James Fetzer/ 911 Panel Discussion Los Angeles

This one of James Fetzers segments during the 911 panel discussion at the face the facts conference held June 24th & 25th in Los Angeles.
scholarsfor911truth.org

Jim, why are you bashing Jim

Jim, why are you bashing Jim Hoffman? Last I checked, you're the one on the grill, not Hoffman. The day he goes off about Barbara Olson being alive in Europe on a National mainstream tv/radio show, with absolutely no proof to back it up, is the day I'll go off on him for promoting absurd 9-11 theories. But he didn't -- you did. So think about eating some humble pie and try focusing on doing a better job representing 9-11 "truth" the next time your're speaking to a national mainstream audience, capiece?

That said, I do acknowledge that your demeanor was better during the Laura Ingraham interview, so I give you props for that, but you missed a golden opportunity to shut that Beeotch down when she called controlled demolition at the WTC "Looney tunes stuff".

Wish you would have said:
"I'll tell ya what's 'Looney Tunes", Laura. The nearly 50-storey tall Building 7, which wasn't hit by an airplane, falling down symmetrically into its own footprint in 6 seconds -- THAT'S what's Looney tunes! And I suppose you think the dozens and dozens and dozens of firefighters, police officers, emergency workers and news reporters are 'Looney tunes' for saying they saw and heard huge explosions BEFORE those buildings fell down?! And the firemen who reported that bombs were found in the buildings are just 'Looney tunes' too, right?"

And on and on and on...

Dr. Fetzer: I'm really sorry

Dr. Fetzer:

I'm really sorry to read your post- because if it wasn't clear to you, I was expressly trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I think would be clear to any reasonable reader of my post, I was making the case that you were, in fact, improving in your public presentation- and that this bodes well for your future appearances. I was suggesting that you seem to be learning from your mistakes and working to improve your presentation.

I'm not trying to spin anything any particular way. But just as you misread Alan Colmes interview style initially as being incredibly hostile- and only after the fact conceded that he was being fairly civil- you may have misread my own post as incendiary when it was trying to be even-handed.

In your refutation of my (I thought) fair post, you make a somewhat ludicrous assertion that, "Do you have any idea how ridiculous it would make the government look if, after having released the video tapes under pressure from Judicial Watch, it were now to come forth with better tapes? It would mean that the government had been withholding evidence from the American people and create an outrage."

You yourself note- and state in your reply- that the government has been withholding evidence from the American people. You may believe that the people will be outraged- should the government release this evidence at a later date. You are incorrect, however, to assert this, and frankly a person of your credentials and experience should know better.

Most Americans accept at its face that the government withholds evidence for broad, non-specific reasons like "National Security". And sometimes it does it for a generation or more. You yourself, as a Kennedy assassination expert, know that evidence has been periodically released by government bodies over the course of decades. Where is the outrage from the citizenry?

There is no outrage. Even when concessions were made by government officials within recent history that all but acknowledged Oswald was NOT the lone gunman.

Where is the outrage about Roosevelt's knowledge of Pearl Harbor? Yes, the few remaining widows of those killed during the attack might have grieved. Yes, maybe a few veterans who lost friends because our government let an attack happen, so as to generate public will for entering a previously unpopular war. But who cares what this tiny minority of soon-to-expire Americans might be infuriated by? Nobody cares. We all shrug and say, "Well, the ends justified the means" or "That was a long time ago."

To further illustrate the point, Where is the outrage about Operation Northwoods? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tells the President of the United States the the Defense Department recommends killing civilians and framing Cuba, so as to generate a public will for open conflict with the communist nation... It is one of the most outrageous disclosures of the demonic calculus of the Military Industrial Complex in the history of our nation- and yet, nobody gives a crap.

The citizenry, by and large, doesn't pay attention to details, and, generally speaking, avoids leaping to conspiratorial conclusions about government actions. As the old Ashleigh Brilliant saying goes, "What is the difference between Apathy and Ignorance? I don't know and I don't care.".

That is what we are up against- a public that both doesn't know and doesn't care. And even when presented with incontrovertible evidence of government malfeasance- they can hardly be counted upon to muster a yawn.

The possible future release of Pentagon footage (or gas station footage, or Hilton hotel footage) that reveals a 757 hitting the Pentagon will not create any public outrage- except that it will pick the scab of Islamic Fundamentalist outrage, and further reinforce the collective fury of the populace against "our enemies in the War on Terror". There will be no other reaction except for heightened hostility towards those in the 9/11 Truth movement who are trying to suggest an alternative theory of what really happened.

What will those angry citizens say at such a time? They'll say, "What kind of anti-American bastards would suggest our government had foreknowledge? What kind of lunatics would suggest Barbara Olson is alive and well in Europe? Only the vilest of the vile!

And what we will do or say then? We will stammer, "But... But, you don't understand... What about the Towers? What about Building Seven? What about Mineta? What about Norad? What about reports of bombs in the buildings?"

And at that point- who will be able to hear us? We will, for all practical purposes, no longer be Americans, speaking the Queen's English. We'll be paranoiacs and psychotics, flat-earthers and holocaust deniers... A specimen of American citizen more contemptible than almost other class. Our voices will fall on deaf ears, and we will be relegated to the fringes- vindicated perhaps only when our bodies rest silently in the ground... When some final chapter is written on the War on Terror in which it was necessary and uncontroversial to disclose something closer to the 9/11 Truth to the ignorant, apathetic public.

"Yes, we let them attack us that fateful day. We had to- because the public otherwise wouldn't have supported a war against this poisonous population of Freedom-haters that threatened our nations very existence back in the early part of the century.... Before the dark times... Before the rise of the Chinese Menace... Before the era in which we now live, where we face an enemy unlike any we've ever known..."

And then, as now, the response of the population at large will be, "Change the channel. This historical stuff bores the crap out of me."

Dr. Fetzer, unlike a lot of the people here, I'm not here calling you mean names and declaring you unfit to represent the 9/11 movement. Read my posts and you'll see that I've said nothing of the sort.

You may perceive my support of Jim Hoffman to mean that I am simply your enemy. If that's the case, I don't know what to say. I've not seen evidence yet that Hoffman is irrational and untruthworthy. I've instead seen a lot of signs that he's perhaps overly cautious, just as we've seen evidence that you may be overly zealous.

If you refuse to allow that I might be a fair minded fellow, after reviewing my posts, then so be it. I'm still not yet inclined to consider you an enemy, even if you think I must be one for being ambivalent about the Fetzer/Hoffman war. I hope for you that you continue to improve your 9/11 Truth presentation and that you are afforded opportunities to further refine your pitch and argument. I think you have it in you to be a strong spokesman for the movement, particularly if (as I've repeatedly posted) you will focus on making the strongest arguments only.

Thanks for considering both the substance of my post and the spirit of it.

disinfo agent, Do you have

disinfo agent,

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it would make the government look if, after having released the video tapes under pressure from Judicial Watch, it were now to come forth with better tapes? It would mean that the government had been withholding evidence from the American people and create an outrage. (Not to deny that, as our Petition reflects, the government has been withholding evidence from the American people!) Similarly, if the government were now to change its conclusion on the time of destruction of the towers from about 10 seconds for the South and about 11 for the North, that would be so astonishing (in relation to one of the, if not the, most basic facts about the attacks) that it would throw the entire government account into doubt. As for Jim Hoffman, if you have read what I have written, this is not about personalities, although I compliment you for trying to spin it that way. I notice you do not mention much less discuss the EVIDENCE and the PATTERN OF CONDUCT that gives Hoffman away. You guys can be as gullible as you want and allow yourselves to be played for suckers, but Hoffman has left a trail of evidence that shows his true colors. As for those posts not coming from Jim Hoffman, give me a break. I am very confident that they came from Jim Hoffman. If you pose as a "disinfo agent", even by using that name, then you have surely heard of plausible deniability. He took his hit and hid behind another email source so he could deny it if I took him to the cleaners on it, which I did. You don't comment on any of the grossly unfair criticisms of my work on Hannity & Colmes or on Laura's show. Anyone who wants to compare what actually happened on these programs with what some of you have written about them just might have that "scales falling from you eyes" experience, because there have been a lot of false statements, many gross misrepresentations and outright lies coming forth right here on this thread. I have no confidence that any of you can put "2" and "2" together, but if even one of you figures out what has been going on here, I will consider that a great moral victory! Just compare the actual interview with the attack posts.

Look, I usually talk about

Look, I usually talk about Building 7,
which you can check by listening to a
sample of mine archived on st911.org.
Different programs develop differently.
My Laura intereview is now there, too:

30 June 2006:
Interview: Jim Fetzer will be the guest
discussing 9/11 with Laura Ingraham
9:30 AM/CT (10:30 AM/ET, 7:30 AM/PT)
http://www.lauraingraham.com/site, (mp3-1), (mp3-2), (mp3-3)
Partial Transcript (transcriptor unknown)

disinfo agent, Thank You

disinfo agent,
Thank You for ending this thread with such a perceptive and well written critique of the often unnecassary venom in this thread , as well as your informed feed back to Dr. Fetzer.

And, Dr. Fetzer, for what

And, Dr. Fetzer, for what it's worth, I DID specifically applaud your Hannity appearance, "Your Hannity appearance, short though it tragically was, was fantastic- and clearly the people here reacting to it were greatly enthused by it. .

Yet after I posted this, you'll still stated, "You don't comment on any of the grossly unfair criticisms of my work on Hannity & Colmes or on Laura's show. "

I also stated,"I for one, in reading the transcript of the Ingram interview (and listening to what was online), felt like it was a meaningful improvement over the Colmes segment, and it does appear that Dr. Fetzer is taking some of the feedback here to heart. If one were drawing a trendline between the quality of the presentation between the two radio interviews, it would bode well for the future."

