounding fact about Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, is the following: “Professor Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’….”3 One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand how strange and alarming it is that the position of the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was assigned to someone who not only is a White House insider extremely close to Bush’s inner circle, but who also has a self-proclaimed academic expertise in the creation and maintenance of public myths!
Another problem with the “9/11 Commission is that it was decided that the final report by the Commission would be a “unanimous report.” What that means is that if there was a single commissioner who had any objection about any fact or statement, that fact would be dropped from the report. So there was literally not a single sentence contained in the 9/11 Report that the Bush Administration did not approve of.
One of the Commssioners, former Sen. Max ClelandÂ…resigned from the commission in November 2003 with the words, "Bush is scamming America."

Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept severe limitations regarding access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
Does it make any sense that the person placed in the most powerful position on the Commission was a White House insider who is an academic expert in political (“public”) myth-making? Does it make sense that most of the members of the Commission had serious conflicts of interest? Does it make sense that one of the Commissioners resigned the Commission in disgust with the words, “This is a scam. It’s disgusting. America is being cheated.”???
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the self-assertion by the 9/11 Commission that it sought “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11” is one of the biggest lies about 9/11. In fact, this is one of the biggest political lies in American history.
We need to get this through to the American people first: You have never had a proper 9/11 Inquiry. Your belief that you have had a real 9/11 inquiry is a deception foisted on you by your own government. You have been presented with the illusion of a proper inquiry, but the illusion has not corresponded with reality. You deserve better.
If this principle is understood and accepted by American people, then they may feel more comfortable in examining and dealing with the evidence itself.
Footnotes:
1. CBS Evening News, March 5, 2003, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/05/eveningnews/main542868.shtml
2. See next document on this CD, entitled, “More Details on the Conflicts of the “9/11 Commission”
3. Quoted directly from the respected online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911teach.php?ID=120018

Still waiting to find out

Still waiting to find out who made the decision to put Mr. Fetzer on FAUX News?

They are our leaders by Joe

They are our leaders by Joe Public's standard. They are "honored" by websites when allowed as guests on any show. All the evidence is presented by them.

Hi S4!

Hi S4!

Ok, but please explain why

Ok, but please explain why it is "crap". This just sounds like it's an a priori argument, it's crap because it is, I say so, nyah nyah. If I've missed the boat on your analysis here, I apologize, but that kind of justification (or dismissal) is kind of what we've been fighting in the media.

I got a response to my email

I got a response to my email to the professors already!

From a civil engineering professor, here's his email... (are we not surprised?)

"What Steven Jones knows about structural engineering wouldn't fill a
thimble.

Stop sending me this moronic "evidence". You are only embarrassing
yourself."

Admitting to cd is bigger

Admitting to cd is bigger than most people here seem to think. Work it out logically . A demolition of this size and precision requires weeks of careful planning and placement on many floors. The key is the short time that the towers were shut down ,including all security systems and cams ,and many "engineers" were seen leaving and entering the building. Those people would have worked with or for Marvin Bush at the time.They must be protected , hidden at all costs. No , demolition talk blows wide open a whole new can of worms.keep pressing Colmes about this.

Yea Darcius, than why

Yea Darcius, than why bother. Hammer the science.

Yeah Colin, I find these to

Yeah Colin, I find these to be much better talking points...

"Ok, but please explain why

"Ok, but please explain why it is "crap". This just sounds like it's an a priori argument, it's crap because it is, I say so, nyah nyah. If I've missed the boat on your analysis here, I apologize, but that kind of justification (or dismissal) is kind of what we've been fighting in the media.
Daricus | 06.28.06 - 2:22 am | #
"

D, Google "Flocco + Shill"

If you've been in the "movement" for more than a year you would know where I'm coming from.

Colmes just made a wise

Colmes just made a wise long-term career move.

Hi, CB!

Hi, CB!

From a civil engineering

From a civil engineering professor, here's his email... (are we not surprised?)

"What Steven Jones knows about structural engineering wouldn't fill a
thimble.

Stop sending me this moronic "evidence". You are only embarrassing
yourself."
CB | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 2:22 am | #

Thats depressing.

If we don't get some better

If we don't get some better academic papers it will get a lot more depressing.

not that his was awful,

not that his was awful, don't kill me yet

Brian: Well let's not you

Brian: Well let's not you and I get confused. These guys aren't leaders. They're just college professors or writers or radio personalities...and that's it.

It's the information and what we can do with it that's important.

Colmsey! Welcome to the

Colmsey! Welcome to the fold. Maybe you wont be hung as a collaborator now .'fraid your freind hannity wont be so lucky tho.

Write the civil engineer

Write the civil engineer back and tell him that if he really wants to help you stop embarassing yourself he could impart a little wisdom and relay the fundamental flaw in Jones' paper. Or flaws.

What's his email?

By the way I've started a blog about 911 or at livejournal.

911trueorfalse.livejournal.com

True. We need to organize

True. We need to organize our own events and get our faces seen without our superimposed leaders. Really, we all need to amp it up and add much more compasion, energy, and creativity to what we are doing

Anybody seen any good

Anybody seen any good examples of 9/11 truth street art?

Colin - please explain how

Colin - please explain how Colmes just made a great long-term career move.

To DARICUS, Dr. Fetzer, and

To DARICUS, Dr. Fetzer, and anybody else out there who thinks Tom Flocco is worth quoting...

Bush and Cheney Indicted!

Katherine Harris dead!

Barbara Olsen arrested in Europe!

Flocco has been thoroughly discredited- and is a right-wing disinfo spigot for the room-temperature IQ crowd. Stop quoting him, linking to him, or validating him in any way- or people will have no choice but to assume you either lack the discernment to know better (and thus can't be trusted) or that you are on the same payroll as he is (and Osama bin Laden, for that matter...)

(Just as joke, CIA guys who read this. Please don't kill me. I know you guys have higher standards than to associate yourselves with someone like Flocco. If only 9/11 Truthers had as much sense! That fact that we obviously don't is exactly why you don't have to bother about destroying us from within. We can do that ourselves quite well, thank you very much...)

I rather not reveal his

I rather not reveal his identity in a public forum, but I did write back...

____________________----
Since you're a civil engineering professor, you are definitely
qualified to challenge Professor Jones' evidence. But you need to
challenge the actual evidence.

Jones has scientific evidence of thermate, which has been verified by
two other universities. The analysis reports should be released soon.

The NIST report never explained how impact damage and fire caused
three steel framed high rises to completely collapse with multiple
characteristics of controlled demolition. The NIST report did not
analyze all the evidence. Maybe you can read the Executive Summary:
http://wtc.nist.gov

I will take you off my mailing list as you wish. However I would like
to make one more point: Former CIA Analyst and Presidential Advisor
Ray McGovern was interviewed on a radio show a few weeks ago. He
predicts staged terror attacks to justify the invasion of Iran. You
can listen to the radio interview in MP3 format here:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_mcgovern_war_set_june_july.htm

I have no connection with Professor Jones, and do this only as a volunteer.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously and actually looking into
all the evidence.

There is a lot of rubbish on

There is a lot of rubbish on this thread, which is purely ad hominem and without foundation. Colmes was trying to steer me away from the scientific evidence, to which I was eventually able to return.

This is verbal combat, sports fans, not a cordial conversation. He was in attack mode from scratch. Some of you seem to have missed that. LISTEN TO IT AGAIN! And list the points that you agree with and disagree with!

It's fine that some of you like David Ray Griffin's or Steve Jones' style better than you do mine. That's great! Because we and Morgan and Kevin and Bob are all out there doing our thing. None of us is the same as the others. We are all working on it!

Those of you who praise Hoffman while attacking me are fascinating. In case any of you haven't read them, I have two pieces about Hoffman's attacks on me and on Scholars posted on st911.org. Maybe you should read them.

Professor Fetzer,

Professor Fetzer, Admittedly, I haven't listened to your appearance on Colmes show yet, however... I have no doubt that it was probably a "hostile environment", and that the callers were most probably trying to "egg you on".

That being said, please, in the future, stay away from the Tom Flocco Barbara Olsen story. As a matter of fact, stay away from any Tom Flocco story.

Years ago, Tom Flocco was what seemed to be a genuine investigative journalist. He wrote stories about whistleblower Mary Schneider that were credible. He wrote stories about Sibel Edmonds that were credible as well. However, he has since lost his mind.

Believe me, considering that one of my "claims to fame" was a story I did about Mary Schneider, I am NOT happy with the fact that he has lost his mind.

Prof. Fetzer, I am going to

Prof. Fetzer, I am going to listen to the entire interview a.s.a.p.

I think your assertive style, & Alex Jones', are real assets to the truth movement!!! Keep up the great work!!!

Jon, I am familiar with the

Jon, I am familiar with the Mary Schneider story. Where does she stand now? Did Flocco abandon her or something?

You can have an "assertive

You can have an "assertive style", and assertively say that UFOs flew into the World Trade Center. The best information as well as the best demeanor possible is your best bet. That's my opinion.

"Jon, I am familiar with the

"Jon, I am familiar with the Mary Schneider story. Where does she stand now? Did Flocco abandon her or something?"

Mary called me not too long ago asking me for something (I forget what), but I assume she's still on our side, however, she religiously follows Flocco because of all the work he did in regards to her story. As a result, I have had to distance myself from her. I have repeatedly asked her to stay away from Flocco, but she doesn't want to listen.

Tom Flocco gets his

Tom Flocco gets his information from the other site, stewebb.com
I think the Barbara Olson alive story was a desperate act to state as fact what we all hope to find: a real smoking gun. Something was definitely wrong with the passengers, someone has to find out what it was, but no fakes, please.

Mr. Fetzer you had two

Mr. Fetzer you had two opportunities on this thread today to answer our questions why you are still supporting that fraudolent entity called "Judical Watch" but you did not address it even once. Thanks for strengthening my deepest worries about your true agenda..

"fraudolent entity called

"fraudolent entity called "Judical Watch"

Tono... why are they fraudulent? Because of their statement regarding the Pentagon Video?

Yes, I can not believe for a

Yes, I can not believe for a moment they would risk leaving Barbara Olson alive. If she showed-up someday, their whole 9/11 LIE would be shot to hell! The wouldn't risk that.

John> this has been covered

John> this has been covered here a couple of times:

1. the FOIA documents by flight77.info shows the Pentagon releasing timing was not because of Judicial Watch activity

2. Tom Fitton current president of JW the guy who were worldwide on TV claiming he released the footage is being sued for fraud by JW founders. Fitton took part in several disinfo projects in the past apart from JW just google him.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

4. Scholars endorsed JW numerous times so they either did not checked the JW or are somehow part of the plot

Jon I believe Judicial Watch

Jon I believe Judicial Watch used to be legit. Then Fitton? took over, & he is a young neocon.

