Long Weekend Grab Bag

Tons of news to get caught up on, thanks to everyone who sent these in:

Two new Sibel Edmonds flyers available here:

CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down' -- Audio Download

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.

Rick Siegel speaks out on the Kevin Barrett situation:

As these attacks that are now being made on freedom by the powers show we have them on the run. We cannot fail, the time is running out. Once they have their complete police state we will not have the chance to peaceably amass the people for any real change. Under the Constitution we still may gain freedom and liberty in DC striking the root.

Damn this really gets me pissed, and if that makes me the barbarian I am getting real barbaric now. Kevin was a real nice decent guy with a good vision. We cannot let him dangle and we cannot let them get away with this in our nation. We have to go to the root. Please join me and let's have a word.

Why do I have to awaken each day to this misery in my nation? Don't you realize that we all must stand? They will take each of us down if we do not. Do not let me walk that last mile alone!

Rick is organizing a Peaceful Assembly in DC on Sept 11, 2006. Get involved if you can.

Lecturer backed on talk about 9/11:

"There's a lot that goes on, we never hear things that are covered up," said Susi Irwin, a classified staffer at UW-Madison enjoying a break with her colleagues on the Union Terrace. "As open as this country is, there are a lot of things we don't know."

And one heavily tattooed man, studying and too busy to chat, said in response to the lecturer's theory: "Wouldn't be surprised."

An Intro to the 9/11 Truth Movement:

All involved in the 911 Truth movement believe that we the people must take our country back. All involved firmly believe the way to do that is by exposing the truth about 9/11.
All firmly believe once all American's know the truth, know that 9/11 was the biggest scam ever pulled off in the history of America, we will then be able to take our country back from the thugs and tyrants who have hijacked it.


July 1, 2006 -- A former top Defense Department official has told WMR that he fears the Bush administration will pull off another "911" before the November election. The official stated that the next 911 will be used as a pretext for shipping U.S. citizens of Middle East descent to mass detention camps, establish martial law, impose strict censorship, and finally eliminate the power of the Congress and the Supreme Court over the president. "The next 911 will be much more like the Reichstag fire in terms of creating a dictatorship," said the official.

Why Are Americans So Angry?
Note: Write your representative and tell them why.

It is argued that without government surveillance of every American, even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim.

We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance.



"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

By Allan Wood and Paul Thompson
May 9, 2003

At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada's Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center's North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.


Publicity is one of the

Publicity is one of the purifying elements of politics. The best thing that you can do with anything that is crooked is to lift it up where people can see that it is crooked, and then it will either straighten itself out or disappear. Nothing checks all the bad practices of politics like public exposure. You can't be crooked in the light. I don't know whether it has ever been tried or not; but I venture to say, purely from observation, that it can't be done. - Woodrow Wilson

Can somebody shrink this

Can somebody shrink this down for me please? I don't have the full version of Adobe Acrobat at home.

Who Is Sibel Edmonds Flyer

SBG... can you add that to

SBG... can you add that to the grab bag please?

It would be good if this

It would be good if this Sibel flyer state that she was a FBI translator...

What do you mean by shrink

What do you mean by shrink it down?
The file size?
I have the full v. of Acrobat.
I've also got Photoshop and could just recreate it if need be...

"It would be good if this

"It would be good if this Sibel flyer state that she was a FBI translator..."


C&S... yes, just resave it in Acrobat... it should shrink it down... but gimme a minute... I'm gonna fix it.

Ok... C&S... if you could

Ok... C&S... if you could shrink this down, it would be appreciated.


I can't believe no one has

I can't believe no one has posted the audio interview of Jim Fetzer on Laura Ingraham.

Hey Joe, whattaya know?

Hey Joe, whattaya know?

To Woodrow Wilson's

To Woodrow Wilson's heirs;

Speaking of Independence Day, and of publicly exposing those who would seek to destroy this country. I realize that, in speaking here, certain elements may be monitoring our progress against them. -So what!

The idea is this. A County Sheriff has complete legal jurisdiction over the activities that may occurr within that district entrusted to their supervision. And, it is widely believed and partially documented, that each year the 'powers at be' meet for illegal activities at the Bohemian Grove... This is probably your last chance to prevent them from engaging in their usual rituals of pedophilia, coke, speed, pot, and of course, blood-letting and devil worship. Take those photos online and you will stop this nonsense for a long time.