Yet again, I was complimenting you. Clearly, I didn't agree with those who offered only mean-spirited criticisms of all your performances. Is that not obvious?

You appear to easily misinterpret the demeanor of others, and respond disproportionately to their comments. I think this is something you should seriously work on- because you otherwise will be handicapped in future public presentations of 9/11 Truth- particularly to hostile audiences...

sbg... get online.

sbg... get online.

Whoever in the Israeli

Whoever in the Israeli government that said they were going to kill the Palestinian PM -- if Palestine [forces] didn't tell Israel where the Israeli soldier was being held -- wasn't just talking; it was just reported by BBC that there was an airstrike on the Palestinian PM's HQ [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5137768.stm ]

Since the BBC supposedly

Since the BBC supposedly interviewed some of these hijackers why don't someone in the Truth Movement try and contact a few of them and arange a video interview? THAT would be GIGANGTIC!

i agree Joe, i wish people

i agree Joe, i wish people with sway and money in the movement(Alex Jones,Scholars etc.) would try and contact the "alive hijackers" and victims families.(not to mention Warren Buffet) we know next to nothing about he victims families of the people on the planes. those would be huge gets.

I think more attempts have

I think more attempts have been made.
And that those journalists who do try to get one of them on video/audio are threatened and/or killed. Like that one journalist who was investigating the Pakistani connection, they were on to him real quick, and sadly, he never made it back. I think there's even reason to believe that it might have been staged simply as example for other journalists to not venture off into that area of investigation, or they'll never come back.

also interesting: the FDNY

also interesting: the FDNY chief that Silverstein said agreed to "pull it"

Whoever in the Israeli

Whoever in the Israeli government that said they were going to kill the Palestinian PM -- if Palestine [forces] didn't tell Israel where the Israeli soldier was being held -- wasn't just talking; it was just reported by BBC that there was an airstrike on the Palestinian PM's HQ [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 5137768.stm ]
- Ø®£Z - | 07.01.06 - 10:46 pm | #

^ Dude the Israelis did that type of sh!t to Arafat for years. The f*ckers running Israel from it's conception have never wanted peace. When leaders like Yitzhak Rabin come along, and make peace possible their assassinated. When positive development happens, the Israelis usually scupper it. Sharon for example knew exactly what he was doing when he single-handedly kicked of the second intifada, just by deliberately walking into sensitive religious areas for the Palestinians. He did more or less the equivalent of a Palestinian pissing on the Wailing Wall.

“They” (The group who controls Israel, not the people) don’t want peace because their agenda requires a permanent sate of conflict to advance. The people who run Israel are the original terrorists, research the king David hotel;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

^ And you'll see what I mean. Suicide bombs killing innocent Israelis are terrible and inexcusable. But the Zionists who first took power in Israel more or less wrote the handbook on terrorism. They showed the Palestinians how to do it by example. And so for these reasons it wouldnÂ’t surprise me at all to find out that this kidnapped IDF soldier, was probably kidnapped by under cover Israeli Black-Ops, posing as Palestinian Hamas gunmen.

Now if someone could show me

Now if someone could show me an interview by BBC or such of an alive hijacker, that would be nice.

I am afraid there is no such interview.

thats interesting Cloak, i

thats interesting Cloak, i always wondered about the Pearl case. he was suppossedly onto the connection between KSM and the ISI/CIA. he was about to prove that KSM was basically on the CIA payroll in my opinion,so he got killed.

What a pathetic group of

What a pathetic group of useless students! Why don't you get off your sorry ass and do some research of your own? It isn't enough that David Ray Griffin begins his book, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS, with this point as his very first, but if you enter "BBC interviews with 9/11 hijackers" on google, you will turn up 249,000 entries. Why don't you do some good instead of making snide remarks by actually getting off your butt to look for confirming evidence? Do the rest of us have to do everything for you?

PLUS I gave 10 (ten)--count them, 10 (ten)--reasons for thinking the hijackers are fake. Are some of you so weak-minded that you completely ignore the other 9 (nine)? I am pissed. We are working our tails off to get the truth out to the American people and some of you ON 911BLOGGER of all sites sit around bitching and moaning. If that's the best you can do, that is pathetic. I say to you, if you can't help, get out of the way!

It's my opinion that Jim

It's my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a disinfo spook! He promotes Tom Flocco stories about Barbara Olson being alive in Europe, no 757 at the Pentagon, cell phone calls not working above 2,000 ft, and comes off as "crazy", combative and unsympathetic to the 9-11 victim's family members when being interviewed on national TV and radio programs.

Prof. Jones, Dr. Griffin and Kevin Ryan need to distance themselves from Fetzer ASAP!

Fetzer you are a ruiner to

Fetzer you are a ruiner to the 9/11 truth movement. You mentioning that Barbara Olsen story went into pretty stupid territory.

"PLUS I gave 10 (ten)--count them, 10 (ten)--reasons for thinking the hijackers are fake. Are some of you so weak-minded that you completely ignore the other 9 (nine)? I am pissed. We are working our tails off to get the truth out to the American people and some of you ON 911BLOGGER of all sites sit around bitching and moaning"

wow, i didnt realize how much of a little brat you were. First of all a BBC article is something we can all find... a video/audio interview with an alive hijacker is something no one including yourself has been able to do. It would be a huge blow to the official story if we could have a walking talking video recording of Waleed Al Shehri talking about how he was framed by the FBI on 9/11.

"stallion4" & "robbie

"stallion4" & "robbie martin":

You contribute NOTHING here. The opposite of giving is SUCKING, and both of you SUCK.

This is a good presentation,

This is a good presentation, why couldn't Fetzer come off like this on the Alan Comes show?

cormorant, I think you're a

cormorant, I think you're a spook too if you support Jim Fetzer. Now suck on that!

Listen to Jim Fetzer's

Listen to Jim Fetzer's "crazy" 9-11 theories on the Alan Colmes radio show:

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

Listen to Jim Fetzer on the Laura Ingraham show:

http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?disp...

(Why hasn't 911Blogger posted the audio from Mr. Fetzer's interview on the Laura Ingraham show?)

Ingraham's website has only posted a 4 minute free clip, so I wasn't able to listen to the entire interview -- however I did read the transcript, thanks to jj111 for posting it:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/115177948802134573/#164542

^And no where in it did Fetzer mention "Building 7", or witnesses hearing and seeing explosions at the wtc on 9.11 just BEFORE the buildings fell, and nothing about those orange and red flashes seen at the base of the towers seconds BEFORE they fell, no mention of the reports of bombs found in the buildings, and on and on and on.

Instead we get stories about cell phones not working above 2,000 feet and the no 757 at the Pentagon red herring again, coupled with Fetzer's "crazy" demeanor.

Thanks Jim for representing your 9-11 "truth" to a National audience and not listening to our suggestions on this thread given to you before your interview on Laura Ingraham's show:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/115146398330982122/

What's next, Jim, no 767's at the WTC? TV fakery? More Tome Flocco stories?

Jim Fetzer, there is no

Jim Fetzer, there is no interview on alleged 9/11 hijacker, so dont say there is.

@ Jim: The ID's of the

@ Jim: The ID's of the hijackers are most probably faked, but the BBC story of alive hijackers leads to nowhere.

Test it yourself, ask the BBC reporters, put yourself on the trace.

If this was a smoking gun, we would have known back in 2002/2003, as german researchers where all over it.

But nevertheless, some researchers done their homework:

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?23

(Why hasn't 911Blogger

(Why hasn't 911Blogger posted the audio from Mr. Fetzer's interview on the Laura Ingraham show?)

stallion4 | 07.02.06 - 2:37 pm | #

I transcribed it on a previous thread. I don't know how to upload the file, which I have on my computer. I will repost it again here. Let me repost another comment I had made earlier first:

I think we should appreciate the different ways the uninitiated connect for the first time, and be appreciative of the time, effort, and dedication that all those involved in 9/11 truth put into their work.

I also believe it is important that those representing 9/11 Truth use the most solid evidence, and stick with it.

And I think that when we hear someone representing 9/11 truth on a radio or TV gig, we should feel free to give a "peer review" of the performance in a constructive manner, directly to that person, and/or to our community in a forum like this. I think we should not be afraid to give constructive criticism with one another regarding how we can improve styles of communication, and how we can improve our effectiveness as a whole through teamwork.

This is different than questioning one's motivations or attacking them personally.

I do appreciate the courage of those who do speak up in the major media. I am not about to try to take their place. But I think people should feel free to communicate with our spokespeople to respectfully tell them how we think they can do a better job. Also to congratulate them on areas where they do a good job. And frankly, I do not think we should shy away from communicating with one another about who our favorite spokespeople are, and why. Giving constructive feedback to "leaders" in the movement is not bad. On the other hand, questioning people's motives is counterproductive. When it comes to motives, we should give people every benefit of a doubt.

And if someone offers what is meant to be constructive criticism, that criticism can be incorporated or ignored by the person be criticized. But just because someone is not a prominent speaker in this movement does not mean that they are not entitled to speak freely about ideas as to how the prominent speakers in this movement can do better.

I think it is actually a postive thing if we the people review media interviews of our spokespeople, and give constructive feedback, positive and negative, regarding specific aspects of performance. It will help our spokespersons learn what kind of impression they are giving to other people.

This is a standard principle of mass communications. Before an advertising firm launches an ad campaign, they usually first go to a focus group, to test and analyze on a small scale how it affects people. They use that feedback to refine the approach. Focus groups are also used in politics and in the movie/TV entertainment business to give the leaders feedback.

So giving feedback to the "leaders" of 911 truth I think is healthy, as long as it is constructive.

I believe it is a positive part of the process of improving the quality and effectiveness of our campaign to educate the people.