"Yes, I can not believe for

"Yes, I can not believe for a moment they would risk leaving Barbara Olson alive. If she showed-up someday, their whole 9/11 LIE would be shot to hell! The wouldn't risk that."

To my knowledge, this was the last "credible" story written by Flocco.

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FBILinguist.htm

Everything after that is questionable.

My guess is that Flocco is a

My guess is that Flocco is a clever mole for the gov't. He was very convincing a while back, now he's more obviously acting on the govt's behalf.

"fraudolent entity called

"fraudolent entity called "Judical Watch"

Tono... why are they fraudulent? Because of their statement regarding the Pentagon Video?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 11:14 am | #
Jon, if you even have to ask that, its clear you havent done enough research into them. check the backrounds of the people that currently run it. check Fiottons statements after the "Flight 77" video was released.

1. the FOIA documents by

1. the FOIA documents by flight77.info shows the Pentagon releasing timing was not because of Judicial Watch activity

I thought Flight77.info's FOIA was for the whole kit and kaboodle (84 videos)?

2. Tom Fitton current president of JW the guy who were worldwide on TV claiming he released the footage is being sued for fraud by JW founders. Fitton took part in several disinfo projects in the past apart from JW just google him.

Ok.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

Ok.

4. Scholars endorsed JW numerous times so they either did not checked the JW or are somehow part of the plot

I seriously doubt that. Have the scholars been infiltrated? Maybe... However, I know for a fact that there are SEVERAL good people who belong to that organization.

"Jon, if you even have to

"Jon, if you even have to ask that, its clear you havent done enough research into them. check the backrounds of the people that currently run it. check Fiottons statements after the "Flight 77" video was released."

Well duh... I don't research every organization out there. I know about their ridiculous comment regarding putting these ridiculous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories "to rest".

John> 1. At least my

John>

1. At least my understanding is that
Fligh77.info had numerous FOIAs and appeales and JW piggybacked on the process. The DOJ/FBI correspondence and dates are on their website

4. It's very strange Scholars support without any evidence fringe aspects of 9/11 (Fetzer) while shills like JW and Tom Fitton get their bianco approval. That's either honest and very stupid ommission or something bad going on the part of Scholars..

"fringe aspects of 9/11

"fringe aspects of 9/11 (Fetzer)"

He was the one who founded the scholars group. Lord KNOWS I don't agree with everything Jim Fetzer says, but I do appreciate the fact that the scholars are around. They just removed WingTV from their site. It's taking them time to "come around".

I believe the previous

I believe the previous founders/directors of J.W. were legitimate gov't watchdogs. They are now suing Fitton. J.W.'s previous good record may be why the Scholars trusted them.

Well "solar cookers and

Well "solar cookers and 9/11" as well as wingTV link was there for six months for god sake a lot of damage done..

I still have some trust fro Fetzer but he have to slow down and use the excess energy to clean their act together..

He can start with the Judicial Watch/Pentagon trap right away

On Jim Fetzer and ST911 -

On Jim Fetzer and ST911 -

ScholarsFor911Truth.org:
Muddling the Evidence
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, Feb. 19, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html

"Publicizing his ignorance of the basic facts, and relying on his self-important bona fides as Distinguished McKnight Philosopher of Science, Fetzer's performance amounts to this, 'Trust me Charles, I don't have a basic grasp of the details necessary to address the official account of how the Towers collapsed, and here I am to represent Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but take my word for it, the government is lying and they did it!'"

"Well "solar cookers and

"Well "solar cookers and 9/11" as well as wingTV link was there for six months for god sake a lot of damage done.."

I know.

3. JW itself is dubious

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

Those are their long term donors not just some new contacts under Tom Fitton!
JW was a disinfo shop (a bit right wing leaning) entity from the begining in '94 or so..

reader, does bashing Prof.

reader, does bashing Prof. Fetzer really help the truth movement? Who are you trying to kid here?

Tono... J-O-N.

Tono... J-O-N.

again, if you point to

again, if you point to photos of plane parts as being indicative then you must also point to other photos http://www.911studies.com/index.html which call into account the first photos authenticity.
__________-

Fetzer & Blob are in bed

Fetzer & Blob are in bed with Tom Fitton and Judical Watch disinfos who's next?

J-O-N-,

J-O-N-,

oops, J-O-N-, do you have a

oops, J-O-N-, do you have a quick link on your blog or elsewhere on how the 1993 WTC bombing involved the FBI?

A Critical Review of James

A Critical Review of James Fetzer's
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/fetzer.html

The Company We Keep by Michael Green
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html....

"... Fetzer begins by lumping together many critics of 911 who would not want to be associated with its spoiler, e.g...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
"Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account. Documenting these poison pills has not redeemed the 9/11 Truth Movement in public opinion because few in the Movement have taken a stand, fearing that to do so would be "divisive." "

Exactly, they managed to

Exactly, they managed to destroy the Black Panthers as well as the antiwar movement. 9/11 movement is another piece of cake for them..

Busheviks never sleep and they will win in the end because general public is just a bunch of morons who will exchange own liberty for stable price of $3 gallon of gas or the "security" of badly paid 80hrs week job..

mr. fetzer did a fine job -

mr. fetzer did a fine job - alan colmes would have made any one else his bitch on live radio and recorded for posterity.
support jim fetzer!
______________

the difference between

the difference between someone who should and shouldn't be a frontman to discuss 9/11 issues is whether or not they have a 'filter' as to what is and isn't fact.

fetzer rattled out every theory known to man regarding 9/11, and apparently had no filter at all as to what was provable fact and what was just supposition or heresay.

asside from that, i respect anyone out fighting for 9/11 truth. but, we have to critique one another and try to firm up what is a good approach.

stick to the facts when given such an opportunity, and avoid the heresay and supposition!

"oops, J-O-N-, do you have a

"oops, J-O-N-, do you have a quick link on your blog or elsewhere on how the 1993 WTC bombing involved the FBI?"

Yes.

Tapes Depict Proposal To Thwart Bomb Used In Trade Center Blast

"The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said."

Well duh... I don't research

Well duh... I don't research every organization out there. I know about their ridiculous comment regarding putting these ridiculous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories "to rest".
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 11:27 am | #
well isnt that enough for you to know that the organization is bullshit?

Jon, thanks for the link^

Jon, thanks for the link^

"well isnt that enough for

"well isnt that enough for you to know that the organization is bullshit?"

What about stories like this?

White House Dodges Anthrax Questions

Sibel Edmonds Is Proof That The "War On Terror" Is A Lie

Judge In Scooter Libby, Sibel Edonds Cases Is Redacted In Action

"Jon, thanks for the

"Jon, thanks for the link^"

Welcome... there's a little more...

February 1993

www.cooperativeresearch.org

An attempt to blow up the WTC fails. Six people are killed in the misfired blast. Analysts later determine that had the terrorists not made a minor error in the placement of the bomb, both towers could have fallen and up to 50,000 people could have been killed. The attempt is organized by Ramzi Yousef, who has close ties to bin Laden. [Congressional Hearings 2/24/98] The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. [ [New York Times 10/28/93] ] Why did the FBI seemingly let the terrorists go ahead with the bombing? Others suspects are ineptly investigated before the bombing (see July 1990 and November 5, 1990). Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes in internal documents that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing attempt. [ [Independent 11/1/98] ] Ahmad Ajaj, an associate of Yousef, may have been a mole for the Israeli Mossad, and the Mossad may have had advanced knowledge of the bombing (see September 1, 1992). US officials later state that the overall mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is a close relative of Ramzi Yousef, [Independent, 6/6/02] probably his uncle. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02] One of the attackers even left a message found by investigators stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” 9/11 can be seen as a completion of this failed attack. [AP 9/30/01]

off topic... Does anyone

off topic...

Does anyone else but me think that Alan Colmes has A HUGE FRIGGIN NOGGIN?

I mean...Holy Crap! he doesn't have a forehead...he's got a fivehead.

It's ridiculous.

"off topic... Does anyone

"off topic...

Does anyone else but me think that Alan Colmes has A HUGE FRIGGIN NOGGIN?

I mean...Holy Crap! he doesn't have a forehead...he's got a fivehead.

It's ridiculous."

He's supposed to look that way. Hannity is the "good-looking/all-american" conservative, and Holmes is the "squirrelly" liberal.

Do you think he pays extra

Do you think he pays extra for hats?

>>reader, does bashing Prof.

>>reader, does bashing Prof. Fetzer really help the truth movement? Who are you trying to kid here?

It's not bashing, it's a simple critique. The movement is in need of critique to shed the nonsense we are constantly smeared with to millions.

Those who are sure there was no plane or a military drone at the Pentagon are getting us smeared over and over and over and never mention that many of us do not agree with that position. People like Reynolds openly say that there is consensus on no plane. This is wrong. A few are starting to figure out that it's a booby trap -

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

But far too late.

No area of science could ever move forward without critique. If you emotionally protect your theory, you are doing a disservice to science. All science is theory, trial and error and correction. If you cannot critique, you don't have science, you have belief.

The problem is that Fetzer and people like Morgan Reynolds insist that they know the science, but they don't -- Fetzer won't admit that the hole is 90'+ below and that this allows for a 757. They ascribe a different standard of evidence to a Sky Warrior or missile than they do to the most likely object that hit - the 757. They toss out evidence that doesn't fit their theory (witnesses). That's belief, not science. Reynolds insists that the planes didn't hit the WTC, despite the mountains of evidence. That's not science. It's not even logical.

Yet, these are the 'scholars' of the movement. A movement where debate and critique are shunned as 'trashing' etc.

Good luck, then. You'll need it. Because it will only take 10x longer to get anywhere when every theory is embraced and none can be critiqued.

I appreciated the many reasonable comments on here expressing frustration about the presentation of debunked nonsense.

Notice that this is Fetzer's method - everything goes. Try reading ST911 and finding a story on there. You can't. It's jammed full of so much stuff that you can't find anything except his own voice on the radio over and over. The approach assumes that all info is good info, that UFO promoters are to be promoted as 911 promoters also. It's all good! No planes anywhere! All theories are okay! The problem is that while many of us may believe somewhat in UFOs, that once again only gets us smeared in the media. There's no consideration for credibility of the theories being promoted on there, which is the opposite to what a 'scholar's group' is supposed to be about.

Just my thoughts.

I agree with what you said

I agree with what you said reader. Theories should not be promoted as fact.

What's The Difference

Fetzer won't admit that the

Fetzer won't admit that the hole is 90'+ below and that this allows for a 757.

there wasn't a 90'+ hole at first. the wall of the pentagon remained standing for a good while after blob77 struck it before it collapsed.
_______________

This reader guy is just an

This reader guy is just an obfuscating shill. The official story has been dismantled long ago. Simplistic diversions don´t work anymore.

if reader will criticize

if reader will criticize fetzer for not pointing out the 90'+ hole, then i will criticize reader for not pointing out that the hole wasn't there immediately following the blob77 impact.
_______________

Blob: The official story

Blob: The official story has NOT be dismantled on Alan Colmes show before. And that's what Fetzer should have done last night.