From http://www.waynemadsenre


July 1, 2006 -- A former top Defense Department official has told WMR that he fears the Bush administration will pull off another "911" before the November election. The official stated that the next 911 will be used as a pretext for shipping U.S. citizens of Middle East descent to mass detention camps, establish martial law, impose strict censorship, and finally eliminate the power of the Congress and the Supreme Court over the president. "The next 911 will be much more like the Reichstag fire in terms of creating a dictatorship," said the official.


Hey Joe, whattaya know? Jon

Hey Joe, whattaya know?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.01.06 - 3:50 pm | #

I know that no one has posted the interview. LOL

Jon, are you doing any sort of preparedness at all in case things get crazy? (guns, food, whatever) Just curious.

If someone were to download

If someone were to download the Fetzer-Ingraham interview, how does one upload it to this site?

On a thread here within the

On a thread here within the last 24 hours someone posted a link to a movie on facts about the Oklahoma City Bombing. Could someone please post the link again?

I can't believe no one has

I can't believe no one has posted the audio interview of Jim Fetzer on Laura Ingraham.

No kidding. I wonder why? Was it that bad? I've only heard the interview clip posted on Ingraham's website, but it cuts off 4 minutes in to it when they start discussing CD at the wtc. Fetzer should have been talking about Building 7 immediately IMO and what I did hear from him was weak.

I personally don't think Jim Fetzer should go on any more shows representing 9-11 truth after what I heard on Alan Colmes' show and The Laura Ingraham show.

I'm afraid he's going to start spewing theories about No planes and TV fakery if he continues his media campaign.

Dr. Fetzer might be the nicest person and most sincere guy on the planet, but I don't think he has any business representing 9-11 truth on national MSM tv/radio anymore, unless his business is to sell books and/or spread disinfo.

IMHO of course.

Jon, here's a reworked

here's a reworked jpeg.
dimensions are 8 x 10.
How much smaller did you want it?

C&S... that's a beautiful

C&S... that's a beautiful flyer. Much better than mine.

YES!!!!!!!! i always said

YES!!!!!!!! i always said D.C. was better than Ground Zero. the media is more likely to cover us there, and it just seems like the right place.

A Wisconsin lawmaker says

A Wisconsin lawmaker says that a part-time UW instructor should be fired for his views that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. What do you think?
Choice Votes Percentage of 1375 Votes
He should definitely be fired for making claims like this. 196 14%
I don't agree with him, but he has a right to his opinion. 188 14%
I don't want my taxes supporting someone with views like this. 130 9%
As long as he doesn't teach these views during class he shouldn't be fired. 130 9%
He shouldn't be fired; universities should be open to controversial ideas. 731 53%

"we" seem to win every poll,

"we" seem to win every poll, funny how the media pretends we dont exist.

"YES!!!!!!!! i always said

"YES!!!!!!!! i always said D.C. was better than Ground Zero. the media is more likely to cover us there, and it just seems like the right place."

Personally, I think the media can ignore us there. On the anniversary, all eyes will be focused on Ground Zero.



So when is CSPAN gonna air

So when is CSPAN gonna air the 9/11 Panel from LA??? I've been looking all week at their schedule but have seen nothing!!!

also, I don't have a vid or link to vid of the okc bombing but this audio presentation by Jon Rappoport is really excellent:
part one
part two

"Unless..." They blow up


They blow up Washington D.C. Yeah Yeah...

Or anywhere else that makes

Or anywhere else that makes it convienient for the networks to cut away to. There's already the sentencing of Ken Lay for that day, right.
Even if there isn't anything, I'm sure the media will manufacture something if need be.

NYC is the media capital of

NYC is the media capital of the world and one of the most crowded cities on the planet. good luck.

I hope the live feeds are

I hope the live feeds are long running.
Anything edited for late night recaps will likely maneuver around it all.
Alex Jones needs to have holograms of himself on every street corner with the bullhorn.
That would be something.

If we get their at 6 o'clock

If we get their at 6 o'clock in the morning, and don't leave until late at night, we should get coverage... but... there's gotta be A LOT of us.