So I do appreciate what all the leaders have done, their time, dedication and courage. And I am not saying I can do better. I know that I cannot do their job, they do a lot of great things and should be appreciated. But I think we are all entitled to voice our opinions about interview performances as long as we try to give constructive suggestions regarding how others can improve their style and tactics. Of course, the recipients of such feedback are free to ignore suggestions, or incorporate suggestions.

So IMHO I think respectful constructive criticism of tactics and strategies employed by our leaders is healthy for our cause. Does anybody disagree with me on that?

......
Now what follows in that spirit is a critique of the Fetzer-Ingraham interview:

Transcription: Jim Fetzer interviewed by Laura Ingraham around 6/30/06.
Transcription with some sentences omitted. With my notes and comments in brackets.
Laura Ingraham Promo for Segment begins at 55:40 –“my face off with Professor Fetzer”
Segment Interview Begins 57:00 into the file.
I: Briefly lay out your theory and what happened.
F: (opens): WeÂ’ve got a great story here. I mean it combines horror, heroism, violence, everything but sex. The question that concerns us is whether or not itÂ’s true. The govÂ’t has told us that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked these four aircraft and performed all these feats under the control of a man in a cave off in Afghanistan. Now that, of course, is itself a conspiracy theory, which many people tend to overlook. So what we have been doing, since we find it rather implausible that these guys could have outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, for example, or even gained access to those aircraft given that their names appear on no flight manifests, and you have to show IDÂ’s and have seating assignments, we have no evidence that they actually were on the plane, so what weÂ’re looking at are those anchors, those threads, that anchor the governmentÂ’s theory to the world, to see if theyÂ’re real, in other words, if this theory corresponds to reality. Take for example in Pennsylvania, we have these cell phone calls that are alleged to have been made, and an audiotape that was introduced in the trial of Zakarius Moussoui (sp?)Â… Now one of our Professors who is a member of computer science in western Ontario has flown around the country with different types of cell phones, and heÂ’s discovered at altitudes above 2000 ft. and speeds above 230 they become fewer and farther between, and that the altitudes these calls were supposed to have been made, they would have been impossible. (cut off)
[Comment: I believe that Fetzer has opened with a weak case. He has introduced for openers: no names on flight manifests, and cell phone calls “impossible” at the altitude they were supposedly made at. These pieces of evidence are not strong, and are unlikely to get a listener who has believed the official story to think otherwise. He immediately has lost a lot of credibility by starting with a weak opening.]
Ingraham – for your theory to be true you would have had to have had to have a real conspiracy among NYPD, NYFD, CIA, FBI, Congress, Bin Laden, and most of the American media. Do you think that’s really possible?
F: (avoids making any conspiracy theories of his own) Critics of the theory. WeÂ’re critics of the governmentÂ’s theory. WeÂ’re not offering a theory. WeÂ’re critics of the governmentÂ’s theory, weÂ’re taking the governmentÂ’s hypothesis at face value and deducing what must be true if the governmentÂ’s hypothesis were true, and what weÂ’re finding is all these little threads that link it to the world, by cell phones, and audiotape, by video clips at the Pentagon, passenger manifests, autopsy reportsÂ… (interrupted).
[Analysis: Does not answer the question at all. It is a reasonable question which deserves a reasonable response. Fetzer does not answer the question, avoids it. This makes it look to the public like we do not have an answer to that question. In addition, he says he is not offering a theory, when in fact on the st911.org website there is a press release that says: ”…Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings.” Bring up the Pentagon is another example of Fetzer bringing up a weak point. He has not made many strong convincing claims, after his second opportunity to discuss things.]

I: Asks about WTC towers controlled demolition theory. IÂ’ve read the analysis as to why they came down. You think itÂ’s controlled demolition. ThatÂ’s just loony tune stuff.

Cont'd

F: IÂ’m sorry, itÂ’s

F: IÂ’m sorry, itÂ’s not. ItÂ’s the only account thatÂ’s consistent with the evidence. If you look at the 911 Commission Report, it says the South Tower, for example, came down in 10 seconds, and the North Tower came down in about 11. It also says that it came down in a pancaking effect. It also says the collapse was (interrupted).. Those things donÂ’t add togetherÂ…(interrupted)Â…
F: That building was very sophisticated. Frank DeMartini, for example, who was the project manager, said that the load redistribution capabilities of those towers was so sophisticated that even the impact of multiple aircraft would be analogous to sticking a pencils through (interrupted).
I: They could never fall down. No number of aircrafts could bring the buildings down. Is that the theory? I donÂ’t understand how you go from philosophy professor to structural engineer.
F: There were only two planes. You donÂ’t understand. Do you realize that those buildings are blowing from the top down? Judy Wood, who is a mechanical engineer and structural materials expert has paralleled it with trees turning into sawdust from the top down. Now thereÂ’s no way that can be explained from the governmentÂ’s account. TheyÂ’re turning into sawdust from the top down.
I: Â…YouÂ’re saying is that the govÂ’t had somebody fly the planes into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon so we could cook up a clash of civilizations type of epic battle that would sustain us throughout the generations, is that your theory? into this so we could
F: No, is that your theory, Laura? [That is not a logical response. Of course that is not LauraÂ’s theory. That is either sarcastic or facecious, but it is not a serious response]. Because youÂ’re not allowing me (interrupted) [Note: getting combative with her, complaining of not being allowed, when he has had some time already given to him to speak.]
I: You are questioning planes flying into buildings and youÂ’re accusing essentially by implication our government of mass murder. As a Professor at a major American university, Professor, I think you should be ashamed of yourself (interrupted)
F: IÂ’m not happy about it (interrupted) [Note: he does not defend himself or say that he feels justified in what he is saying].
I: You should be ashamed of yourself, because this is such garbage, and you know what it does, Professor? It posits absurd theories and ties people up and twists them up into knots, of conspiracy-minded plots and theories that takes us away from the hard work of actually coming together to fight a real threat that still looms out there against the United States which is Islamic fascism. Professors should unite against the Islamic fascists who are trying to take down frankly your right to speak out. We let you speak out, the Islamic fascists wonÂ’t.
F: YouÂ’re not letting me speak out Laura, youÂ’re monopolizing this conversation. [Note: good point by Fetzer]. (interrupted)
I: Your on a national radio show even though you donÂ’t deserve to be one on [sic], so (interrupted)
F: Do you think Brett Fa? would take the Green Bay Packers and let them rehearse out in front of the Bears, the Dolphins, the Cowboys? These guys were very open, they let everyone out there know they were taking flight training. [Note: a decent point, but not the strongest evidence that 9/11 truth movement has, by any means.] Why are none of their names on the flight manifests? [Note: he is repeating himself – he mentioned this 3 times now], these guys couldn’t have flown the planes, Laura. [Note: Fetzer doesn’t explain this point satisfactorily] Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well and living (interrupted)
I: What are you talking about that they werenÂ’t on the flight manifests? Mohammed Atta is seen checking in in security cameras when he was going through the airport. You see him actually checking in going through the security outposts there, so what are you talking about? HeÂ’s not on the manifests. Do you guys sit up all night concocting ways to trash your own country and government? This is what I donÂ’t understand. You guys, you professors, have too much time on your hands.
F: You have no idea when that film was taken.
I: Oh my God!
F: Please, let me ask you this Laura. You said about the Pentagon. Why isnÂ’t the Boeing 757 visible in the tapes the Pentagon has just released? Look at them, even Bill OÂ’Reilly admitted when he looked at these tapes which he thought were going to lay the conspiracy theories as he calls the critics of the governmentÂ’s conspiracy theory, to rest, but he had to admit when he looked at them that thereÂ’s no plane there. But Laura, there should be a plane there. Absence of evidence is not always evidence (interrupted)
I: What happened to that flight then that was on its way to Los Angeles, if it wasnÂ’t the plane that went into the Pentagon? Where did that plane go?
F: Well actually Flight 77 goes off of the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border which is very mysterious. (interrupted) [He should have clarified that we donÂ’t really know what happened, and this is an opportunity to talk about the withholding of vital evidence from the Pentagon, and the confiscated tapes that would tell the whole story, but Fetzer does not mention this at all.]
I: So you think it could be in Kentucky or Ohio?
F: Did you know that Dick Cheney gave a stand down order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching, that Norman Mineta heard and observed and reported to the 911 Commission but they left it out of their report? [Note: this is inferred by 9/11 truth people, but never clearly stated by Mineta. This is a false statement in that Minta did not report that he hearda stand down order. The inference that it was a stand down order is weak evidence from a legal standpoint, and the story is difficult to explain and takes a little time to explain. Not a good story to bring up in a short interview. Also, Fetzer does not admit that he does not know exactly what happened to Flight 77.]
I: As a former Marine that you are, to me IÂ’m flabbergasted that someone who served in the Marine Corps could even get his mind around these theories, but my question to you is, at the 9/11 truth big convention in Chicago earlier this month, there was an individual name Hoomook who has lived on and off in a cave for the last 15 years and heÂ’s one of the guys who is involved in your organization, are you familiar with Hoomook?
F: Well, I donÂ’t think heÂ’s a member of Scholars and he has a degree from MITÂ… (interrupted)
I: And he supports your theory, and he lives in a cave.
F: Laura, he a degree from MIT for crying out loud. [Note: to me, this is an outrageous response from Fetzer. This individual, whoever he is, is being criticized for having an unusual name and living on and off in a cave for the last 15 years. Now a normal response I would think would be to say that nobody that he knows who is a member of the Scholars or a serious researcher of 9/11 is someone who lives in a cave, and that this is a smear tactic to suggest that 9/11 truth people typically live in caves. Instead, Fetzer defends the individual by saying he has a degree from MIT without responding to the real issue brought up: he has an unusual name without a first and last name, and he says heÂ’s lived on and off in a cave for years. For Fetzer to defend this man without addressing the obvious questions raised comes makes Fetzer come off as sounding like a lunatic, IMHO. ]
I: You know who else did, the Unabomber. He had a number of degrees under his belt, too, didnÂ’t he? [Ingraham makes a very good point here, given the opening that Fetzer gave her.]
F: Well, I donÂ’t think this guy is bombing any buildings unlike it appears our government may have done. [Note: clearly Fetzer is bringing forth a theory here, when he said at the beginning of the interview that he doesnÂ’t have a theory. Fetzer is contradicting himself.] I canÂ’t imagine anything less patriotic than accepting lies from our government. [Note: Fetzer has not yet laid the groundwork or evidence in this interview yet to make a strong case to support his statement here that it appears the government may have bombed the buildings.] Do you believe everything our government tells us Laura? [Not a very strong point regarding 9/11 government complicity].
I: I never said I did, but I donÂ’t actually think that when we have thousands of eyewitnesses to jetliners going into buildings and thousands of eyewitnesses who were in Washington like I was when the Pentagon was hit, that you can then, from that very large database of evidentiary information say, well, gosh, this canÂ’t be? This canÂ’t be that these people actually penetrated our security and our planes, so our government must be responsible. Was our government responsible, Professor, for the bombing of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? Were we responsible for that?
F: Laura, you aren’t paying attention. The fire chiefs who went in there admitted (interrupted) there were no parts of Boeing 757, there wasn’t a tail, the wings, the engine, the seats, the bodies, the luggage, none of it was there. [Note: Fetzer brings up more Pentagon data which is relatively weak and non-key – the no-plane theory].
F: There wasnÂ’t any evidence of the plane in the Pentagon.
I: Actually the Secretary of Defense has a piece of the plane in his office, okay? You should probably go back to your little research cave and find that out. He has a piece of it in his office. IÂ’ve been to his office, okay, so there is [sic] some pieces of the plane. Obviously it hit the building at what 600 MPH, you know youÂ’re a philosophy professor but it doesnÂ’t take a structural engineer to know that things disintegrate.
F: The clear smooth lawn is the smoking gun at the Pentagon. [Note: Fetzer does not really answer the question]. If the plane had come in the way you are describing it [not