The real reason the 9/11

The real reason the 9/11 issue isn´t going anywhere is that the authors of the official fable very understandably refuse to discuss their fairy tales. Instead they sic shills on the 9/11 truth movement to obfuscate the issue.

Once the designers of the official story are forced into an open discussion of that story it will totally crumble - officially. You can´t prove a falsehood, that's why those crims do not want to discusss their fables.

Douglas, come on, the

Douglas, come on, the official fable hasn´t really been discussed at the MSM before. It has to start and it is doing that. More will follow.

I think the perpetrators of

I think the perpetrators of this monumental scam will have a dump in the pants both before and after the hanging. Maybe we should discuss that one while we wait for the authors of the official fairy tale to join the discussion. :)

"The real reason the 9/11

"The real reason the 9/11 issue isn´t going anywhere"

Media. Media. Media.

Fetzer said specifically

Fetzer said specifically that there was absolutely no debris at all found at the pentagon - specifically mentioning no engines.

go to pentagonresearch.com, and look at the debris photos. there is an engine, the details of it can be argued, but there was an engine, and there was a landing gear too. saying otherwise is a flat out lie, and once disproven by a listener will call into doubt everything else (including wtc7) which Fetzer mentioned.

my 2 cents.

The official fable is

The official fable is totally unsubstantiated. They say that a 757 hit the wall of the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour friggin' hugging the ground but they don´t explain how that stunt is supposed to be physically possible ! Wake up folks.

They can´t produce any verifiable wreck from that alleged plane, not a single CCTV video showing that plane approach the building or hit it and the scene was totally inconsistent with any crash of a 757. Wake up.

Other segments of the official 9/11 bunk are just as nonsensical. It's a fairy tale designed for excessively gullible people. How anyone could still take it seiously is totally beyond me. It must be for some religious reasons. LOL.

Fetzer still didn't asnwer

Fetzer still didn't asnwer why he is in bed with Tom Fitton and JW shills..

I haven't listened to the

I haven't listened to the interview either, but there's something I'm not getting about Colmes. When he's teamed up with Hannity, he seems to play the role of bumbling liberal who never manages to articulate the opposing point of view. On the other hand, the description of this Fetzer interview makes him out to be a bulldog. Even if he is just playing a role laid out for him by Fox, wouldn't this cutthroat approach undermine his other role (with Hannnity)?

Stano, this is just awkward

Stano, this is just awkward obfuscation. Try to provide content. Identify arguments.

I have a serious problem

I have a serious problem with the name of the new tower replacing the WTC.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060625/capt.c54928220b2b4...

We are losing our freedoms as a result of that horrific, murderous act.

Blob: What we're taking

Blob: What we're taking seriously is the idea that 911 skeptics should verify their facts before speaking publicly on the subject.

Blob> this thread is full of

Blob> this thread is full of arguments on Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch shills so pls. either use search function or attack someone else..

yes, and observe the photos

yes, and observe the photos of the pentagon that are critiqued by jack white @ http://www.911studies.com/index.html
either the engine found at the pentagon squeezed thru a small opening (before the wall collapsed) or it was planted there to be used as evidence. if you want to include photos of plane parts as indicative, then you must also include photos of the pentagon wall that did not collapse for a good long while.
_________________

I didn´t have any problem

I didn´t have any problem with Fetzer there so I don´t understand what you're trying to manufacture.

I understand how shills work

I understand how shills work and can spot them so I take every production from such people with a huge grain of salt. :)

> I have a serious problem

> I have a serious problem with the >name of the new tower replacing the >WTC.

But G.W.Bush said it correctly right in his first speech on 9/11: "...it is an attack on freedom itself"

Yeah, it has been an attack

Yeah, it has been an attack on freedom.

That should tell people something.

Now the freedom and even the self-preservation of the perpetartors is at stake so you can expect every shill trick in the book. :)

Now; why don´t you shills

Now; why don´t you shills FOR ONCE explain how that 757 was supposed to have zoomed into the wall of the Pentagon at full throttle at an mind-bending 530 miles per hour - virtually hugging the ground. LOL.

Presumably you have some

Presumably you have some comprehension of things you believe and are able to substantiate them. That's about the least anyone could ask of you. As a result you should be able to explain the above. :)

i hate the merest thought of

i hate the merest thought of the freedom tower as well. they should have a concession stand in the lobby where they sell freedom fries. my calendar (made in india no less) denotes sept. 11 as patriot day. what, a national holiday? - it turns my stomach.
__________--

Furthermore I need to know

Furthermore I need to know how that 757 at full throttle and 530 miles per hour supposedly managed to zoom right over the heads of cars and drivers on the highway without damaging anyone's hearing and without so much as touching any car for that matter. And how did it manage to zoom at full throttle and 530 miles per hour right above structures and houses without breaking any windows?

To name just a few things totally at odds with the official fable. LOL.

It's easy to say that a 757

It's easy to say that a 757 came zooming into the wall of the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour. Any child can produce any nonsense. But the authors of the 9/11 fable don´t explain in detail how this stunt was accomplished. Get it? It doesn´t even pass for a hypothesis much less a theory. It's about as par with someone telling you that they saw a witch fly by on a broomstick. Would you some of you actually believe it if it had a stamp of approval from some government commission ? :)

it seems that the sibel

it seems that the sibel edmonds story is a good one to tell to people who are fake msm beauracratic mindset types_____-

THE CONFINEMENT IS OVER----SOLID!!

BRING ON CHARLIE SHEEN AND TELL THE WORLD!!

If Bush announced a govt.

If Bush announced a govt. decree pronouncing the earth flat would some of you take that as gospel? I really think so. :)

>Furthermore I need to know

>Furthermore I need to know how that 757 >at full throttle and 530 miles per hour >supposedly managed to zoom right over >the heads of cars

As far as i'm concerned, i agree with you. It's all to hard to believe. And even if it is a booby-trap now to hide it and then show a 757 video later, then they could not have planned that. How could they be so sure there would not the tail section lie around or a real 757 engine?

Eversince Alex Jones an others have announced it to be a 'honeypot' trap, people have gone crazy about not mentioning it. If that is true, if we are not allowed to make a mistake in our doubt about 9/11, then we're doomed!

BTW: Infowars.com is now praising the media coverage of the L.A. event, but to me it seems it's not true: They have censored and gate-kept it more than ever. Even the Washingtin Post article was only in a summary of 'miscellaneous' events. This is a scandal and it proves beyond doubt for anyone that there is a media cover-up: whereever Charlie Sheen goes, paparazzis would pursue him, but suddenly NOT when it's about 9/11 truth

Now; why don´t you shills

Now; why don´t you shills FOR ONCE explain how that 757 was supposed to have zoomed into the wall of the Pentagon at full throttle at an mind-bending 530 miles per hour - virtually hugging the ground. LOL.
Blob | | 06.28.06 - 1:13 pm | #

how does explaining the impossible change the fact that there were engine parts and landing gear parts which were recovered from the pentagon?

i dont care if you think it was a 757, a missle, etc. etc. the point is saying there was absolutely no plane parts recovered, not even an engine, is a flat out lie, and easily disproven. stating such things only causes the unaware to question our ability to look at the actual information instead of what some of us might wish it to be, which is why i took issue with Fetzer making those statements.

engine parts:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/081.html

landing gear parts:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html

anonymous, this doesn´t

anonymous, this doesn´t prove anything.

These pictures could be taken in Borneo for all I know.

Now; why don´t you get that plane to the building first at 530 mph. hugging the ground. First things first. After that we can try to figure out what became of the wreckage.

In order for that plane to

In order for that plane to leave any wreckage at the site it has to manage to get there. And it has to do that at 530 miles per hour virtually hugging the ground as per the official story. Presumably people who believe that story understand why they believe it.

It makes me sad as a

It makes me sad as a person---

but we cannot forget that mossad agents were caught red handed trying to blow up the mexican natl parliament building in 10/01

we cannot have mossad in the western hemisphere fucking with us in murderous ways_____

this basically is the smoking gun of mossad complicity in a 911shock and awe campaign that included the anthrax attacks and the attempted mexican parliament bombing

this is going to be the hottest potato once everything goes down

if we deal with this in a simple straightforward non anti semitic way ---this could be a shining example of fairness to humanity and lead to an end to anti semitism forever

gradually we gotta rise above this

blob: You're not getting

blob: You're not getting it. The question isn't whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, the question is was there official complicity in 911.

There is compelling, specific, substantiated evidence demonstrating complicity.

Greg: It's okay to make mistakes, it's not okay to repeat them, and it's NOT okay to lead with your weakest arguments and ignore more substantial evidence when you're on television.

For instance, the Mineta testimony is important, but my understanding is that the most important thing about it is that it places Cheney in the bunker well before the official story describes him there. As to Mineta's description of the conversation with the soldier and Cheney, well that would lead me to believe that a stand down order was given, but Mineta thought otherwise and said so. So it's not direct evidence of stand down order, as much as we'd like it to be it just isn't.

earlier in the this thread

earlier in the this thread nico haupt was trying to point something out - i think this is probably what he meant: FOX vs CNN
__________---

Jim Fetzer wrote: There is a

Jim Fetzer wrote:

There is a lot of rubbish on this thread, which is purely ad hominem and without foundation. Colmes was trying to steer me away from the scientific evidence, to which I was eventually able to return.

You barely tried to steer back but I chalk that up to inexperience on your part with these types of imterview. It's not a class room and your not in control.

This is verbal combat, sports fans, not a cordial conversation. He was in attack mode from scratch. Some of you seem to have missed that. LISTEN TO IT AGAIN! And list the points that you agree with and disagree with!

It sure was combat, it was also public relations and marketing, you lost this battle. Better luck next time.

It's fine that some of you like David Ray Griffin's or Steve Jones' style better than you do mine. That's great! Because we and Morgan and Kevin and Bob are all out there doing our thing. None of us is the same as the others. We are all working on it!

Good, I'm glad you CAN learn from each other about your style because it's so important in the public arena.

Those of you who praise Hoffman while attacking me are fascinating. In case any of you haven't read them, I have two pieces about Hoffman's attacks on me and on Scholars posted on st911.org. Maybe you should read them.

Maybe.

Greg: Or on national radio

Greg: Or on national radio I should say.

"but Mineta thought

"but Mineta thought otherwise and said so"

Actually, Mineta said he didn't find out until later that it was a "shoot-down" order.

Douglas Lain ,doing a

Douglas Lain ,doing a wonderful job of systematically dismantling scholars for 911 truth and exposing all the shills .Good job ! Very heartening for the movement.

