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.

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)

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...

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 ]

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.

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

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.

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 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 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 martin":

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

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

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

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 interview on alleged 9/11 hijacker, so dont say there is.

@ 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 dedication and energy and commitment."

He's a lying, evil sack of excrement.

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 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