stallion4: "Prof. Jones, Dr.

stallion4: "Prof. Jones, Dr. Griffin and Kevin Ryan need to distance themselves from Fetzer ASAP!"

I don't know who you are, or what else you feel, support or promote regarding 9/11, but I would have to agree completely with that statement.

I happen to think only 14 of

I happen to think only 14 of the 19 hijackers really wanted to pull 9/11 off...the other 5 were trained at US bases. I can almost confirm Mohammed Atta was a double agent SENT to stir up the idea of "9/11", and get ISI funding. Of course Osama is going to take credit. He took credit for every terror act in Iraq, if that is indeed him. He's a liar like Bush

Now, the reason the video wills of some of the hijackers is real...is because they were merely stooges who thought theyd be going to Allah. But Atta and his 4 older hijacker pals knew better. They were not devout muslims. They were partying with the CIA and ISI money they got. They didnt give two shits about allah, osama, al Qaeda or anything. They were hired to rile up al qaeda in providing the hijacker distraction, as the US/Mossad pulled off the real fireworks.

And THAT is something you won't hear that often in 9/11 Truth. Youre going to hear BULLSHIT like 'there was no Arabs! al Qaeda is all made up...there was no hijackers'....well be that as it may, Atta and ISI is the key link to debunking the official story.

Read Sander Hicks the Big Wedding or Tarpley's Synthetic Terror.

This is what I had to say

This is what I had to say about Fetzer in another comment thread at 911Blogger a day or two prior to Fetzer's appearance on FAUX:

"DHS: "If Fetzer promotes no plane at the pentagon i'm going to slit my wrists."

He's proudly promoted, supported and propagated that in every other radio and video clip that I seen/listened to of him; it's a pretty sure bet that he will.

That's one reason, of several, that I've been suspecting Fetzer of being a possible disinfo & destruction agent.

I also happen to suspect that one of his main purposes is to sideline, sidetrack and ultimately try to discredit Professor Jones's work.

Who started Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the website? I know that it's a joint-cooperation between Fetzer and Jones, but who actually registered the website, came up with the main idea, created the website and is in charge of dictating what is published at the website?

Because there is a lot of nonsense that's been published at www.st911.org that shouldn't have ever been published there. And instead of trying to stick to a limited amount of strong, inarguable, irrefutable points to make the case for 9/11 having been an inside job; there is loads of unimportant distractionary links, non-evidence and the like.

I don't like it. If you do, okay. But I don't.

I don't know, but I personally suspect that Fetzer is in charge of dictating the main direction of the website, and inparticular, what is primarily published there.

As I recall, Fetzer didn't burst onto the 9/11 scene with his paper Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, until almost immediately AFTER Professor Jones released his first public draft of his beautiful research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?" online.

I've been looking at it like this:

1) I thus far trust Professor Jones, although he's done a few things that I don't like, for the most part he's been doing beautiful work! Just amazing work!

2) But with Professor Jones being a credible, highly educated, and reputable person, would it not be safe to assume -- and should it not be expected that -- people working in the capacity of agents of disiniformation, distraction & destruction, would try to befriend Professor Jones, or infiltrate any honest groups he may belong to, in an attempt to hinder him and his work from reaching a critical mass of exposure, ultimately trying to destroy him and his work, from the inside out?

Seriously.

And would it therefor not be safe to assume, that someone [possibly] working in the capacity of an agent [Fetzer], who happens to also be a Professor, would be one to attempt to befriend Professor Jones, since it's probably not that difficult for people who work in the same Professional fields, or have the same Professional Job description [Professor, Ph D], to connect in a friendly manner?

Especially if one of them [Jones] is going to probably be very receptive to someone else [Fetzer] who he [Jones] thinks is honestly searching for, investigating and trying to present evidence of the same thing [9/11 = Inside Job]?

I don't know if Fetzer is an agent, I am not saying that he is an agent for certain. I do, however suspect that he may, in fact, be an agent.

Remember, guilt by association is a very strong tool to use, to discredit something. www.st911.org hosts extremely important information in Professor Jones's research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?". But then has ridiculous links such as Morgan Reynolds "no plane hit the WTC towers, it was hologram missiles" paper -- as only one example of what should NOT have ever been published at www.st911.org Especially since it is of utmost importance to stick with what can be scientifcally proven. Remember, guilt by association is a very strong tool to use, to discredit something.

How can someone as apparently intelligent as Professor Fetzer -- if he were to be looked at uncritically, as just some honest person -- continuously promote, support and propagate the "no 757 hit the Pentagon" hoax? When there is so much credible evidence against it that shows that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

And how can you [anyone reading] then look at Fetzer, and not be suspicious and question his true motives or purpose in the 9/11 truth movement?

The continuous promotion, supporting, and propagation of the "no 757 hit the Pentagon hoax" is one strong reason that I am highly suspicious and distrusting of Professor James F. Fetzer.

If you trust him and like him, okay. But I don't.

I'll have to wait and see what he does tonight on FAUX News.
- Ø®£Z - | 06.21.06 - 8:33 pm |"

F: The clear smooth lawn is

F: The clear smooth lawn is the smoking gun at the Pentagon. [Note: Fetzer does not really answer the question]. If the plane had come in the way you are describing it [note: she only described it as coming it at 600MPH] it would have plowed up the lawn, if it came down at an angle there would have been a huge crater. ItÂ’s not even on the tapes. There are more than 80 tapes, Laura, why hasnÂ’t the Pentagon released them unless theyÂ’re trying to conceal something? [Note: OK finally Fetzer has made a strong point about the Pentagon, that the govÂ’t is hiding 80 tapes, but this is after a lengthy debate about the no-plane theory, and this should fact of the govÂ’t tapes should have come before any questions about what hit the Pentagon].
I: We canÂ’t believe you have these theories. This has been an interesting conversation, and I celebrate your service to this country in the Marine Corps., that is a wonderful thing. IÂ’m going to go through a list of things, and I want you to tell me whether they happened or not. Number one. The USS Cole Bombing, did it happen, yes or no?
F: Sure.
I: Was the govÂ’t responsible, or Islamic terrorists responsible?
F: Islamic terrorists so far as I know.
I: The Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings. Did the United States or the terrorists carry out those bombings?
F: Probably terrorists.
I: The Akili Lauro?sp? = Was the United States or terrorists responsible for that?
F: So far as I know, terrorists.
I: Brad and Jennifer, were they ever married?
F: (Laughs) Laura send everyone to st911.org to find all the studies that verify everything IÂ’m saying, youÂ’re great (interrupted)
I: YouÂ’re a lot of fun.
Taped male sound: “The nutty professor.”
Ends at 01:10
[My analysis: Fetzer focused mainly on the cell phones and the Pentagon no-plane evidence. He did mention the towers briefly, but did not go into enough detail to describe why the government story is impossible. He was not convincing. He did not rebut slur and smear remarks like that about the Moomook living in a cave. He did not answer some legitimate questions raised.]
My overall rating of his performance on this interview:
JUDGEMENT IN CHOICE OF FACTS: C-
KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS: A to A+
ALL STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY ACCURATE: B
DEMEANOR: B+
EFFECTIVENESS: C
ABILITY TO THINK ON HIS FEET: B
ABILITY TO STEER A QUESTION INTO SOMETHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT: B
AVOIDS SPECULATION: B
GIVES A DIRECT ANSWER TO EVERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION: B
OVERALL INTERVIEW GRADE: B-
Speaking as an observer, let me first point out that Fetzer is a much better speaker than myself. So I will give him a lot of credit for being able to do a much better job that I would. I have no interest in speaking.
As much as I like Professor FetzerÂ’s energy, knowledge, and dedication to 911 truth, I frankly think there are better people out there to represent our movement when it comes to major media interviews.
I have written Fetzer in the past giving him feedback and recommendations, but for most of his interviews, he continues to bring up what are in my opinion a lot of relatively weak arguments and points, and he does not hammer away enough on the most effective points. To his credit, I think he did a superb job on Hannity and Colmes.
I donÂ’t want to discourage Fetzer from continuing his speaking about 9/11, but I would prefer to have someone of the caliber of Kevin Barrett, David Griffin, or Steve Jones to represent the 9/11 truth community when it comes to the big media interviews. Is there any way we can get higher caliber spokespeople invited to the media interviews who are looking for a 911 truth spokesperson? I suppose if Fetzer wanted to, he could ask these high caliber spokespeople if they want to speak more, and then when media producers approach Fetzer, Fetzer could try to see if Griffin or Barrett or Jones would accept the engagement. If none of the above could do the gig, then Fetzer of course could do it.
If Fetzer were to consider this suggestion, he might have to admit to himself that there are other people who can do as good or better a job than he does in interviews. But if is able enough to realize that the movement needs to expose these three more in the media, and was willing to sacrifice some of his own exposure to promote the media spotlighting these other starts, I think it would be good for 911 Truth overall.
IMHO, Fetzer can get better, but I think a good way for him to get better is by listening to critiques like this and accepting feedback as a tool for learning to improve.
I would nominate Barrett, Griffin, or Jones as the official media spokespersons for Scholars for 911 Truth in a minute, if there were a nomination process, and if any of them were willing to take on such a role.
What do other people think?
Â…Â…Â….