Right. Mineta called

Right. Mineta called claimed it was a shoot down order that was being discussed, but he isn't even sure about that. It's ambigious and I think it shows a stand down order was given, but it's not a smoking gun.

And for Fetzer to claim that Mineta resigned because of his two minute appearance on FOX is just the kind of self-serving speculation that makes people stop listening. He might as well have described his tinfoil hat.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

>Greg: Or on national radio

>Greg: Or on national radio I should >say.
>douglas Lain | Homepage | 06.28.06 - >1:45 pm | #

It's a matter of being a good speaker/speechwriter or not. And when you're not, and in the limelight, you most likely end up in 50% of how good you could have said it.

The 9/11 movement needs a good speaker. Charlie Sheen did it brilliantly when he called in to Alex Jones, but CNN/others wouldn't write a word of it - they know it! it's an open secret.

As I've said for a while...

As I've said for a while...

The "young man" Mineta was referring to was running in and out of the room.

If he received a "shoot-down" order, he would have awaited confirmation of that "shoot-down".

The reason I think he was running in and out of the room citing the distance of Flight 77 was because the "order" that he "questioned" was something he didn't agree with.

At that point, knowing that both towers were hit, why would the "young man" question a "shoot-down" order? I think he questioned a "stand-down" order.

Considering Andrews Air

Considering Andrews Air Force Base is right around the corner, and the Pentagon has defenses of its' own, and Flight 77 STILL managed to hit the Pentagon, it makes sense that it was a "stand-down" order.

Whether it was a

Whether it was a "stand-down" order for Andrews or a "stand-down" order of the Pentagon's defenses, we don't know.

Well, Jon- having listened

Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?

Jon: You and I are in

Jon: You and I are in agreement about what the Mineta testimony probably means, but disagree about how strong it is as evidence.

Dr. Fetzer: (if you're

Dr. Fetzer: (if you're reading this far down this substantial thread);
With all due respect sir, there is no need to establish a list of
+ and -'s for your interview. It comes down to a very basic rule of thumb:
do not answer questions that will lead to speculation. Answer any such loaded questions with a simple "I am sticking to the established, scientific facts, and will not speculate." This will keep future interviews focused, and far more effective. Thank you for your work.

"Jon: You and I are in

"Jon: You and I are in agreement about what the Mineta testimony probably means, but disagree about how strong it is as evidence."

9/11 Report - Cheney at PEOC 9:58

Mineta Testimoney - Cheney at PEOC by at least 9:20

Those who wrote the 9/11 Report lied to specifically protect Cheney.

I'd say it's very strong evidence.

"Well, Jon- having listened

"Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?"

You won't know what I think until later tonight.

Put Mineta's testimony on

Put Mineta's testimony on top of the fact that General Myers refused to say who was in charge of the Wargames when Cynthia McKinney asked him, and you start to get a pretty clear picture as to who the "Maestro" was.

Jon: What we need is a real

Jon: What we need is a real investigation.
All I'm really saying is that the Mineta testimony doesn't fit into a soundbite for television, but there are plenty of facts that do. WTC 7. The Pentagon being hit without any scrambled intercept planes when it is, after all, the Pentagon fits into a soundbite, the fact that no other skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire fits. The ISI connection even fits.

"Jon: What we need is a real

"Jon: What we need is a real investigation.

All I'm really saying is that the Mineta testimony doesn't fit into a soundbite for television, but there are plenty of facts that do. WTC 7. The Pentagon being hit without any scrambled intercept planes when it is, after all, the Pentagon fits into a soundbite, the fact that no other skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire fits. The ISI connection even fits."

Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles as it hit the Pentagon.

or

Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles as it hit the Pentagon from a place the 9/11 Report said he wasn't even at.

That's a pretty good sound byte.

And I agree. We need a new

And I agree. We need a new investigation.

"Well, Jon- having listened

"Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?
Anonymous | 06.28.06 - 2:19 pm | #"

And what are you doing more than Fetzer for the truth movement, genius???

Douglas, I don´t

Douglas, I don´t understand your reasoning. Obviously if they're cooking up cockamine stories not even the people who claim to believe those stories can´t understand or explain - they're complicit.

Of course I think they're complicit. Maybe you missed it earlier but I actually think they'll have a dump in the pants both before and after being hanged. Same goes for their shills and collaborators and other traitors I'm sure.

As I've said for a

As I've said for a while...

The "young man" Mineta was referring to was running in and out of the room.

If he received a "shoot-down" order, he would have awaited confirmation of that "shoot-down".

The reason I think he was running in and out of the room citing the distance of Flight 77 was because the "order" that he "questioned" was something he didn't agree with.

At that point, knowing that both towers were hit, why would the "young man" question a "shoot-down" order? I think he questioned a "stand-down" order.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 2:14 pm | #

The reason I think that the "young man" was running in & out of the room is because it was a cheap ploy to make it seem that AA77 was approaching, when in reality the Pentagon was stuck by a drone or missile!

"The reason I think that the

"The reason I think that the "young man" was running in & out of the room is because it was a cheap ploy to make it seem that AA77 was approaching, when in reality the Pentagon was stuck by a drone or missile!"

:-:

Why should we take people

Why should we take people seriously who can´t even explain why the believe certain things? As you can see; the people who claim to believe that a 757 hit the wall of the pentagon at 530 mph. virtually hugging the ground are unable to explain how that stunt was accomplished. As a result it's clearly a question of blind belief and nothing else. What makes this blind belief in this and other unsubstantiated official fables especially staggering is the fact that the story comes from accomplished and serial liars who have lied about pretty much everything and in fact can hardly open their mouths without lying. Now why would people believe blindly impossible nonsense from pathological liars?

blob: All I'm saying is

blob: All I'm saying is start with your best.

Over at conspiracy smasher

Over at conspiracy smasher he's claiming Fetzer yelled at one of the relatives of the dead. Did I miss that?

I've started with my best

I've started with my best before.

As i've said countless times here before; this won´t get anywhere until the people who prepared the 9/11 nonsense for the excessively gullible American public are forced to discuss their fables, Then and first then will the fables collapse. Until this happens they will just continue siccing obfuscating shills on us.

I could claim to be a

I could claim to be a relative of anyone. Would you believe this? Do you believe ANYTHING if it helps your blind faith in impossible things you neither comprehend or explain? :)

Having reviewed the program

Having reviewed the program just now, I tend to agree that I was much too combative in relation to Colmes and some of the callers. I was literally out of breath when it started and had expected Colmes to be quite hostile. I never quite adjusted to the fact that he was actually being reasonable. Sorry about that. I am going on with Laura Ingraham on Friday (moved for the fifth time!) and plan to do better. So I fault my own style but the content was highly appropriate. Try disentangling them yourself. You just might be surprised.

Fetzer & Blob are in bed with Tom Fitton and Judical Watch disinfos who's next?
Tono Stano | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Some of these posts strike me as very odd. This "Tono Stano" person wants to make a mountain out of a molehill. I commented on pressure from Judicial Watch, which it certainly applied. The news coverage when the tapes were released stated as much, so I don't know where "Tono Stano" is coming from. I can certain see a nasty guy when I read him, however, which is the case here. This person "Tono Stano", in my opinion, is completely untrustworthy. Getting something wrong, by the way, is not lying unless it is deliberate!

As for the Olson story, I only said that I had received reports, which I had been unable to verify, of her having been arrested in Europe. How do you guys know that is false? Even if Flocco is a flake, that would not be enough to show that what he said here was wrong. In my opinion, it fits with what else we know about her and her alleged call to her husband, Ted. I would not be surprised if it were true. How do any of you know its false? Her name is not on the Social Security Death Index. Please tell me.

Douglas Lain ,doing a wonderful job of systematically dismantling scholars for 911 truth and exposing all the shills .Good job ! Very heartening for the movement.
colin | 06.28.06 - 2:04 pm | #

This is very, very interesting. Douglas sent me a note yesterday saying that, in spite of his criticism of me on this forum, he still supports the society I founded with Steve Jones. I don't know where else you are going to look for scholarly expertise, because we have it and this forum does not. I am not thereby criticizing this forum, by the way, since 911blogger was not set up for that purpose. I do think that a lot of the criticism advanced here is far off base. My style was over the top, but my content was right on the mark.

Self-Evaluation: Style: C. Content: A.

P.S. About the engine part that was found at the Pentagon, the point that I was making is that no Boeing engine parts were found there. The part that was appears to have come from a JT8D, an engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior. I thought the fact that I was talking about no Boeing engine parts begin found there was obvious from the context. This complaint is contrived.

I also find it fascinating that some of your are "piling on" with Hoffman's attacks on me and Scholars. I sent him my reply to his first attack on me and Scholars, but he refused to publish it on his site. I think my second reply to his second attack explains why. Go to st911.org and scroll down the list of "Articles" if you want my responses to what he has been saying about us.

I haven't read all the way

I haven't read all the way back up the thread but saw people talking about Mineta. There's a new essay on that here:

How They Get Away With It
by Michael Green
Version 1.1; June 18, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html

It seems unlikely that Dr.

It seems unlikely that Dr. Fetzer is not going to change his presentation style. He seems perfectly satisfied with his performance. In fact, Daricus, who talked with him right after he finished, said Fetzer "...thought it went very well, called it the best *bleep* 45 mins on 9/11 ever."

I am willing to put aside the distasteful element of hubris and self-congratulation. Sometimes the people who are the best at what they do are more than happy to tell you .

But while I can overlook the arrogance, I can't help but be troubled by the myopia. This was not a bellweather moment for the movement- it was in fact a set-back, and may only fall short of a true disaster because the listenership of Alan Colmes radio show is probably miniscule.

Fetzer's opening comments were true gold- evidencing that he has within him the capability to be great. And then, quite suddenly, like a demented alchemist, he began mixing lead and tin in (unprovable no passenger theories, etc.) and then- as if not satisfied that the alloy was debased enough, he proceeded to pour in excrement (Barbara Olson may live).

That he can not see this and will not concede that perhaps he made some mistakes and should in the future stay within the realm of the provable and verifiable means that he lacks objectivity and the capacity for reflected self-criticism.

Dr. Fetzer- I love your passion. What I heard of your Coast To Coast appearance with Alex Jones was often breathtaking. But please, PLEASE be willing to hold yourself to account. Do not assume yourself to be above criticism or beyond reproach. There is obviously so much more at stake than individual egos here- and as a result, the leaders of the movement must hold themselves to a much higher standard.

You want to believe the

You want to believe the official story. This is because you're conditioned to believe official stories. But the officials are owned by corporations which control all indoctrination. They're only interested in the bottom line. War is big business. They'll do anything to get that going and use their official assets as required.

Stano, your spin is

Stano, your spin is ridiculous. Give it up. People see through these shill tactics.