The technology is there. If

The technology is there.
If I had the financial means, I'd definitely fund that operation.
Have a little hologram stage set up on at least 3 major intersections in every major US city to project his image and amplify his message for at least 8 hours out of the day.

thats just my point though,

thats just my point though, in NYC there will never be enough of us.there is just too many people in one area. it will be too easy for the media to ignore us my opinion. in D.C, at least there isnt as many people in the streets at all times like in NYC.logistically speaking, D.C. is MUCH better in my opinion. we could argue all day about the symbolism.the scene of the crime? or the home of the perps and those that shelter them?

I'm gonna download the

I'm gonna download the Fetzer-Ingraham interview. I will take notes on it and let you know what happened.

"in NYC there will never be

"in NYC there will never be enough of us."

Oh... I don't know about that.

I imagine there will be

I imagine there will be plenty of ya'll of in NY.
Thing is.
"They" know this.
They'll have quite a few disinfo. agents messing up the vibe.
That's the only problem I see with it.

I want to confirm something

I want to confirm something that Richard Grove said early in his first interview:

If One Foot = One Million Dollars


One Thousand feet = One BILLION Dollars


189 MILES = One TRILLION dollars.

The first two are easy; it's that leap from 1000 ft. to 189 MILES that drops my jaw.
Can anyone here confirm that?


That will happen wherever we

That will happen wherever we go.

at least in D.C we wont have

at least in D.C we wont have literally thousands of people around us drowning us out.

NYC is used to huge crowds.

NYC is used to huge crowds. whats 1 more? thats all im saying.

The first two equalities

The first two equalities establish a linear proportionality. It then follows that (5280ft per mile)

189 miles = 998 trillion dollars

which is roughly 1000 trillion dollars.

Why is this important? It seems more like a distraction.

Hey jj111, I'd be happy to

Hey jj111, I'd be happy to post that interview, if you 've got a copy. I tried to get it today, but it looked like you had to sign up before you could.

DONAHUE: Two took off from

DONAHUE: Two took off from Boston, one from Dulles.

BREITWEISER: Right. And I think that I have a lot of problems with the Pentagon. I don't understand how a plane could hit our Defense Department, which is the Pentagon, an hour after the first plane hit the first tower. I don't understand how that is possible.

I'm a reasonable person. But when you look at the fact that we spend a half trillion dollars on national defense and you're telling me that a plane is able to hit our Pentagon, our Defense Department, an hour after the first tower is hit? There are procedures and protocols in place in this nation that are to be followed when transponders are disconnected, and they were not followed on September 11th.


this clip should be in that new movie about the Jersey Girls.

Ray questioned the

Ray questioned the feasbility of having a budget of half a trillion dollars a year yet not even being able to defend the Pentagon.

"Half a trillion dollars a year and a bunch of guys over in a cave in Afghanistan were able to penetrate that half a trillion dollar network that's supposed to provide Americans with national security."


It's interesting how the

It's interesting how the poll, when you click to see the results, is resized so you can't see the bottom choice. Also, the first 4 options of the poll are ordered numerically from highest to lowest, and then the last option is just put last, even though it's a higher number. So anyone who briefly checks the poll out will think that the "should be fired" option is winning.

I guess the other polls have

I guess the other polls have the same ordering

Here's something I don't

Here's something I don't understand, regarding "Pull it." Say there is absolutely no doubt that Silverstein was referring to demolition when he was interviewed and made the "pull it" comment. If 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government, I really doubt that someone like Silverstein would make that comment on camera, unless we was not fully aware of the ramifications. Right? Could it be that he knew about part of what was going on, but was unaware of the full picture? As skeptical as I am about 9/11, that comment just doesn't make much sense to me, anyway you look at it. Can someone give me a plausible explanation of why he would say that?

Why is this important? It

Why is this important? It seems more like a distraction.
YouCrazyDiamond | 07.01.06 - 6:46 pm | #

Eeeeeeeease up there . . . we could all use regualar deep breaths.

The reason it's important is because an accurate linear measure equivalent makes infinitely more sense to many people than numbers do.
The figure from Grove didn't seem right, so I wanted some feedback.


"explanation of why he would

"explanation of why he would say that"

Rich 'people' who spend their time counting their money don't have time to be informed on details...he was simply ignorant and/or money blind. Or maybe he was nervous - like the FEMA guy who was 'so nervous' he told the camera 'we arrived the night before [the 911 attacks]'
When I get that one figured out, too, I'll let you know.