I admire Jim Fetzer for his dedication and energy and commitment. I would like to see him get his talking points more honed and give the best evidence only, and the best of the best right away.

^I would like to see Jim

^I would like to see Jim Fetzer stop accepting requests from national tv and radio programs to be interviewed about 9-11. Will it happen? Doubt it.

To Ø®£Z on your post about Mr. F:

Very well put!

" "stallion4" & "robbie

" "stallion4" & "robbie martin":

You contribute NOTHING here. The opposite of giving is SUCKING, and both of you SUCK."

the beheading hoax i made caused more of a stir to the whole real vs fake news debate than anything Jim Fetzer has done combined.

only jim fetzer trolling would say something like this.

any person with a half a brain can see that Fetzer is a ruiner to the movement.

why are Alan colmes, Hannity, and Ingram so ready to put him on their show? Simple answer: because he comes off as a kooky, disgruntled, insane old man.

some of the things he says are great, but unfortunately he focuses way too much on the unprovabale rediculous aspects of 9/11 such as voice morphing/synthesis, no plane theory, etc.

"I admire Jim Fetzer for his

"I admire Jim Fetzer for his dedication and energy and commitment."

He's a lying, evil sack of excrement.

jim fetzer if i was

jim fetzer if i was grading

ALL STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY ACCURATE: C
(mentioned the Barbara Olsen being alive story on mainstream media as if it was fact)

DEMEANOR: F

(the guy seems like hes going to have a psychotic break any second, you can almost see the the steam blowing out of his ears

EFFECTIVENESS: C
(fair)

ABILITY TO THINK ON HIS FEET: B
(fair)

ABILITY TO STEER A QUESTION INTO SOMETHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT: D
(he falls into every trap imaginable, never directing or steering the discussion to foreknowledge, or building 7)

AVOIDS SPECULATION: F
(barbara olsen story supporting ruined all hopes of giving him anything above an F)

GIVES A DIRECT ANSWER TO EVERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION: B
(fair)

OVERALL INTERVIEW GRADE: C
(more realistic grade)

Read it without the

Read it without the commentary, which was introduced to bias your reading.
I was very calm and pleasant, as even Laura had to admit when we concluded.

Partial transcript (transcriptor unknown):

NOTE: For some reason, the part at the start
where Laura compliments me for my service to
my country as a Marine Corps officer, where I
correct her when she says I was a 2nd Lt. and
I explain I was a Captain before I got out and
went to graduate school, has been omitted here.

Laura Ingraham Promo for Segment begins at 55:40
“My face off with Professor Fetzer”

Segment Interview Begins 57:00 into the file.

I: Briefly lay out your theory and what happened.

F: (opens): WeÂ’ve got a great story here. I mean it combines horror, heroism,
violence, everything but sex. The question that concerns us is whether or not
itÂ’s true. The govÂ’t has told us that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked these
four aircraft and performed all these feats under the control of a man in a cave
off in Afghanistan. Now that, of course, is itself a conspiracy theory, which
many people tend to overlook. So what we have been doing, since we find it
rather implausible that these guys could have outfoxed the most sophisticated
air defense system in the world, for example, or even gained access to those
aircraft given that their names appear on no flight manifests, and you have to
show IDs and have seating assignments, we have no evidence that they actually
were on the plane, so what weÂ’re looking at are those anchors, those threads,
that anchor the governmentÂ’s theory to the world, to see if theyÂ’re real, in
other words, to see if this theory corresponds to reality. Take for example in
Pennsylvania, we have these cell phone calls that are alleged to have been made,
and an audiotape that was introduced in the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui. . . .
Now one of our Professors who is a professor of computer science at Western
Ontario has flown around the country with different types of cell phones, and
heÂ’s discovered at altitudes above 2000 ft. and speeds above 230 mph they become
fewer and farther between, and that the altitudes these calls were supposed to
have been made, they would have been impossible. (cut off)

Ingraham – for your theory to be true you would have had to have had to have a
real conspiracy among NYPD, NYFD, CIA, FBI, Congress, Bin Laden, and most of the
American media. Do you think thatÂ’s really possible?

F: Critics of the theory. WeÂ’re critics of the governmentÂ’s theory. WeÂ’re not
offering a theory. WeÂ’re critics of the governmentÂ’s theory, weÂ’re taking the
governmentÂ’s hypothesis at face value and deducing what must be true if the
governmentÂ’s hypothesis were true, and what weÂ’re finding is all these little
threads that link it to the world, by cell phones, and audiotape, by video clips
at the Pentagon, passenger manifests, autopsy reportsÂ… (interrupted).

I: Asks about WTC towers controlled demolition theory. IÂ’ve read the analysis as
to why they came down. You think itÂ’s controlled demolition. ThatÂ’s just loony
tune stuff.

F: IÂ’m sorry, itÂ’s not. ItÂ’s the only account thatÂ’s consistent with the
evidence. If you look at the 911 Commission Report, it says the South Tower, for
example, came down in 10 seconds, and the North Tower came down in about 11. It
also says that it came down in a pancaking effect. It also says the collapse was
(interrupted).. Those things donÂ’t add togetherÂ…(interrupted)Â…

F: That building was very sophisticated. Frank DeMartini, for example, who was
the project manager, said that the load redistribution capabilities of those
towers was so sophisticated that even the impact of multiple aircraft would be
analogous to sticking a pencils through (interrupted).

I: They could never fall down. No number of aircrafts could bring the buildings
down. Is that the theory? I donÂ’t understand how you go from philosophy
professor to structural engineer.

F: There were only two planes. You donÂ’t understand. Do you realize that those
buildings are blowing from the top down? Judy Wood, who is a mechanical engineer
and structural materials expert, has paralleled it with trees turning into
sawdust from the top down. Now, thereÂ’s no way that can be explained from the
governmentÂ’s account. TheyÂ’re turning into sawdust from the top down!

I: Â…YouÂ’re saying is that the government had somebody fly the planes into the
Twin Towers and into the Pentagon so we could cook up a clash of civilizations
type of epic battle that would sustain us throughout the generations, is that
your theory? into this so we could

F: No, is that your theory, Laura? Because youÂ’re not allowing me (interrupted)

I: You are questioning planes flying into buildings and youÂ’re accusing
essentially by implication our government of mass murder. As a professor at a
major American university, Professor, I think you should be ashamed of yourself
(interrupted)

F: IÂ’m not happy about it (interrupted)

I: You should be ashamed of yourself, because this is such garbage, and you know
what it does, professor? It posits absurd theories and ties people up and twists
them up into knots, of conspiracy-minded plots and theories that takes us away
from the hard work of actually coming together to fight a real threat that still
looms out there against the United States which is Islamic fascism. Professors
should unite against the Islamic fascists who are trying to take down, frankly,
your right to speak out. We let you speak out, the Islamic fascists wonÂ’t.

F: YouÂ’re not letting me speak out Laura, youÂ’re monopolizing this conversation.
(interrupted)

I: You're on a national radio show even though you donÂ’t deserve to be one on
[sic], so (interrupted)

F: Do you think Brett Farve would take the Green Bay Packers and let them
rehearse out in front of the Bears, the Dolphins, the Cowboys? These guys were
very open, they let everyone out there know they were taking flight training.
Why are none of their names on the flight manifests? These guys couldnÂ’t have
flown the planes, Laura. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well and
living (interrupted)

I: What are you talking about that they werenÂ’t on the flight manifests?
Mohammed Atta is seen checking in in security cameras when he was going through
the airport. You see him actually checking in going through the security
outposts there, so what are you talking about? HeÂ’s not on the manifests. Do you
guys sit up all night concocting ways to trash your own country and government?
This is what I donÂ’t understand. You guys, you professors, have too much time on
your hands.

F: You have no idea when that film was taken.

I: Oh, my God!

F: Please, let me ask you this Laura. You said about the Pentagon. Why isnÂ’t the
Boeing 757 visible in the tapes the Pentagon has just released? Look at them,
even Bill OÂ’Reilly admitted when he looked at these tapes which he thought were
going to lay the conspiracy theories as he calls the critics of the governmentÂ’s
conspiracy theory, to rest, but he had to admit when he looked at them that
thereÂ’s no plane there. But Laura, there should be a plane there. Absence of
evidence is not always evidence (interrupted)

I: What happened to that flight then that was on its way to Los Angeles, if it
wasnÂ’t the plane that went into the Pentagon? Where did that plane go?