I find it mighty strange

I find it mighty strange that people who accept totally unsubstantiated official stories totally blindly and clearly without understanding said stories should demand absolute exactitude practically down to syllables from the people refuting those impossible stories. :)

"Even if Flocco is a flake,

"Even if Flocco is a flake, that would not be enough to show that what he said here was wrong."

From Wayne Madsen regarding the Flocco/Olsen story.

"It is BS -- this came out as the Polish-Austrian border which does not exist. This guy belongs in the loony bin"

As I said earlier Jim, I HATE the fact that Flocco has lost his mind because everything I attributed to him years ago becomes quesitonable, however, I know better than to do so now.

As should you. You wouldn't report information from a proven disinformationist once you found out that he was a disinformationist would you? I should hope not.

Anonymous, You missed my

Anonymous,

You missed my last post (two before your last one).

Jim

Now; why aren´t you fake

Now; why aren´t you fake worriers about the 9/11 truth movement demanding that the authors of the official story join the discussion? If your cencern about the movement were genuine surely you would be calling for this.

One sided discussions never

One sided discussions never go anywhere, this goes without saying. We can´t discuss this affair with government shills forever, the government itself must join the discussion. It is after all responsible for the official story we're discussing.

"We can´t discuss this

"We can´t discuss this affair with government shills forever, the government itself must join the discussion."

Have you called the 9/11 Commissioners as asked for in the 9/11 Action Alert?

No, I haven´t Jon.

No, I haven´t Jon.

"No, I haven´t Jon." What

"No, I haven´t Jon."

What are you waiting for?

>>The part that was appears

>>The part that was appears to have come from a JT8D, an engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior

I assume Fetzer gets this information from Karl Schwartz, Tom Flocco or Jimmy Walter. Real reliable sources.

First, the piece is not an engine.

Second, Skywarriors don't use JT8D engines, and never did.

Jon: I tend to agree with

Jon: I tend to agree with your take on the Mineta testimony, but an alternative view certainly fits within the realm of reasonableness. If the orders were to shoot down an airliner with passengers aboard (even after the twin towers were hit), that would be an extraordinary act (and one without much precedent that I can recall). If I were the military man relaying the orders, I would sure as hell want to make sure I had it right before I took such action. That said, it is still suspicious that the Commission edited out Mineta's testimony.

We have congresspeople who

We have congresspeople who are elected by the people and are supposedly FOR the people. They must explain why they never even touch this affair.

But of course corporations and politicians and the MSM are all in bed together. You don´t get elected without big money and this comes from corporations and you won´t be elected unless your mug is on the tube and in the newspapers and that's controlled by the same corporations. And the same corporations are into war and armaments and oil and pharmaceuticals and so on. It isn´t really rocket science is it?

simple research common

simple research common sense

thanks for saying that, that was my reaction as well.

it would be wise for everyone to be familiar with the information at the following website so that they can at least be aware of the information and clarify before making blanket statements about what was and wasn't found:

www.pentagonresearch.com

Jon, what are you waiting

Jon, what are you waiting for? Why don´t YOU do it?

"If the orders were to shoot

"If the orders were to shoot down an airliner with passengers aboard (even after the twin towers were hit), that would be an extraordinary act (and one without much precedent that I can recall)."

They are trained for such contingencies on a regular basis. Whether or not it has a precedent doesn't really matter. I wouldn't have had a problem with shooting down a passenger plane, especially knowing both towers were hit. I would have probably cheered at the time... "Yeah, take that terrorist hijackers!!!"

@ Gothamite: If so, why

@ Gothamite: If so, why wasnt't the "hijacked plane" shot down before it hits the pentagon?

anonymous, you need to get

anonymous, you need to get that plane to the pentagon before you start worrying about what became of it. It has to zoom right over cars and people and houses and such at full throttle and at 530 mph. without damaging the hearing of anyone and without ruffling any cars, breaking any windows in the houses it passed over and so on. Good luck with that stunt.

"Jon, what are you waiting

"Jon, what are you waiting for? Why don´t YOU do it?"

I did. I do a lot of things. If you are dependent upon me to "win" this thing all by myself, thanks for your vote of confidence, but may I have some of what you're smoking please?

Thomas Kean – Chairman
The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036

Lee H. Hamilton
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-3027

Slade Gorton
Preston Gates & Ellis LLP
1735 New York Ave. NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-5221

Bob Kerrey
The New School in NYC

66 W. 12th St. Rm. 800
NY, NY 10011

James R. Thompson
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601–9703

Jamie Gorelick
WilmerHale
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006

Richard Ben-Veniste
Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw
1909 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Timothy J. Roemer
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001

Fred F. Fielding
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006

John F. Lehman
J.F. Lehman & Co.
2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 607
Arlington, VA 22202

Jon, I'm not depending on

Jon, I'm not depending on you for anything least of all an explanation about how that 757 managed to zoom right over those cars and people and such at full throttle and 530 mph. - to leave no verifiable wreckage at the Pentagon and a scene totally inconsistent with any crash of a 757. :)

You need to get the bozos

You need to get the bozos who prepared that nonsensical fable to substantiate it. Hello? That's all.

They can´t substantiate

They can´t substantiate any of their 9/11 fables and therefore they do not discuss them. It's as simple as that. :)

Jon: I was simply

Jon: I was simply addressing the question of why the young man would keep coming back to check if the order was to shoot (as opposed to stand down). That person would be bearing a huge burden of guilt and potential legal liability if he got the message wrong. So it's not a question of whether he would have the will, but whether he was relaying the correct order. Sitting Bull: That's a separate question. As I said, I don't believe the order really was to shoot down, and even if it was, they could have failed in their mission. I was simply addressing the question of whether it would make sense to keep coming back to confirm the orders if they were to shoot.

Blog, anonymous, you need to

Blog,

anonymous, you need to get that plane to the pentagon before you start worrying about what became of it.

so i need to figure out what hit the pentagon and how it did it before i look at any of the evidence or data? you do realize how ass backwords that is right?

as i said before, im not arguing what hit the pentagon, im arguing that we should be aware of all the data instead of just that which supports our personal opinions.

how can we be mad at NIST for ignoring the molten metal if we are going to ignore data ourselves?

"managed to zoom right over

"managed to zoom right over those cars"

Ever see a car on the runway of an airport? Ever see an emergency vehicle drive right underneath a plane in the event of an emergency, following it as it lands? Why aren't they blown around like people who say 77 didn't hit the Pentagon say those cars should have done?

Well, Mr. Fetzer you might

Well, Mr. Fetzer you might call me "untrustworthy person" one hand and and call for no ad hominem attacks on the other just for the sheer fun of it as you wish.

But the facts are just facts and again for the 3rd time today you declined to comment on the factual merits:

1. the FOIA documents by flight77.info show the Pentagon footage release timing was not because of Judicial Watch activity!

2. Tom Fitton current president of JW, the guy who was all over the world TV channels claiming that he released the footage is being sued for fraud and falsified BA degree by JW founders. Fitton took part in several disinfo projects in the past apart from JW, just google him.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s - major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere and that is even before Tom Fittons promotion to JW presidency in 2003.

4. Scholars endorsed JW numerous times on their website and speeches so they either did not checked the JW enough or are somehow part of the plot

The Pentagon story just smells like trap from 500yards. It's not because there was no airliner that's obvious it's because of the footage of nearby flying distraction plane landing on Reagan int. which they might release in the future.

So, you can't have it both ways Mr. Fetzer. Either it was an omission on Scholars side and you should reconsider your JW stance or there is some serious problem with Scholars as such..

"managed to zoom right over

"managed to zoom right over those cars"

Ever see a car on the runway of an airport? Ever see an emergency vehicle drive right underneath a plane in the event of an emergency, following it as it lands? Why aren't they blown around like people who say 77 didn't hit the Pentagon say those cars should have done?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 3:38 pm | #
you said, following as it lands. think about the difference of speed. i dont think Flight 77, if it did hit the Pentagon like you claim, would slow down on approach enough to be at "landing speed".they claim it was going 500 right?

"they claim it was going 500

"they claim it was going 500 right?"

I thought it was 550mph. I think because it was going as fast as they claim it was, the cars didn't have enough time to be "blown around".

enough time? how do you

enough time? how do you mean? like it was going so fast it went right over them without budging them?

Honestly, I don't KNOW what

Honestly, I don't KNOW what hit the Pentagon, but I have a strong suspicion it was, in fact, either Flight 77, or a plane of some kind. The reason I don't KNOW?

THEY HAVEN'T RELEASED THE *&($*# VIDEOS!!!

"enough time? how do you

"enough time? how do you mean? like it was going so fast it went right over them without budging them?"

Meaning, because it was going 500-550mph, it didn't have enough time to blow the cars around. It flew over them too fast to have an effect.

anon: so i need to figure

anon:
so i need to figure out what hit the pentagon and how it did it before i look at any of the evidence or data? you do realize how ass backwords that is right?

i don't think blob is suggesting that one needs to figure out what hit the pentagon, but that in order to consider the validity of any photos of plane parts one must first evaluate if the official claim of how said plane parts got there to begin with holds any water.
__________---

Thank you Dr. Fetzer for

Thank you Dr. Fetzer for reflecting on the matter and stating what you did state. I suppose that is a hopeful sign. The Colmes show may hopefully serve as a dress-rehearsal for future appearances, where the rough edges can be identified in the performance in preparation for the spotlight moments still to come.

Your interview with Laura Ingram is Friday- and the stakes are considerably higher, since she actually has a listenership, and is certainly going to be more combative than Alan Colmes. It seems like it would be very useful in advance of that interview to identify to yourself - on paper - boundaries for 9/11 discussion. I'm sure if you wanted suggested for the strongest points to lead with (and the hot topics to avoid) a new thread could be opened in which the readers here would offer helpful suggestions. Inevitably, a few folks will tell you "Focus on 1) Olson in Europe 2) The Pod 3) The Holograms 4) The Missle and avoid 1) WTC 7 2) Controlled Demolition 3) Mineta's testimony 4) The NORAD standdown". 5) The Living Hijackers Etc. But there are trustworthy names in the mix like Jon Gold who can mediate such posts and help sort out a list of good talking points, if you'd be open to open-sourcing your interview prep with the Truth followers here.

--

As to the Olson story, you state, "I would not be surprised if it were true. How do any of you know its false? Her name is not on the Social Security Death Index. Please tell me.

As the Madsen mention above notes- the source of the Olson story also referred to a shared Polish/Austrian border which does not exist.

Could Olson still be alive? It seems very hard to believe that she would be allowed to - she would be living, breathing incontrovertable evidence that the whole 9/11 story was a lie.

Ted Olson's story about Barbara is clearly riddled with troubling contradictions and impossibilities when scrutinized. Unfortunately, to most of the American public, he is an icon of victimhood- a recognizable face, grieving his loss for the American public, feeding us a narrative that many still cling to.