Go deeper? Most will not even watch the 8 min intro of this free movie:


Vatican Assassins

PS Thx Jon Gold !!

Anyone watching the fox news

Anyone watching the fox news right now? Wtf!

Ah the heartland did a 10-15

Ah the heartland did a 10-15 minute segment of osama issuing 2nd terror threat. Now the "terror alert level" has been elevated. What a load of crap. A sign of a real desperation.

"PS Thx Jon Gold !!" For??

"PS Thx Jon Gold !!"

For?? The flyer? np.

Somebig guy - I have the

Somebig guy - I have the Ingraham Fetzer interview. Do you want me to email you privately?

"Somebig guy - I have the

"Somebig guy - I have the Ingraham Fetzer interview. Do you want me to email you privately?"

Is it possible to email someone publicly? :)

sbg's email is,

sbg's email is, imadumbass@911blogger.com

Or you could try going here...


Transcription: Jim Fetzer

Transcription: Jim Fetzer interviewed by Laura Ingraham a day or two ago.
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 with 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.
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).


Part 2 Fetzer Ingraham I:

Part 2 Fetzer Ingraham

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 weak evidence from a legal standpoint. This is not in itself clearly provable beyond a reasonable doubt – another example where Fetzer gives refutable evidence. 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?

Part 3 - Fetzer-Ingraham F:

Part 3 - Fetzer-Ingraham

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 [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:
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 or David Griffin 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 media people who approach him to first see if they can get Griffin or Barrett to accept the engagement. I would nominate Barrett for the official spokesperson for Scholars for 911 Truth in a minute, if there were a nomination process, and if Barrett were willing to take on such a role.
What do other people think?

"F: Did you know that Dick

"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?"

That's a completely false statement. Norman Mineta never testified that he heard Dick Cheney give a "stand down" order. He said he didn't find out until later that it was a "shoot down" order.

The main points regarding Mineta is:

His description of the young man's actions, and Cheney's response to them.

The knowledge that an "order" was given at this time.

The time of his arrival.

The fact that the 9/11 Report gives a conflicting time for Cheney's arrival at the PEOC.

The fact that he admitted Cheney was aware that Flight 77 was heading towards the Pentagon.

The fact that the 9/11 Report omitted his testimony.

The fact that the 9/11 Commission's website removed his video testimony from their site.

I agree with you Jon Gold

I agree with you Jon Gold about your comment about Mineta. And the fact is, any mention about the young man's actions regarding Cheney's orders, that incident is difficult to and requires time to explain, and even then it is not strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. It's simply not a strong point and does not deserve to be mentioned in the setting of a short, somewhat hostile radio interview.

What's up with

What's up with this?



. . . we could all use

. . . we could all use regualar deep breaths.

The reason it's important is because an accurate linear measure equivalent makes infinitely more sense to many people than numbers do.
The figure from Grove didn't seem right, so I wanted some feedback.

cormorant | 07.01.06 - 7:49 pm | #


What was the context of these statements by Richard?

Jumping ahead without knowing the answer to my question above, I suspect such comparisons are more readily appreciated for most people when it is done in the context of a direct comparison to what other people on the planet are doing. In other words, we need a point of reference, and RichardÂ’s statements do not seem to offer such an anchor.

Anyway, if you really want to push the linear proportionality to the extreme then 1000 trillion dollars is roughly 3.3 million dollars per person in the USA and 200 thousand dollars per person on the planet. These are statements that people might be able to begin sinking their teeth into.

And if this analogy is in relation to military efforts then I doubt that a linear proportionality captures the nature of military spending vs. preparedness, ability, etc. Besides which there is such a thing as methods of asymmetric warfare. In fact it could be argued that we are hip deep in such an effort at the moment.

Another example of linear proportionalities breaking down is in the transition from ideal to non-ideal gas behavior. So, such arguments as above carried too far can easily be dismissed or seen as too simple by some (and perhaps too many) people.

Okay, back to my Kundalini breathing exercises.

Excellent. Keep

Excellent. Keep breathing.

Early in his first interview with Meria Heller Richard brings up the 2.3 Trillion bucks that the Pentagon *misplaced*. He then gives the aforementioned figures as an ILLUSTRATION: to help us appreciate just how large a number a trillion is . . .