F: Well actually Flight 77 goes off of the radar screen in the vicinity of the
Kentucky/Ohio border which is very mysterious. (interrupted)

I: So you think it could be in Kentucky or Ohio?

F: Did you know that Dick Cheney gave a stand down order not to shoot down the
plane as it was approaching, that Norman Mineta heard and observed and reported
to the 911 Commission but they left it out of their report?

I: As a former Marine that you are, to me IÂ’m flabbergasted that someone who
served in the Marine Corps could even get his mind around these theories, but my
question to you is, at the 9/11 truth big convention in Chicago earlier this
month, there was an individual name Hoomook who has lived on and off in a cave
for the last 15 years and heÂ’s one of the guys who is involved in your
organization, are you familiar with Hoomook?

F: Well, I donÂ’t think heÂ’s a member of Scholars and he has a degree from MITÂ…
(interrupted)

I: And he supports your theory, and he lives in a cave.

F: Laura, he has a degree from MIT, for crying out loud.

I: You know who else did, the Unabomber. He had a number of degrees under his
belt, too, didnÂ’t he?

F: Well, I donÂ’t think this guy is bombing any buildings unlike it appears our
government may have done. I canÂ’t imagine anything less patriotic than
accepting lies from our government. Do you believe everything our government
tells us, Laura?

I: I never said I did, but I donÂ’t actually think that when we have thousands of
eyewitnesses to jetliners going into buildings and thousands of eyewitnesses who
were in Washington like I was when the Pentagon was hit, that you can then, from
that very large database of evidentiary information say, well, gosh, this canÂ’t
be? This canÂ’t be that these people actually penetrated our security and our
planes, so our government must be responsible. Was our government responsible,
professor, for the bombing of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? Were we
responsible for that?

F: Laura, you arenÂ’t paying attention. The fire chiefs who went in there
admitted (interrupted) there were no parts of Boeing 757, there wasnÂ’t a tail,
the wings, the engine, the seats, the bodies, the luggage, none of it was there.

F: There wasnÂ’t any evidence of the plane in the Pentagon.

I: Actually the Secretary of Defense has a piece of the plane in his office,
okay? You should probably go back to your little research cave and find that
out. He has a piece of it in his office. IÂ’ve been to his office, okay, s

Overlap for securing

Overlap for securing continuity:

I: As a former Marine that you are, to me IÂ’m flabbergasted that someone who
served in the Marine Corps could even get his mind around these theories, but my
question to you is, at the 9/11 truth big convention in Chicago earlier this
month, there was an individual name Hoomook who has lived on and off in a cave
for the last 15 years and heÂ’s one of the guys who is involved in your
organization, are you familiar with Hoomook?

F: Well, I donÂ’t think heÂ’s a member of Scholars and he has a degree from MITÂ…
(interrupted)

I: And he supports your theory, and he lives in a cave.

F: Laura, he has a degree from MIT, for crying out loud.

I: You know who else did, the Unabomber. He had a number of degrees under his
belt, too, didnÂ’t he?

F: Well, I donÂ’t think this guy is bombing any buildings unlike it appears our
government may have done. I canÂ’t imagine anything less patriotic than
accepting lies from our government. Do you believe everything our government
tells us, Laura?

I: I never said I did, but I donÂ’t actually think that when we have thousands of
eyewitnesses to jetliners going into buildings and thousands of eyewitnesses who
were in Washington like I was when the Pentagon was hit, that you can then, from
that very large database of evidentiary information say, well, gosh, this canÂ’t
be? This canÂ’t be that these people actually penetrated our security and our
planes, so our government must be responsible. Was our government responsible,
professor, for the bombing of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? Were we
responsible for that?

F: Laura, you arenÂ’t paying attention. The fire chiefs who went in there
admitted (interrupted) there were no parts of Boeing 757, there wasnÂ’t a tail,
the wings, the engine, the seats, the bodies, the luggage, none of it was there.

F: There wasnÂ’t any evidence of the plane in the Pentagon.

I: Actually the Secretary of Defense has a piece of the plane in his office,
okay? You should probably go back to your little research cave and find that
out. He has a piece of it in his office. IÂ’ve been to his office, okay, so there
is [sic] some pieces of the plane. Obviously it hit the building at what 600
MPH, you know youÂ’re a philosophy professor but it doesnÂ’t take a structural
engineer to know that things disintegrate.

F: The clear smooth lawn is the smoking gun at the Pentagon. If the plane had
come in the way you are describing it, it would have plowed up the lawn, if it
came down at an angle there would have been a huge crater. ItÂ’s not even on the
tapes. There are more than 80 tapes, Laura, why hasnÂ’t the Pentagon released
them unless theyÂ’re trying to conceal something?

I: We canÂ’t believe you have these theories. This has been an interesting
conversation, and I celebrate your service to this country in the Marine Corps,
that is a wonderful thing. IÂ’m going to go through a list of things, and I want
you to tell me whether they happened or not. Number one. The USS Cole Bombing,
did it happen, yes or no?

F: Sure.

I: Was the government responsible, or Islamic terrorists responsible?

F: Islamic terrorists, so far as I know.

I: The Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings. Did the United States or the
terrorists carry out those bombings?

F: Probably terrorists.

I: The Achillie Lauro--was the United States or terrorists responsible for that?

F: So far as I know, terrorists.

I: Brad and Jennifer, were they ever married?

F: (Laughs) Laura send everyone to st911.org to find all the studies that verify
everything IÂ’m saying, youÂ’re great (interrupted)

I: YouÂ’re a lot of fun.

Taped male sound: “The nutty professor.”
Ends at 01:10

If you folks are under the

If you folks are under the spell of Jim Hoffman, then I understand where you are coming from. He has been repeatedly attacking me and Scholars for months and months. He and are cannot both be for real. Take a look and what I have had to say about him on st911.org at the bottom of the "Articles" section. Just read it and decide for yourself. One of us is fake. You decide which one.

Read my article, "What's the

Read my article, "What's the matter with Jim Hoffman?", and give me a grade on that. I have the impression that most of you wouldn't know a disinfo agent if he stuck his face in yours. I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for nearly a decade and a half. Read what I have said and decided if I have made my case. He and I cannot both be genuine. Study what I have said and figure out what you think for yourself, if you have the courage to confront unpleasant truths. And that, of course, is what the 9/11 movement is all about.

Mr. Fetzer, There are people

Mr. Fetzer,

There are people like myself in the movement who want our "leaders" to be very conservative when it comes to speculation vs. fact. We just ask that you promote strongly the facts and hold back on speculation. An example would be the "alive highjackers" story. Until we have a taped video recording of these guys, let's try and hold off on that one as proof. I'm sure some will agree and some will disagree, but I think the "no plane at the Pentagon" is another one to let go for now. Talking about the incredible loop the plane took, the fact that it hit the renovated section, the Mineta testimony, and the failure to protect the Pentagon are ok. This is just my humble opinion.

Oops. That was me. Mr.

Oops. That was me.

Mr. Fetzer,

There are people like myself in the movement who want our "leaders" to be very conservative when it comes to speculation vs. fact. We just ask that you promote strongly the facts and hold back on speculation. An example would be the "alive highjackers" story. Until we have a taped video recording of these guys, let's try and hold off on that one as proof. I'm sure some will agree and some will disagree, but I think the "no plane at the Pentagon" is another one to let go for now. Talking about the incredible loop the plane took, the fact that it hit the renovated section, the Mineta testimony, and the failure to protect the Pentagon are ok. This is just my humble opinion.

Mr. Fetzer, One thing I

Mr. Fetzer,

One thing I think you should consider, if you haven't already, is that when you make statements that are speculative or incorrect, people like us have to defend you when we are talking to other people about this stuff.

Mr. Fetzer IMO you've blown

Mr. Fetzer IMO you've blown three major opportunities to get the truth out about Building 7 to a mainstream audience (you briefly mentioned WTC7 on the Alan Colmes show, but then mixed in theories about Barbara Olson still alive as well as other nonsense). What's up with that? You've also failed miserably at shining light on the dozens and dozens of witnesses that heard and saw explosions coming from all three buildings seconds before they fell down. You also failed to mention the reports of bombs and other suspicious devices found in the buildings. Why didn't you mention this on those three mainstream shows? It's all based in fact and can easily be proven to true through documented witness statements on the New York Times website and news reports from the day of 9-11. Why are you hiding these proofs from a national audience?

Dr. Fetzer, we need to focus

Dr. Fetzer, we need to focus on:

w-199i
John O'Neill
Robert Wright
Sibel Edmonds
Zelikow/9-11 Commission (1 person can "veto" any item in the report, so there is Bush admin's way of vetoing anything they did not approve of)
WTC 7
Norman Mineta Testimony
Bush at Booker Elementary

We need to pound people with these FACTS. Not push speculation on them.

We deal with this, the rest will fall, just like any good house of cards does.

Best,
DHS

Whether or not Fetzer

Whether or not Fetzer intends this result, he is a big turn off. His response to they guy whose uncle was killed in the shankesville plane was very unsympathetic and cruel. I think he is being used (or is playing the role) to marginalize the movement. Read his interview with the City Paper of the Twin Cities. His shrill egoism drowns out any valuble data he might expose. He is the exact kind of person whose glorying in the doom and gloom of conspiracy turns people off.

OT: can someone point me to a source which will outline the "reliable evidence" that a passenger plane did run into the pentagon? Is it the witnesses? Is it the light poles? What about the hole being too little with little (if any) structural damage to the surrounding facade? What about the continuing hole through to the next ring(s)? What about the fishy debris? I was first cued to the 9/11 movement by the pentagon -- why have many started to believe it is a red herring?