As a result- the very invocation of he or Barbara serves to produce a sympathy response from the uninitiated public who still believes the official story. And attempts to call attention to the conspicuous nature of Olson's testimony will inevitable result in outrage and disgust from reasonable people.

For these reasons, they must be left unmentioned- with attention focused on the faults of the official account, the obvious signs of controlled demolition, and the other most effective mind-openers in the 9/11 Truth arsenal.

>One sided discussions never

>One sided discussions never go >anywhere, this goes without saying. >Blob | 06.28.06 - 3:16 pm | #

It doesn't go anywhere unless there's new information released or found. That's precisely why the no-plane discussion or Pentagon-video (yet only the video) discussion is that mind-boggling: you can look forever at these ultra-low resolution frames, zoom until the pixels become square-inches, but there just is no more godamm information in these videos to help us.

Jon: Maybe the cars at

Jon: Maybe the cars at airports don't get knocked around because the planes are flying more slowly? Possibley not? That kind of stuff is verifiable I figure. As is the standard response time to a plane going off course.

Does anybody have a link to good info on that? How long does it take to scramble jets usually?

The whole thing of arguing

The whole thing of arguing what speed would cause cars to blow around is illogical because there is no evidence either way -- you can say that you "know" it would cause such and such to happen but the fact is that you know no such thing because no such event has taken place in history. You are guessing based on what you *think* should happen. In reality, you have no idea.

This is called a logical fallacy and with the Pentagon debate, practically all the points against AA77 are in this realm - "But no plane would do that!" Belief, intuition, but not fact. Start dealing in the facts.

Douglas... you're not going

Douglas... you're not going to believe this, but this is your lucky day.

I sent this to every email address I could find on the NORAD site JUST yesterday, and I JUST got a response...

Hi NORAD,

I was hoping you can help me out. It's hard to find any
information on this particular subject. In the event of an air
emergency, what is the average response time of an intercept?

Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jon Gold

The response I JUST got...

Sir:
Unfortunately there are too many variables to give you an accurate
answer. The bottom-line is we have alert aircraft at various locations
throughout the U.S. (and Canada with NORAD) and it would just be a
matter of minutes from the time they are notified until they where
airborne.
So then it depends on where our aircraft took off from and
where is the "target" aircraft--you can look at our Air Force aircraft
fact sheets on the F-15 and F-16 fighters (Canada uses mainly CFA-18
aircraft) to determine their speed and look up the speed of the target
aircraft with a web search to roughly calculate the time and place the intercept would occur depending on the location of the aircraft. The
fact sheets are located at this web site: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/

Here's a very rough example from a non-pilot (me): An F-15, with a top
speed of 1,800 mph could intercept an aircraft 600 miles away flying
parallel to where the fighter took off in 20+ minutes or so, now if the
"target" aircraft is flying at 600 mph and heading toward the place
where the fighter took off then the intercept would be at the 400 mile
mark and would likely take only 13 minutes or so--theoretically,
depending on winds and weather, etc...

vr

MSgt Timothy L. Hoffman, USAF
Superintendent, Alaskan Command Public Affairs
9480 Pease Ave, Ste 136
Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506
DSN 317-552-7567/2341; comm. (907) 552-7567/2341
Fax: 317-552-5411

Oh no, I forgot all about

Oh no, I forgot all about the Ingraham interview. She is pretty good at carving people and could easily make Fetz look like a goddamn fool.

"Meaning, because it was

"Meaning, because it was going 500-550mph, it didn't have enough time to blow the cars around. It flew over them too fast to have an effect.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 3:49 pm | "

Jon, with all due respect.....

This reply just blew my mind coming from you.

First, too fast to have an effect? So all that turbine engine air just magically displaced its self?

Second, the air pressure change from the plane its self would have had a large impact on the air and the enviroment. Especially if the plane was as low to the ground as claimed.

The force of air required to thrust the plane at 500MPH, would be intense coming out the back of that plane. The vortex created from the plane in its self would disturb the air enough in the area to creat a large suction and or a large blower on the cars.

I'm not saying that it would have been enough to throw the cars around, but it sure would have been enough to rock the S&*t out of them. People would have certainly known that a large plane just flew over head without second guessing it.

"People would have certainly

"People would have certainly known that a large plane just flew over head without second guessing it."

First of all... I'm not an aeronautical engineer, nor am I a pilot, nor am I physicist, nor am I very smart to begin with. I have to read, and ask questions just like everybody else. Besides, weren't there witness accounts just like the one you described?

I respect Prof. Fetzer for

I respect Prof. Fetzer for his time, energy, and committment to 9/11 Truth.

However, I think Fetzer makes a mistake when he uses hyperbole like, "everything the government has told us about 9/11 has turned out to be false." He needs to qualify that, because that is not a correct statement and is subject to rebuttal and dismissal. More accurate would be to qualify it, like, "Most important things the government has told us about 9/11 have turned out to be false." I have asked him to do this by email.

jon: Thanks!!

jon: Thanks!!

I just sent NORAD this

I just sent NORAD this response...

Thank you very much for your timely, and informative response. Would this have been true on 9/11?

Again, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Jon Gold

The sitemeter statistics for

The sitemeter statistics for this site rock!

You can see log in for individual users on this site as well. Look ma, even mil. contractors! The question remains is it one of the shill people or perhaps lurking whistleblower wannabie?

In case you are the latter, don't do it. You like you stupid wify, obese kids and 3 SUV in front of McMansion don't you? Don't loose your American dream just for some silly whistleblowing, budy!

raytheon.com
Lexington, Massachusetts
2:46:54 pm 1 20:52

"However, I think Fetzer

"However, I think Fetzer makes a mistake when he uses hyperbole like, "everything the government has told us about 9/11 has turned out to be false." He needs to qualify that, because that is not a correct statement and is subject to rebuttal and dismissal. More accurate would be to qualify it, like, "Most important things the government has told us about 9/11 have turned out to be false." I have asked him to do this by email."

Or... "Everything they left out leads to the Bush Administration". ;)

Fetzer wrote: >About the

Fetzer wrote:
>About the engine part that was found at the Pentagon, the point that I was making is that no Boeing engine parts were found there. The part that was appears to have come from a JT8D, an engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior. I thought the fact that I was talking about no Boeing engine parts begin found there was obvious from the context..

This is not unlike Fetzer's insistance
that the "The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.":

It doesn't matter how obvious it is that the statement is false, or how many times one shows him photographs that clearly showing the absurdity of his statement -- he'll continue to cling to his dogma.

Skywarriors do not have JT8D engines, nor does the photo match a rotor from such an engine, but if it's good enough for Tom Flocco and Karl Scharz,
it's apparently good enough for Fetzer.

"People would have certainly

"People would have certainly known that a large plane just flew over head without second guessing it."

First of all... I'm not an aeronautical engineer, nor am I a pilot, nor am I physicist, nor am I very smart to begin with. I have to read, and ask questions just like everybody else. Besides, weren't there witness accounts just like the one you described?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 4:08 pm | #
yes, some of them presumably members of the military(it being the Pentagon and all). there were also reports of a small,12 person or so sized plane.

"Besides, weren't there

"Besides, weren't there witness accounts just like the one you described?
Jon Gold |"

Yes there were, I was just questioning your statement that it was going to fast to have an effect.

I was not attacking you, just questioning it. All of your posts are generally with a large amount of substance and accuracy, then this statement was made.

Thats all I was saying.

It is true that no one really knows, but by looking at it logically.....

If air is being SUCKED in one end and forced out another at a greater pressure, this only makes sense that the air flow would be very strong behind the plane.

I enjoy the information you provide and am glad you are on our side. :)

We all have bad days.

We all have bad days.

I just got the response from

I just got the response from NORAD in regards to my second question. I think it's bullshit personally..

I can't say for certain...but probably not, because before 9/11 our focus was protecting our airspace from EXTERNAL threats--i.e. threats coming from outside North America. Also, before 9/11 as far as I know there was no codified command and control procedure for intercepting civilian domestic flights--since there was never a need for those procedures.

hope this helps,

Tim

Never a need for those

Never a need for those procedures? What? There was never a need to intercept a civilian flight before 9/11? Phhhh... Payne Stewart was a civilian domestic flight, and that was in 1999.

"our focus was protecting

"our focus was protecting our airspace from EXTERNAL threats--i.e. threats coming from outside North America."

Doesn't that sound like the official line? Sort of like Condosleezza Rice?

As soon as I told him I was

As soon as I told him I was researching 9/11... he suddenly sounded like the official line.

By the way, the MP3 of the

By the way, the MP3 of the interview posted yesterday in this thread sounds better than the one posted on the front page... It has an annoying low static sound... I'd recommend switching to this one:

http://www.filefactory.com/?87578f

And it has no ID3 tags...

And it has no ID3 tags...

You can also download the

You can also download the better-sounding version there:

http://loosechange.markblu.net/Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_...

I know I'm runnig risk of

I know I'm runnig risk of being quite annoying with the same stuff but it's almost 24hrs and Fetzer still have not not answered my above posted 4. factual points - questions about Judicial Watch/Tom Fitton and 911scholars..

It's better to question nnow than discredit the whole movement by stupid Pentagon trap..

Jon: I was simply addressing

Jon: I was simply addressing the question of why the young man would keep coming back to check if the order was to shoot (as opposed to stand down). That person would be bearing a huge burden of guilt and potential legal liability if he got the message wrong. So it's not a question of whether he would have the will, but whether he was relaying the correct order. Sitting Bull: That's a separate question. As I said, I don't believe the order really was to shoot down, and even if it was, they could have failed in their mission. I was simply addressing the question of whether it would make sense to keep coming back to confirm the orders if they were to shoot.
Gothamite | 06.28.06 - 3:36 pm | #

Why wouldn't that pig Cheney give the order himself? Some "young man" relays such a crucial order? I don't think so.

Futhermore, since 2 planes had already taken out the WTC, why wouldn't you shoot down AA77 if it's heading for D.C.??? It could've killed Rummy & Connie Rice. Oh, I forgot, it did a 360 into the renovated section, where the accounts who were onto the missing trillions$$$ were located.

>>yes, some of them

>>yes, some of them presumably members of the military

The witnesses were wide-ranging in their professions, locations and views, yet overall presented the same outcome reliably - a large commercial jet approached and crashed.

Read the accounts for yourself:

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

Just because someone is military doesn't mean they are automatically lying -- their views are not different from the many other accounts. You could easily isolate them statistically if they were.

"Fetzer won't admit that the

"Fetzer won't admit that the hole is 90'+ below and that this allows for a 757.

there wasn't a 90'+ hole at first. the wall of the pentagon remained standing for a good while after blob77 struck it before it collapsed."

You are missing the point. The argument is that there *was* a 90+ hole in the *first floor* (in addition to the smaller round hole in the first and second floors) *before* the wall collapsed.