I find it helpful when talking with [most] people to put these enormous numbers in different terms; each of us processes information differently.

Really, ShineOn, it's not worth getting in a swivet about :)
If you think it is immaterial, just ignore the original question.
(to which I still lack a clear answer . . .anybody else?)

jj111, first, can you post

jj111, first, can you post the full audio of the interview? im surprised no one has gotten it up yet. as far as 9/11 spokespeople in the media go, i think Fetzer is great, hes passionate and quick to jump on someone when they are clearly being condescending.i love how tough he is.(especially when he took that jab at that criminal Oliver North about knowing all about illegal operations.that was classic shit)that said, i thought Barretts appearance on that nazi whores show was the best yet by anyone in the mainstream media(short of Alex Jones on that bullshit entertainment show on CNN's sister station.ive never seen someone fit so much vital info into 2 minutes.)regarding 9/11 truth.i would love to see Kevin Barrett on Fox or CNN.i thought he did an amazing job,as i did Fetzer on Hannity and Colmes.also, i wouldnt mind if David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones(where the hell is his final report on the thermite alreadly?) got out in the media more.



"Couple that with the realization of the verifiably true statement made by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th 2001- wherein he announced that $2.3 trillion dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds had been misappropriated by Pentagon accountants and “lost”.

Let me do a quick thought experiment with you: If I drew a line, one foot in length on a white board, and that line represented 1 million dollars, how long would a line representing a billion dollars be? What about a Trillion Dollars?

The answers are 1,000 feet, and 189 miles, respectively, and keep in mind, that using 1 unit= 1 million dollars, if one dollar was = to 1 foot, a trillion dollars would be 189,000,000 miles- or in everyday terms- to the Sun, and back.

My point is that when weÂ’re talking about Trillions of Dollars missing, weÂ’re talking about the largest crime ever committed- right in front of all of our lives and using 9-11 as the getaway vehicle- and what was stolen, was our collective Future, itÂ’s about time we realized it.

Chris I can post the full

Chris I can post the full audio only if I know how to. I have it on my computer but I don't know how to post a file. Is there some easy way you can tell me about?

nope, im pretty stupid, so i

nope, im pretty stupid, so i dont know much about computers. they anger me, haha.

I also thought Fetzer was

I also thought Fetzer was excellent on Hannity and Colmes. That was the best interview I've ever seen him do. But I feel his average performance on interviews does not match Barrett's performance I heard, or David Griffin's. I also agree that Alex Jones can be quite good too. And certainly Steve Jones is great too. I would say at this point Barrett, Griffin, A Jones and S Jones are my favorite spokespeople, and I would vote for any of them to be spokespeople for 9/11 truth community when it comes to the big media interviews. Frankly, I think it is dangerous when we have anyone for 9/11 truth give a bad interview because the difference between a fair interviewee and an outstanding interviewee can make a big difference in how effective we are in getting the truth out to the masses.

Thanks for the transcript of

Thanks for the transcript of the interview.

While I do believe it reads like an improvement over the Alan Colmes segment, I still can't help but be frustrated at the disproportionate focus on the Pentagon- and the COMPLETE SILENCE on Building Seven.

I hate to even type this, but I have to say that the paranoiac in me wonders why Fetzer considers the Pentagon the preeminent smoking gun in the 9/11 story, when the very real possibility exists, in spite of what he asserts, that a 757 hit it, and footage to be released at a later date will demonstrably prove this to be true and completely implode the credibility of Scholars for 9/11 Truth in the process. Surely Fetzer might at least entertain the remote possibility of this happening? If not, I question his discernment (though would never question his intellect). If so, I question his recklessness.

As long as I'm on the subject of trustworthiness, I'm going to go ahead and offer my list of visible parties in 9/11 Truth (or near it) that I consider trustworthy, along with some I am uncertain about and a few I don't yet trust. I don't know whether others think such a conversation is worthy of discussion but I am curious who people deem completely trustworthy here, and whether or not those I'm uncertain about are more readily trusted by most here... For whatever that might be worth.

Of a dozen or so prominent figures talking about 9/11 (to one degree or another) online or in alternative media, here are my own personal opinions... This isn't comprehensive at all...