Why would Dr. Fetzer,

Why would Dr. Fetzer, assuming that's actually him writing that, continue to try to divert the discussion to attacking Jim Hoffman, who has nothing to do with these interviews or what Fetzer is presenting?

Please explain, Dr. Fetzer, why you feel the need to bring in one of the most credible and strong researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement to try to attack on a thread about your own interview?

You also did this on the other thread. It seems like a classic diversionary tactic when you can't answer simple questions like why you aren't presenting the strongest evidence when you have these huge opportunities, but instead are blowing it by presenting the most flimsy evidence that even people on here are highly divided on (or else mostly agree to be bogus or weak evidence).

"I've been dealing with this

"I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for nearly a decade and a half. "

probably burned out by now, make room for others more credible, competant, and less kooky googly eyed-old man

Re:toto The eye witnesses is

Re:toto
The eye witnesses is one obvious proof.
With the damage to the wall you have to understand Pentagon had just been reinforced against terrorist attack at that part that was struck. Therefor it isnt obvious a plane should leave a hole the size and shape of a plane as in WTC 1&2.
Now Im not 100% sure I have completely accurate info on this, but I understand it was the outer wall only that was reinforced, not the inner ones so whatever it was that managed to go through the first obstacle didnt meet such resistance when it hit the next walls.

Things I find screwed about Pentagon attack are the coinsidenses:
-That part that was struck had just been reinforced against an attack, the rest of the Pentagon was to follow.
-Pilot of flight 77 CBurlingame had had his office at the part that was destroyed.
-The previous day (9/10) Rumsfeld had announced 2.3 trillions were missing in the Pentagon, the attack kills half of the accountants and such which ends up being the reason given the 2.3 trillions are still missing.
-The drill of an aeroplane hitting an office building at Washington that very same day..

I just cant wrap myself around to thinking CB being the pilot of 77 and hitting that part of Pentagon he had worked at and probably had friends still working there is just sick coinsidense.
Add to that the hijackers picking that part of Pentagon which would withstand the hit best, killing least people and preferably those who might be able to figure out where those 2.3 trillions are..

>>"I've been dealing with

>>"I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for nearly a decade and a half. "
probably burned out by now, make room for others more credible, competant, and less kooky googly eyed-old man
Jim Hoffman

This was not written by Jim Hoffman. He doesn't personally insult people - he sticks to the substance of the issues.

I personally don't claim to

I personally don't claim to know what hit the Pentagon. My guess is whatever hit it was flown by remote control. BUT! It's useless to keep debating this issue, because it's a debate that the side of 9-11 truth cannot win period. Because the ptb have the technology to produce a video of a 757 (real or not) hitting the building. And that's that. Forget about all the witness reports saying they did or did not see a 757 hitting the building. The perps behind 9-11 have the ability to release a video which clearly shows a 757 slamming into the side of the Pentagon. It's just a question of when? And when that video is released to the masses, say good bye to the 9-11 truth movement. So, we should instead be focusing our limited time and resources educating the public about issues such as the controlled demolition at the world trade center complex on 9.11, because there's an orgy of evidence that can prove this. And if we can get enough people talking about that issue, before a 757 at the Pentagon video is released, there might be a small chance that the side of 9-11 truth will prevail. IMHO of course.

They will never release that

They will never release that film. We missed a golden chance with those May pictures.

Work it out. They had their moment in the media spotlight and they blew it. Nobody will take any notice of fake pictures after they made such a big deal about a blur.

"I admire Jim Fetzer for his

"I admire Jim Fetzer for his dedication and energy and commitment."

He's a lying, evil sack of excrement.
Terrence | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 3:52 pm | #

^ Your worse unclef*cker, go squeeze out some musical farts with Philip you "lying, evil sack of excrement" professional joker, who's gets 99% of traffic for his website from 911blogger as people go to laugh at how wack it is, true words LOL! Keep up the good work, we need some light relief occasionally, and having a willing court jester such as yourself is great, youÂ’re a real asset for Truth Movement Philip, sry I mean Terrence, a real asset!

There are some sick puppies

There are some sick puppies commenting on this thread. Some don't even know that Hoffman issued a very long post attacking me IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to my post with the unannotated transcript!
I didn't even know he had posted it.

Anyone who listens to or who reads the original transcript without the bias introduced by the transcriber, which should have been a clue that something dishonest was going on, since you were not being given the chance to read it for yourself free from interpretation,
will see that I approached this one in a very different way than the Colmes thing. I was very calm, very pleasant, and made lots and lots of key points.

There is a lot of useless drivel here, but I don't have the time or motivation to go thought it with you. I will only observe that there is a lot of phony claims about me and others on this forum. I wish you well in sorting these things out. A good place to start, even if you don't want to go there, are my pieces on Hoffman. You might ask yourself, if he is an honest broker, why he did not post my rebuttal to his first attack on his web site? He posted on from Morgan Reynolds. Why not mine? I even sent it to him THREE TIMES.

So I tell my readers where they can find his attacks on me and Scholars, but he does not tell readers where they can find my rebuttals to his. That is not intellectually honest, but I guess it plays well on this particular thread. Why don't you grade me on how well I have figured out Jim Hoffman's modus operandi? Or would that be too great a challenge
for this group of self-appointed students of the events of 9/11? Give
it a try. What have you got to lose?
Another chance to attack me? Try it!

A 911BLOGGER IQ TEST: HERE

A 911BLOGGER IQ TEST:

HERE IS PART OF JIM HOFFMAN'S CRITIQUE OF MY APPEANCE ON LAURA INGRAHAM'S SHOW. MY COMMENTS APPEAR AS NOTES IN CAPS. HIS CRITERIA ARE ALSO IN CAPS.

jim fetzer if i was grading

ALL STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY ACCURATE: C
(mentioned the Barbara Olsen being alive story on mainstream media as if it was fact)

NOTE: BARBARA OLSON WAS NOT MENTIONED
MUCH LESS DISCUSSED ON THIS
PROGRAM. NOR HAVE I EVER SAID
THAT THIS WAS A FACT! NEVER!

DEMEANOR: F

(the guy seems like hes going to have a psychotic break any second, you can almost see the the steam blowing out of his ears

NOTE: I SAID IN THE POST IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING (NOT EVEN KNOWING HE
HAD POSTED HIS) THAT I WAS VERY
CALM AND PLEASANT. LISTENT TO
THE PROGRAM AND JUDGE THIS FOR
YOURSELF. ONE OF US IS LYING.

ABILITY TO STEER A QUESTION INTO SOMETHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT: D
(he falls into every trap imaginable, never directing or steering the discussion to foreknowledge, or building 7)

NOTE: I COVERED A LOT OF GROUND AND
TYPICALLY COVER BUILDING 7. I
MAKE NO APOLOGY THAT IT DIDN'T
COME UP THIS TIME. A RATHER
LARGE NUMBER OF POINTS WERE
COVERED. READ THE UNALTERED
TRANSCRIPT AT st911.org AND
DECIDE THIS ONE FOR YOURSELF.

AVOIDS SPECULATION: F
(barbara olsen story supporting ruined all hopes of giving him anything above an F)

NOTE: HE IS PLAYING THE FORUM FOR
SAPS. BARBARA OLSON WAS NOT
MENTIONED MUCH LESS DISCUSSED
ON THIS PROGRAM. SO WHY IS HE
CONVEYING THE FALSE IMPRESSIOM
THAT IS WAS? IS THAT HONEST?

OVERALL INTERVIEW GRADE: C
(more realistic grade)
Jim Hoffman | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 4:02 pm | #

HERE'S WHAT I POSTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS, NOT KNOWING HE HAD POSTED HIS:

Gravatar Read it without the commentary, which was introduced to bias your reading.

I was very calm and pleasant, as even Laura had to admit when we concluded.

CHECK IT OUT ON THIS THREAD (ABOVE).

HE HAS PUBLISHED SEVERAL ATTACKS ON ME AND ON SCHOLARS, TO WHICH I HAVE REPLIED. ALTHOUGH I GIVE LINKS TO HIS ATTACKS, HE GIVES NO LINKS TO MY REPLIES. I SENT HIM MY FIRST REPLY THREE TIMES AND HE DECLINED TO POST IT ON HIS SITE. YOU CAN VERIFY THIS BY GOING TO st911.org AND SCROLLING DOWN THE "Articles" SECTION TO THE END. WHICH OF US IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST?

IN MY CRITIQUE OF HIS MODUS OPERANDI,
I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT EVERY CRITICISM HE MAKES OF ME AND SCHOLARS FAVORS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITION. HE EVEN BETRAYED 911TruthLA.us BY CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE ITS "Citizens' Grand Judy" WITHOUT INFORMING ITS DIRECTORS. THAT WAS A NICE EXAMPLE OF HIS DEGREE OF INTEGRITY IN DEALING WITH OTHERS.

HE NOW INSISTS THAT A BOEING 757 HIT THE PENTAGON, EVEN THOUGH (a) THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF DEBRIS OF THE KIND AND THE QUANTITY TO BE EXPECTED IF SUCH AN EVENT HAD REALLY HAPPENED, (b) VIDEOS RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE PENTAGON SHOW NO BOEING 757, WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE IF ONE HAD HIT, (c) THE LAWN IS AS GREEN AND SMOOTH AS A PUTTING SURFACE, WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLOWED UP BY THE ENGINES OR BY THE WING TURBULANCE, AND (d) EVEN A CESSNA AT FULL THROTTLE COULD NOT COME CLOSER THAN 15 FEET TO THE GROUND, MUCH LESS A FULL SIZED 757, WHICH MEANS THAT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT THAT HE WOULD HAVE YOU ACCEPT IS NOT EVEN CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF AERODYNAMICS. THINK ABOUT IT.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN "What's the matter with Jim Hoffman?", ONE OF US IS GENUINE AND ONE OF US IS FAKE. YOU HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE RIGHT HERE TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. TAKE AN INVENTORY OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED AND CONSIDER WHAT THEY TELL YOU ABOUT THE TWO OF US. IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHICH OF US IS HONEST AND WHICH NOT ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU,
YOU DON'T HAVE A GHOST OF A CHANCE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11!