Just because someone is

Just because someone is military doesn't mean they are automatically lying -- their views are not different from the many other accounts. You could easily isolate them statistically if they were.
reader | 06.28.06 - 6:34 pm | #
it was a false flag operation. im SURE the powers that be made sure to get some "witnesses" on tv to verify Flight 77.(maybe someone can help me with this,i forget which doc i saw it in, but they went into the backround of one of the "witnesses" of 77, and it was very suspect indeed) and reader, im willing to bet your link doesnt have the guy who said he clearly saw a small,military type 12 passenger plane huh?

- Hani Hanjour could not

- Hani Hanjour could not have flown back from the Kentucky/Ohio to D.C.

- Hanjour could have not made that incredible maneuver in a B-757 to hit the renovated section of the Pentagon.

- A B-757 would NOT make a hole the size of a missile in the Pentagon.

- 80 videos of whatever hit the Pentagon are being withheld for no damn good reason except to cover-up. The only video released looks like a missile or a drone!

- There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that smashed into the Pentagon @ 530 mph. The fictitious DNA results were made to bolster the official story.

care to explain the

care to explain the perfectly circular 18 foot hole on C ring? thanks.

About the width of the

About the width of the Pentagon hole:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/aa77.html

See the picture with the text

"On the first floor the damage is well over 90 feet wide."

this hole is 90

Self-Evaluation: Style: C.

Self-Evaluation: Style: C. Content: A.

Jim Fetzer | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 2:58 pm | #

ID's evaluation of Jim Fetzer:

Style: D

-You were much too emotional, which made you sound irrational. In addition, you need to practice basic etiquette: laghing, and yelling at the callers (especially the family of the victims) was innapropriate.

Content: B-

- While you brought attention to most of the major evidnece, you focused too much on speculation, and unsubstantiated claims.

http://pentagon.batcave.net/t

http://pentagon.batcave.net/trou4_grande-big3.jpg

http://pentagon.batcave.net/trou1_grande--1.jpg

http://pentagon.batcave.net/pohrv.JPG

a 757 did that? what a strong nose cone. christ, they should start using Boeing nose cones as missile tips.

My advise, take it or leave

My advise, take it or leave it isÂ… Don't ever assume you know every thing and defend something you speculate but can't prove as fact.

Was it Commercial flights that hit the towers, the pentagon and was brought down in Pennsylvania or was it Drones? Don't know, it doesn't matter, no. PLANES crashed into the twin towers and that is all that matters. That is all that matters to the mass of the public. Stick to the science that discredits the facts that the fires brought down the towers and WTC 7. We CAN prove that. Everything else gets to "nutty"

What happened to the passengers of the flights? We don't know, it doesn't matter that we don't know. That isn't the big issue. They died.

When the caller (Joe) called in and said his uncle died in the Pennsylvania crash and Fetzer got into an argument with him I started to cringe. First off find the Uncles name, calmly talk to the man and act like you have some respect to the fact that he lost a family member. (Even if this was someone planted on the show to discredit the 911 movement, you can not be ignorant to people that lost family members. That will slam on the brakes for those non believers and they will shut their ears and their minds real quick.)

I am glad he brought up the Norman Mineta Testimony, and the fact that he resigned the next day after Fetzer on Fox.

When I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=Norman%20Mineta

I like that Fetzer is very passionate but he need slow down a bit and treat people that don't believe with some respect, it's hard to convince people anything when you are yelling at them.

Yeah, but ID, you're a

Yeah, but ID, you're a shill.

...Just because someone is

...Just because someone is military doesn't mean they are automatically lying -- their views are not different from the many other accounts. You could easily isolate them statistically if they were.
reader | 06.28.06 - 6:34 pm | #

Yes, but I think you're lying.

Jon, nothing personal buddy,

Jon, nothing personal buddy, but you're extremely weak re: the Pentagon.

"Jon, nothing personal

"Jon, nothing personal buddy, but you're extremely weak re: the Pentagon."

And I'm proud of it.

By "weak" regarding the

By "weak" regarding the Pentagon, I think you're referring to the "what hit it" aspect, correct?

In the course of our meal at

In the course of our meal at the Giant Panda, Fetzer would be approached by one other admirer. He, too, had caught one of the professor's lectures on TV. Like NASCAR guy, he felt he had to talk to Fetzer. Such encounters, Fetzer says, are common. He attributes this to his memorable persona. "People hear me on the radio and they never forget. They never forget. It's just astonishing," he offers. Most of the time, people are polite and enthusiastic. Occasionally he is confronted by doubters and haters. When it happens, he pushes back with all the bombast he can muster. "You've got to be very aggressive and push it," he says, locking into me with laser eyes that suggest that I am about to hear one man's credo. "You have to be willing to take on all arguments and defeat them. Goddamit, I've done that forever with JFK and I'll do it for 9/11. Shy away from nothing. Confront everything."

HELL YEAH!!!!!!! screw these people saying you should calm down Fetzer, you have to be forceful.

I'm going to comment on this

I'm going to comment on this interview, and I'm going to try and be respectful.

Professor Fetzer, you were a poor read of Holmes' attitude. He was being fair, and you came across as aggressive. My recommendation would be to do your best to let THEM become the aggressor. Let THEM be disrespectful before you even consider it. Reason being, they come across as the asshole.

When the family member came on the telephone, you were disrespectful, and shouldn't have been. You can question 9/11 around family members, but you have to be respectful in doing so. If you don't, then you come across as someone who doesn't care about the families.

You shouldn't laugh at the callers who disagree with you.

I think it's important to talk about the motive before the means. That's my personal opinion.

Chris, this hole... at the

Chris, this hole... at the first story.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/img/pentagon-30meterhole.jpg

i know what you meant, my

i know what you meant, my point was about the c ring hole that was clearly from a missile, and not the Boeing nose cone as the official fairy tale says.

Yeah, but ID, you're a

Yeah, but ID, you're a shill.
Anonymous | 06.28.06 - 7:08 pm | #

LOL @ me being a shill.

Just listened to it, and I

Just listened to it, and I didn't think it was that bad. Jim Fetzer got a little emotional, but I can't fault him for that. I get emotional too when talking about this subject.

He also touched on a lot of topics, enough to pique the interest of a few listeners I'm sure. My first exposure to 9/11 Truth occurred while a solitary Truther was getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of ignorant blowhards on a bulletin, but that didn't stop me from doing my own research and making up my own mind.

Plus, this experience should only help Mr. Fetzer refine his argument for the next opportunity, and I thank him for his effort and wish him luck in gaining more mainstream coverage in the future.

Those who claim they could have done better, please get out there and do it. Spending all our free time arguing amongst ourselves does nothing to help our cause.

Colmes and his callers were

Colmes and his callers were being condescending as hell, i dont blame Fetzer for being a bit forceful and loud.

"My first exposure to 9/11

"My first exposure to 9/11 Truth occurred while a solitary Truther was getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of ignorant blowhards on a bulletin, but that didn't stop me from doing my own research and making up my own mind."

Sounds like a good guy.

Yeah, indeed Chris, that's

Yeah, indeed Chris, that's this exit hole on the C ring said by the official fairy tale of being made by the nose of the plane that get me skeptic at first. It just doesn't make any sense. From there, I discovered CD at WTC and all the rest. Now, I spead the truth around me.

Hey Jon, It might have been

Hey Jon, It might have been you, I'm not sure I can't remember, it was on Stern though. However, whoever it was, was talking about the Pentagon, so it probably wasn't.

"Hey Jon, It might have been

"Hey Jon, It might have been you, I'm not sure I can't remember, it was on Stern though. However, whoever it was, was talking about the Pentagon, so it probably wasn't."

I've talked about the Pentagon on several occassions in the "past"... but more about the impossible manuever, Hani Hanjour, the confiscated videos, etc...

Thanks for all the advice.

Thanks for all the advice. I appreciate it. Let's see what happens with Laura, which is now scheduled for Friday (after rescheduling it at least four times)! I guess she wants to consult with some of you about how to handle me! I find it very interesting that, after my earlier appearance on Hannity & Colmes, I was besieged with emails, which ran about 90 to 10 in my favor, but the nasty ones were really nasty! In this case, oddly, I have received very little email and only one nasty one. There have been more complaints on this thread than from the rest of the world combined. That strikes me as a bit odd. In any case, thanks for sharing. Do what you can to advance the cause. Read what I have written about Hoffman! That could be the stuff of an interesting thread!

^Res Ipsa Loquitur

^Res Ipsa Loquitur

Dr. Fetzer, if you must

Dr. Fetzer, if you must appear in front of a national audience again, please hammer away at Building 7. Maybe bring a portable video player with you in case they won't show footage of it falling down.

Mention the statements from people at ground zero that said they found explosives in the buildings -- and all the witness reports of people hearing and seeing explosions seconds before all three buildings fell, including those orange and red flashes that were seen at the base of the towers before they fell.

If Laura Ingraham tries to guilt trip you for not having compassion for the victims families, immediately explain that there are many who want a new investigation, because they are not satisfied with the 9-11 cOmmission's findings. Also mention Ellen Mariani and how the US Government has given Zacarias Moussaoui his day in court, but refuses to give Mrs. Mariani hers.

Best,

S4

Dr. Fetzer: We're here to

Dr. Fetzer:

We're here to provide constructive criticism, not insults or threats. There is a lot at stake here and we take it very seriously, and you have been given a wonderful opportunity to reach a wide audience.

Perhaps we should create some sort of "rebuttal" list similar to the old telemarketing rebuttal lists, where if certain statements or questions were asked, what would be the best way to address those questions/statements, while then steering the conversation toward something powerful and less-speculative. (I admit, the Olson/Pentagon/SSDI stuff made me cringe a bit)...

Overall a B+ simply because you fired away with some good stuff and you didn't back down.

Holy shit! 515 comments on

Holy shit!

515 comments on me simply pointing out that the fact that Dr. Fetzer would not be on until another hour fifteen from the time I clicked on the submit news... link.

Neat. Yay Internet(s)!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...h=boondocks% 201
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o...h=boondocks% 201

...and why is Aaron McGruder gone until October?

-slaqqer

Dammit... http://www.youtube.

Jim: Fewer people listen to

Jim: Fewer people listen to Alan Colmes radio program than watch TV. Only us true believers were listening?

Just had a chance to listen

Just had a chance to listen this interview.......it wasn't as bad as some of the comments in this thread seem to suggest in terms of its content.....(minus Barbara Olson and references to 'friends and buddy's testimonies") it was really in the delivery and supplying and defending too much theoretical information.
Fetzer completely miss judged Colmes attitude and questions, and became defensive and aggressive with Colmes and the callers. Most of the information was good and powerful but the attitude and delivery was conterproductive.Unfortunately we can not only have good arguments we need to have a good delivery and presentation or the facts that we present will never even be considered. Pathetic but true.....