- David Ray Griffin - Though a little bit later to the party than many big names in 9/11 Truth, he is IMO the standard bearer.
- Steven Jones - A true original.
- Kevin Barrett - The mainstream public may be unable to hear 9/11 truth from a Muslim without immediately thinking, "Of course he would say that- he's one of THEM", I don't care. He's gold. (No offense, Jon- you are too...)
- Alex Jones - yes, he's not quite the statesman DRG is, nor is he the comforting figure Steven Jones is, but his trustworthiness is not in doubt for me. Some would say his egoistic and overbearing, but beneath the persona, he really does seem trustworthy and decent.
- Jim Hoffman - Yes, he's overly cautious on certain issues. But despite what the fans of Loose Change may think, this is a virtue, not a weakness.
- Kevin Ryan - No frills, all about the science, and can't help but love him for it.


- Michael Ruppert - I think "Crossing the Rubicon" opened a lot of people's eyes. Yet I find it strange that he so firmly rejected Controlled Demolition theories for so long. I think, in the face of overwhelming evidence, he rejects it because Rubicon is fundamentally LIHOP- and endorsing demolition forces one into MIHOP. (This makes me question his judgment, at least a bit...)
- Jim Fetzer - Rapidly become the public face/voice or the truth movement to mainstream media- and in my opinion, and I think many others, this may be a serious problem- or worse. Flogs the Pentagon no-757 story ad nauseam. Seems to often prefer weak arguments (cell phones don't work) to the strong ones (WTC 7, firefighters reported seeing bombs in the buildings, silverstein's accidental confession, etc.) I want to trust him... I really want to. I can't yet.
- Webster Tarpley - I'm sorry... He's colorful and sometimes unintentionally hilarious, but I don't buy his Rogue Faction meta-theories, which push culpability for 9/11 to puppet-masters above the administration. His theories, where they depart meaningfully orthodoxy, need a good shaving with Occam's razor...
- Dylan Avery - I'm willing to revise my opinion upwards (or downwards) depending on what "Loose Change Final Edition" ultimately states. If it remains the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach, with great footage and theories right alongside dubious ones, I'll be pretty bummed. If the Pentagon again gets more screentime than Building 7, I'm going to be pretty let down and frankly, as with Fetzer, it will be hard not to wonder if there's something else at work here.
- Morgan Reynolds - Currently uncertain about him. Like his credentials, but don't like his more peculiar theories.


- Richard Grove - Sorry to those who want to believe, but as of yet, I'm more inclined to believe he's a hack writer at the CIA than the Messianic figure that the 9/11 Truth movement was waiting for. (He wants us to call him? Why on earth would he want that?)
- Wing TV - Sometimes I do, but sometimes I don't...
- Daniel Hopsicker - I was agnostic until listening I heard Alex Jones' interview with him, and it really kind of gave me the creeps. He seemed pretty oily and pretty disinterested in any 9/11 conversations which pointed towards any form of LIHOP or MIHOP. It was all about Atta- the psychopath- and like Grove's tedious monologue, it seemed to presumptuously ask us to dismiss what we know is key, and replace it with something less compelling/believable/relevant.
- Many others - Too many to name, really.


And- just because I'm rambling anyway- how many of you folks are getting worried about the next attack? For some weird reason, my anxiety about it has gone through the roof this last week... I've listened to so many different 9/11 debunkers with different radio shows, mp3s online, etc.- and the chorus (across a very diverse body of opinions, orthodox or not) is deafening... I can't figure out how the administration can stage one that doesn't make them look like they essentially failed at Homeland Security, and thereby lose all credibility to lead us in the War on Terror. But maybe it won't matter at that point, because there won't be any elections for a while?

If anybody has not

If anybody has not seen/listened to the source in the above message which is listed second down in the "Don't Trust" list, please take my word. I did an experiment and listened to them for a couple of hours. They are a total waste of anybody's time. They are complete disinfo artists. Please nobody waste their time on them. Don't even mention their name here. They are bad bad news and total time-wasters.

Although I respect him for

Although I respect him for the time, energy, and dedication he puts into 9/11 truth, I don't think Fetzer is a consistently world-class spokesperson for the cause based on the sum of what I've heard him say when on interviews and his own internet radio show. Would anyone consider it reasonable that we ask that the highest caliber (top tier) spokespeople be given the first opportunity to take or refuse to take the important interviews that are offerred to any of our spokespeople, and the second teir could do the interview if nobody in the first teir was available/willing to do such interview?