Jim, the caps aren't

Jim, the caps aren't impressing anybody here. If you want to impress us, the next time you're interviewed on National mainstream TV/Radio shows, which your ego and/or handlers will undoubtedly force you to do, focus on the controlled demolition at the WTC instead of speculating about Barbara Olson/Tom Flooco stories and the Pentagon red herring. Instead, read statements from witnesses such as news reporters and fire fighters about finding explosives in the buildings. And read a few of those documented statements from firefighters and emergency workers that heard the "BOOM BOOM BOOMS" seconds before the buildings fell. And don't forget to mention those orange and red flashes seen at the base of the towers by some of the fire fighters. Also talk about the explosions (smoke at the base of the towers & squibs) that were seen coming from the towers and building 7 seconds before and during their demolitions.

If you talk about these things to a national mainstream audience, that will impress me and others. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up our ass.

to quote Fetzer "you

to quote Fetzer

"you wouldn't know a disinfo agent if he was staring you in the face"

sorry Jim, it looks like you've just been had. I was pretending to be jim hoffman this entire time on these comments.

good intuition here -

"his was not written by Jim Hoffman. He doesn't personally insult people - he sticks to the substance of the issues."

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN "What's the matter with Jim Hoffman?", ONE OF US IS GENUINE AND ONE OF US IS FAKE. YOU HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE RIGHT HERE TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. TAKE AN INVENTORY OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED AND CONSIDER WHAT THEY TELL YOU ABOUT THE TWO OF US. IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHICH OF US IS HONEST AND WHICH NOT ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU,
YOU DON'T HAVE A GHOST OF A CHANCE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11!
Jim Fetzer | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 2:39 pm | #

^ Dr Fetzer, respectfully all of the above mentioned exchange between you and Jim Hoffman equals nothing but a pure divide and conquer waste of time and effort. Whether both of you realise it or not the affect on the Movement is ultimately damaging not corrective. I think personally you both absolutely need to quit it. Jim Hoffman should consider the style of critique he employees, as even though factually he may be on point, the overall tone of his critiques are that they are negative attacks. You Dr Fetzer by stating absolutes like "ONE OF US IS GENUINE AND ONE OF US IS FAKE" is also highly counter productive because it implies that the rift between you both can't be healed.

Both of you need to work together, my proposal for critiques on and by other members in the Truth Movement is that they remain positive and constructive. Criticism is a vital part for the movement to improve and learn from its mistakes etc. But as mentioned, if it's not constructive then it's more often then not always counter productive. The activities of "WINGTV" for example are a shining demonstration of how to try and destroy unity through pointless attacks that do nothing but divide and conquer. And Dr Fetzer you can't be surprised when people raise eyebrows at seeing those jokers at "WINGTV" linked to st911.org, although I know that's now been taken down.

So in conclusion to be honest it baffles me why Jim Hoffman is not part of Scholars for 911 Truth. His work has inspired many, is extremely valid and if anything 911research and st911.org should merge to some extent, that would seem like a natural and logical progression to me. As Dr Jones is also in high praise of Jim Hoffman’s work this rift will only continue to be an unnecessary cause for contention. Perhaps to take the mature high ground you could make a peace offering by adding 911research.com to the list of links at st911.org, now that there’s a vacant space left by the extremely welcome removal of “WINGTV”. And also you could create an area called “Debate” on st911.org where arguments for and against certain issues can be presented in a fair and constructive way, e.g. Dr Fetzer suggests this… etc etc, Jim Hoffman Suggests this…etc etc, who do you agree with? That would stimulate the type of debate that strengths intellectual bonds between people in the movement, as it would promote the type of respect for opinion that true debate is all about. And it would probably also help in the effort to discern what the truth of such certain issues most likely is as well.

Hoffman is just as in the wrong to my judgment for launching attacks rather then producing dispassionate constructive criticism. But you Dr Fetzer also should consider sticking to the practically irrefutable topics rather then the certain points that people have made criticism of. For future interviews etc I think the key points that stallion4 mention above (WTC7 etc), and in particular Dr JonesÂ’ groundbreaking findings of Thermate should be regular weapons in your information arsenal. Overall I think youÂ’ve done great work despite the criticism, and I hope all these pointless points of contention between you and Jim Hoffman get resolved successfully.

The vitriol in this

The vitriol in this particular thread is really regrettable and unnecessary.

I for one, in reading the transcript of the Ingram interview (and listening to what was online), felt like it was a meaningful improvement over the Colmes segment, and it does appear that Dr. Fetzer is taking some of the feedback here to heart. If one were drawing a trendline between the quality of the presentation between the two radio interviews, it would bode well for the future.

Dr. Fetzer, it does seem like you presented a much better demeanor on Ingram. You deserve credit for that.

I think a lot of us wish you would narrow the focus of your arguments to the strongest subjects- rather than present the full spectrum of 9/11 Truth speculation. It may seem to you like we are asking you to tie one arm behind your back for a fight, or that we're asking you to not reveal the full extent of your encyclopedic knowledge of the curious events of the day. If that's your perception, I'd ask you to reconsider.

We are asking you to fight with the strongest weapons in the Truth arsenal- the weapons that have changed the most minds, those that have the greatest power to demolish the official story. The subject of the under 7 second collapse of World Trade Center 7 is, in many of our opinions, the thermonuclear warhead in the Truth arsenal. It is the one subject so perplexing that even the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST have tried to steer public curiousity away from it.

If you have a thermonuclear weapon, and you are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy you completely and has more firepower than the Death Star, you won't likely win by throwing chinese stars like "cell phones don't work on airplanes" or swinging nunchucks like "we don't know when video of Atta getting on the plane was taken". Those arguments - whether true of false - don't have the power to destroy the internal resistance the average American mind has to considering an alternative 9/11 story.

You may not be willing to limit your presentation to the strongest arguments, and you may not be willing to elevate Building 7 to primacy. You may instead chose to make the Pentagon your primary argument- though many in the Truth movement believe the matter is fraught with peril, and regardless of that, is far weaker than the collapse of Building 7. If that is the case, I think you are not going to win as many converts to the cause, and, however paranoid it sounds, you may be setting up Scholars for 9/11 Truth for destruction, if the fears of the more paranoid among us are true- that the Pentagon subject is a beautifully crafted trap, timed only to explode after it has been become permanently associated in the minds of the masses with the Truth movement.

It is worth noting that even in the course of this particular thread, Dr. Fetzer, somebody has tricked you by pretending to post as Jim Hoffman. You have angrily responded before investigating it more carefully and seeing the ruse. The criticism of you did not appear to come from Hoffman (given the hyperlink to Record Label Records which is listed as his homepage. Somebody was just playing a mean-sprited joke. Yet you reacted with exploring it carefully, and as a result, you ended up being fooled into a response you might otherwise have reconsidered.

While you may refuse to join the cautious chorus of Pentagon agnostics, preferring instead to believe that no 757 hit it, that doesn't mean you have to make this a primary argument in mainstream appearances.

I genuinely believe if you changed your focus to Building 7, much of the frustration here would dissipate- and be replaced with enthusiasm. We know you have it in you to be very persuasive. Your Hannity appearance, short though it tragically was, was fantastic- and clearly the people here reacting to it were greatly enthused by it.

On a different point. It's clear you and Hoffman have some sort of blood feud going on. I'm really sorry to hear it, and I think you would be a better man to stop fanning the flames of discord and simply walk away. I hate reading posts that essentially state, "You can't be for Hoffman and for me- so pick your side". It sounds a little too much like, "You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists" in its invocation of some stark moral choice that has one right answer, and one wrong one. And most of us respect what each of you have done and would prefer not to be put into a position of having to side with somebody. We are on the side of the Truth- and it is bigger than personalities or politics.

Disinfo agent, Another

Disinfo agent,
Another excellent post/response, and I agree wholeheartily with your representation of how the 'real world' will respond to any new revelations of the government. As you demonstate, history has proven your point over and over again.

Dr. Fetzer, I was also

Dr. Fetzer,

I was also confused by your reaction to Disinfo agent's post. I thought it was fair and balanced, and not only gave you the benefit of the doubt but had your interest and the interest of actually exposing 911 at its core.

I was extremely happy that my previous post about my experience talking about 911 was personally insightful for you.(and helped you get some much needed sleep). Its nice to know my irregular blogging is some positive effect in the real world, escpecially when it gives comfort and insight to those whom I respect and have far greater influence and thus responsibilities in this movement than myself.

That said, let me me offer my humble opinion that one of the reasons you found my post helpful and personally insightful, was because it was not directed at you. It was my experience and my wifes wise words(she loves it when I say that) were directed at me. Therefore, you didn't feel attacked by her comments and advice and thus didn't feel any need to defend yourself by attacking the comments.
If disinfo agent had presented his post above in the same manner, I beleive your reaction would have been much different.

You are attacking like a marine who has been wounded in a civilian environment that you thought was friendly. Now everyone is the enemy unless they openly declare themselves allies and drop all of potentially threatening objects in their possesion (no matter how apparently benign their objects or intentions), your fire is indescriminate, your judgement fogged by your focus on personal survival while under attack.
Well this how many innocent civilians are killed, your own troops become victims of friendly fire, and although you may win this battle, we will lose the war.

And I don't have to remind you that they don't give a rats ass if we win some personal or intellectual wars, as long as we lose the war of exposing 911,.....including bringing the perpetrators to justice, and taking back this country from these criminal and corrupt elites.

I don't know if this will help you sleep, ......but please know this comes with all humility from a friend and comrade in this long battle to expose 911.