On that note:

He actually sounded like me the other night,, after a few beers at a large upper middle class Connectitcut party, when discussing 911 with strangers who were truly interested in 911 and asked some obviouse questions (like Colmes) that to me , filled with too much 911 info, seemed disingenuious or even aggresive.
I became defensive found my self emotionally rambling off lists of facts, some which I don't even completely support but seemed powerful and persuasive in the moment.
It was extremely noproductive and the only thing I think I convinced people of is my passion for the subject, which came off sounding righteous and condescending.

Later my wife pulled me aside, and offered me this kind and ruthless wisdom :

," you know they were only asking legitimate questions, they weren't attacking you. You have been talking or blogging amoung people that already know so much about this you forget that these simple questions are the ones you had about three years ago. You almost assume they know about controlled demolition and all the war games on 911 ect. and that they are mocking or insulting you. Well they weren't until you got all emotional and defensive. I know it was a release for you, but thats not why you are involved in this, you are involved because you see the truth and you want others to see it too so you can expose it, bring those responsible to justice and stop any more 911's, Irags or Afganstans from happening. Thats not the way to do it......your usual calm, intelligent and rational approach to 911is always better.....you don't need to know all the answers ....they can see your passion and your concern about the situation....you don't need to clobber them with it......Don't forget what you are saying, even if its true, sounds crazy to anyone that has not researched it like you have....remember how long you kept all of this to yourself while you looked for more and more information to convince yourself that you were not crazy ......it took a long time for you to have eneogh confidence in your knowledge to speak out and even admit to yourself that you believed these things....you can't expect other people to just accept this so easily....

My wife was right( as she sometimes is) and I went back to the people I was having the discussion/ debate with and said,
"I want to explain why I can get aggressive and emotional about all this, .. if you had researched all of this for three years and had come to the conclusion that elements of our our own government were directly involved in the mass murder of 3000 of our own citizens which they have used as an excuse to destroy our constitution, invade two countries and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.......you would be emotional too.....especially if you thought that they would do it again and the only thing that can stop them is the american people realizing what they have done on 911.You don't need to believe me, just please look into it with an open mind.And if you see what I have seen you will know why I was shouting."

(Several of the people at that party have called and emailed me looking for more sources of information on 911)

Radical Pragmatist, This

Radical Pragmatist,

This early morning I have been trying to figure out why I responded as I did, and your post hit the nail right on the head. Thank you so much for telling me this. It helps me to put this incident into perspective and understand why I was so far off the mark. My situation paralleled yours. I think I can get to sleep now!

Rad: another solid

Rad:

another solid post.

during my DC trip last week I took a cab home and got into a conversation with the driver. At times I got a bit too fired up because of my passion for the subject, but I retained my cool and tried very hard to instill in him that he should not believe me, but he should take a few things I have told him and look for himself, draw his own conclusion, then reach out to someone else.

1 mind at a time is the only way, and the minds out there have had 5 years of 1024-bit-encrypted-programming to hack through.

It is no easy task, but nothing worth it ever is.

also... Dr. Fetzer: Any

also...

Dr. Fetzer:

Any update on the thepetitionsite.com Petition? I'm #8 on that Bad Boy and would love to see something come of it.

Best,
DHS

Mr. Fetzer, 30hrs gone, 4th

Mr. Fetzer, 30hrs gone, 4th opportunity wasted to answer my above posted 1-4 basic questions about Judicial Watch/Tom Fitton & 911Scholars..

"About the width of the

"About the width of the Pentagon hole:
See the picture with the text
http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/aa77.html
"On the first floor the damage is well over 90 feet wide."
Vesa | 06.28.06 - 6:50 pm | #

Vesa, what's with the word games? "Damage over 90 feet wide" is not the same as "a hole 90 feet wide."

Whatever blew-up at the Pentagon scattered damage/debris over 90 feet, but I don't see any 90-foot hole!

Furthermore, you mean to tell me that a Boeing 757 disappeared somewhere between the ground & the first floor of the Pentagon??? Come on now!

Radical Pragmatist... email

Radical Pragmatist... email me if you would. Gold9472@comcast.net

I understand where you are

I understand where you are comming from R.P.

I support Jim Fetzer!

Dr. Fetzer: I'm sure I'm not

Dr. Fetzer:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is grateful for your reflective comments. For my own anonymous part, there are things that I wrote above in the heat of my own frustration that I wish I could reword or revoke. Clearly, you and the other visible leaders within the broad Truth movement have taken upon a pretty awesome responsibility- and for your willingness to do so, you deserve a great deal of credit and respect.

RadicalPragmatist did indeed capture in his anecdote an experience a great many of us can relate with. The emerging truth of what really happened on 9/11 is so overwhelming that it requires an enormous effort on our parts to dissever our outrage (and the longing for some kind of justice) from the facts of the story itself. How to tell the terrible, outrageous tale with a calm, reasoned demeanor - so as to have a hope of reaching the unenlightened with a persuasive argument - is a storytelling challenge that few of us have ever contended with. But as has been noted elsewhere, most of us have made this journey in small steps- few of us were able to accept the full scope of the story in a single conversation, or even over the course of a week or a month. It is a journey that has taken some of us many months- and for those we hope to reach, our friends, family, coworkers, or even radio or television audiences- if they are to follow us, the journey will likely be full of hesitance, back steps, impasses. To the extent that we can put aside the emotions and let the most powerful facts speak for themselves, we can have some hope of slowly opening and changing minds. And changing minds is really what this movement is all about, not winning arguments or hurling judgments.

>>Read what I have written

>>Read what I have written about Hoffman! That could be the stuff of an interesting thread!

And yet, it is not, and won't be. Trying to trash Jim Hoffman on this site isn't going to gain a lot of friends or add anything to the efforts to expose truth.

In the last line of one of your essays on him you write:

"One of us is a fake. We cannot both be genuine. Review the evidence and decide."

Neither of you is a 'fake,' nor need you be. We are all human and with our limitations, as many have pointed out to you on here. Positions on the Pentagon don't make anyone a fake, nor do they mean anyone is pushing the official story just because they believe the jet hit while also believing it was controlled and orchestrated, etc.

Some of us differ from your position of supporting Meyssan -- that doesn't make us 'fake.' Anyone who thinks Jim Hoffman is 'fake' because he disagrees with your positions isn't able to rationally critique the evidence but is injecting an emotional position into a situation they can find no other way out of.

Maybe I missed it, but I notice you don't answer the points on this thread about the supposed Skywarrior engine part. Maybe that's a clue as to why you need to say someone else is a fake.

I doubt either one of you are fake. Some are doing better scientific research and are more capable in that area. We all have our strengths.

reader, AA77 did NOT strike

reader, AA77 did NOT strike the Pentagon! You are a rent-a-shill!

Radical Pragmatist |

Radical Pragmatist | 06.29.06 - 12:49 am | #

Thanks for the insiteful post of your experience. I had a similar event with a coworker and no alcohol. Your putting it into perspective is much appreciated.

Maybe I missed it, but I

Maybe I missed it, but I notice you don't answer the points on this thread about the supposed Skywarrior engine part. Maybe that's a clue as to why you need to say someone else is a fake.

Of what value is this mysterous part in proving that AA77??? So many other facts disprove that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, the point is moot anyway.

Maybe I missed it, but I

Maybe I missed it, but I notice you don't answer the points on this thread about the supposed Skywarrior engine part. Maybe that's a clue as to why you need to say someone else is a fake.

Of what value is this mysterous part in proving that AA77??? So many other facts disprove that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, the point is moot anyway.
Anonymous | 06.29.06 - 6:43 pm | #
plus, people who think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon conveniently forget that the Pentagon and the whole surrounding area was cleared numerous times because of fears of another incoming aircraft. this happened mulitiple times for prolonged periods right after the attack. plenty of time to plant just about anything.

Just listening right

Just listening right now.

Mr. Fetzer...always knew he was one of the smartest in the bunch [of 9/11 reality researchers] ... Definitely one of the best writers and logicians...But this....

Haven't finished it, but am so relieved to finally hear, in response to ~"Isn't it hard to believe our elected....?"

~"What are you talking about?....Not Elected!"

THANK YOU, JAMES FETZER.

Smart, correct, well-timed, and courageous.

Now this is a good use of the fighting spirit of testosterone! For a change.

What a relief to hear that on the radio!

And, so far at least, I think the larger context adds to the credibility rather than confuses. The public just needs a light shock treatment, since this fascism is gone way too far by now.

When I heard Fetzer on TV I was sorry he didn't answer North's question, ~"So you are thinking our own government did this against it's own people?" with "Yes!"

So many words, I thought of later, to be said to North....Like "I really don't know how many were involved with the plot. Maybe you could shed some light on that? How many *were* on the inside of the Iran-contra detail?"

So many words, I thought of

So many words, I thought of later, to be said to North....Like "I really don't know how many were involved with the plot. Maybe you could shed some light on that? How many *were* on the inside of the Iran-contra detail?"
Peggy Carter | 06.29.06 - 9:03 pm | #

Line of the week right there.

How long have the scholars

How long have the scholars been looking into 9/11 compared to people on this board.

They should take notes from many of us on here, in my opinion.

We should be working together more efficiently and developing a solid gameplan when dealing with issues in public, the press, on television, radio, etc. and not stray from it.

The more I think about it

The more I think about it the more I think Jim Fetzer was set up. Most of the callers blasted him. They tried to make him look bad. He got emotional and took the bait. I would bet a weeks pay the callers were paid shills. I wish Fox would question Mike Malloy on 9/11 but they wouldn't touch Malloy with a ten foot poll.

In a way, Fetzer did hit

In a way, Fetzer did hit Ollie good the way he said 'you know about compartmentalization', etc...

BTW, a new animation video

BTW, a new animation video of the Pentagon attack is here:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm

It explains the smoke trail and shows how a 757 could have approached and hit the building.

Professor Jim Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes

I feel so appreicative for Dr. Fetzer representing the 9-11 truth movement so brilliantly. The man has a brain like a steel trap. Dr. Fetzer always manages to get out two or three main smoking guns of 9-11 and he always shows clearly he is on to the games of these two disgusting unAmerican media shills. Unlike me and many of us who become very angry on this subject, Dr. Fetzer is able to keep his reasoning strong and clear.

I personally appreciate that Dr. Fetzer becomes vexed and shows it. If you have a shred of loyalty to the United States of America and the freedom our soldiers fought and bled and suffered and died for, you will be deeply angry too - and show it. We are talking about scum of the earth criminal unAmerican filth who do nothing but try to further mind control the wimpy seeple. I become very very angry too when I read or hear discusting types claiming to be Christian and conservative who are in deep denial about the overwhelming truth that 9-11 was an inside job.

“The melting point of steel isn’t Democrat or Republican. The highest temperature a jet fuel fire can attain isn’t conservative or liberal. The facts are decisive.”

Professor James Fetzer, Scholars for 9-11 Truth