I wouldn't mind if someone conducted an internet poll: "who is your favorite 9/11 truth spokesperson?"

i'll say it. fuck WINGTV.

i'll say it. fuck WINGTV.

Disinfo agent wrote: - Jim

Disinfo agent wrote:
- Jim Fetzer - Rapidly become the public face/voice or the truth movement to mainstream media- and in my opinion, and I think many others, this may be a serious problem- or worse. Flogs the Pentagon no-757 story ad nauseam. Seems to often prefer weak arguments (cell phones don't work) to the strong ones (WTC 7, firefighters reported seeing bombs in the buildings, silverstein's accidental confession, etc.) I want to trust him... I really want to. I can't yet.
disinfo agent | 07.02.06 - 12:09 am | #

My opinion is, we need a better speaker to front us in the top media interviews. Fetzer should not be the top spokesperson. If they are available and willing to do the gig, Fetzer should find someone better to do it, and give the opportunity to the first string: David Barrett, Alex Jones, David Griffin, Steve Jones. They should be the first string in my opinion.

disinfo agent, another great

disinfo agent, another great comment that I totally agree with. I would draw my list exactly like yours. It's like if you've read my mind. :)

I must say I'm a little scared too about a next attack and its consequences. Something must append. The truth must come out soon or else they're about to make a dreadful move... Let's hope for the best.

Loose Change 2 is

Loose Change 2 is groundbreaking. hate it or love it, it has opened more eyes to the questions of 9/11 than any other single source. god bless the Loose Change crew for making a HUGE contribution to getting the word out that we were lied to about 9/11 on a massive scale. it may not be perfect, but it has done so much despite peoples constant nitpicking bullshit.that said, i wouldnt mind if Dylan and the crew added more about WTC7 and the various business relationships between many of the suspects in 9/11.(carlyle group etc.)

i still havent read Sander

i still havent read Sander Hicks book-The Big Wedding. its one of the few i havent gotten to yet. is it worth it?

i like Sander, he seems a

i like Sander, he seems a bit too LIHOP for me, but i still like what ive read.he doesnt stand a chance of making it into Congress, but i love that hes trying.

disinfo agent, i agree about

disinfo agent, i agree about an attack coming soon. and as far as the administration losing standing as far as being able to "protect us from terrorists", i hardly doubt it would matter at that point, after the dirty bomb blows up. the people pulling the strings could care less if the Bush administration falls, they are almost done anyway.im afraid an attack is coming soon, the desperation is obvious at this point, what with the Osama tape,fake ass Florida terror bust, various MSM invites to 9/11 truth leaders to discredit the movement etc. it all smacks of desperation to me.

oh, lets not forget the

oh, lets not forget the Zarqawi sideshow.

So Fetzer didn't even

So Fetzer didn't even mention Building 7??? Instead he makes shit up and focuses on the Pentagon? He's a spook! IMHO of course.

Get ready for the release of clear video footage showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Thanks for the transcript, jj111.

I think [b}Mike Berger[/b] i

I think [b}Mike Berger[/b] i one of the best media performers we have in the movement. He comes across as cool though enthusiaistic and is not easily pushed around.

I think Mike Berger is one

I think Mike Berger is one of the best media performers we have in the movement. He comes across as cool though enthusiaistic and is not easily pushed around.

Thank you, jj111, for

Thank you, jj111, for excellent transcription and analysis. An interviewer like Ingraham works from preconstructed attack notes with no interest in allowing the interviewee in this case, Fetzer, any real chance to communicate effectively. This high insincerity wars with the sincerity of the guest. Our best spokespersons should not waste time with such interviewers. One of the
most important strategies, imo, is one-to-one education between truthers and the public wherein each of us takes on a daily responsibility of increasing personal knowledge and making at least one contact.
It is a privilege and inspiration to be part of this community of effort.

In retrospect, although

In retrospect, although Fetzer's TV bit last week on Hannity and Colmes was his personal best interview I had ever seen, it still was not that strong. Here are the three main things he had to say:
1. Mineta’s testimony – implies it was a shoot down order – but this is difficult and time-consuming to explain in a brief interview (it takes Fetzer 39 seconds to discuss and explain this fact), and it is relatively weak evidence.
2. "We’ve found evidence the towers were taken down by controlled demolition" – but doesn’t explain what the evidence is (it was a short interview, but such a statement without adding supporting facts is not highly credible to the masses)
3. "The FBI has affirmed they have no hard evidence tying OBL to 9/11." [Probably the best fact he mentioned in this interview].
4. Our govÂ’t has a considerable reputation for telling things that are not true.

Really his demeanor, style, and assertiveness was the best part of the interview, but I would grade his judgement in which facts he chose to present would be a B or B-.

IMHO, Fetzer really does not perform in interviews nearly as well as do the top tier spokespeople, and if he becomes our top spokesperson regarding media interviews, I think this will be very very bad for us.

I don't want to question his intentions, I only want to comment on his performance.

An interviewer like Ingraham

An interviewer like Ingraham works from preconstructed attack notes with no interest in allowing the interviewee in this case, Fetzer, any real chance to communicate effectively.

You're joking, right? These two were obviously working in colusion.

Like I said, get ready for the clear footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.



cormorant | 07.01.06 - 11:46 pm | #

(Your original post has 1 ft = 1 million dollars. In that case, I screwed up my first calculation; the correct answer is in fact close to 189 miles. It looks like I added another factor 1000 by mistake. And I am used to working with such large and/or small numbers, and I know all too well how easy it is to screw up such calculations when the proper care is not taken with regard to the number of zeros.)

However, when you say 1 ft = 1 mile, then indeed the answer is 189 million miles (which is a wee bit larger than the 189 miles you originally posted).

And yes, the Earth to Sun distance is pretty darn close to that many miles


It is still a bit too abstract, though. I could make up all sorts of analogies and comparisons based on such a dimensional game, and they would perhaps look impressive. And since I’ve heard these many, many times, my position is that they are a distraction from true understanding. These types of comparisons may “wow” the audience, but then we are momentarily distracted in our wonderment at such relative sizes, and might very well miss the next sentence or two of what the speaker is saying. (Judiciously used in a written text is probably okay, since after reading the passage, we can stop and ponder it for a bit. But this is not the case when listening to someone speaking.)

I believe it is much more to the point to say that 2.3 trillion dollars amounts to about 8000 dollars for every person in the USA. That is a figure that can be readily compared to everyday life.


BEST Speakers for 9/11

BEST Speakers for 9/11 Truth:

Bob McIlvaine
Nafeez Ahmed
Sander Hicks
Alex Jones
Mike Berger
David Ray Griffin
Kevin Barret

Btw, what happened to Katharine Austin Fitts?

Oh yeah, and as much as the No Planers annoy the piss out of me, WingTV to me is no different than StormFront or Resistance.com They are HATEFUL, care NOTHING about 9/11 Truth or the families, and if they aint "CointelPro", have some sort of sick private ego stroking agenda. NOONE who is actually a 9/11 Truth activist because they genuinely care about the families or ending wars should check out their poisonous bullshit.

You can pick out poisonous shills easlily:

they ALWAYS attack well respected 9/11 Truth leaders, OBSESS over "JEWS", and yell at the top of their lungs about
"No Planes"

Now then, there are people NOT good for the movement who are genuinely warm and kind people. I love Jimmy Walters, but eeeesh...he goes just short of saying UFO's blew up the towers.

Also, as I always say, the PROOF of US complicity aint in towers, or pentagons or whatever...its in Mohammed Atta. He's the link to it all. Prove he was sent to al Qaeda to stir up the whole plot, and there's your "core column".

I dont care what hit the pentagon, what Im interested in if it was remote controlled. I have a feeling all three planes except for Flight 93 were controlled.

Finally, is there any new info on Flight 93? It seems like it was shot down, but nothing new.

I just wrote Fetzer and

I just wrote Fetzer and asked him if he would be kind enough to delegate any interviews he is offered to those I believe are the top 5 spokespeople: A Jones, S Jones, M Berger, K Barrett, DR Griffin.

I think that is a reasonable reqeuest. If none of them can do the gig, then Fetzer can take it. But I think that is the optimal thing for the 911 truth. We need to rank and rate our speakers, and organize to pass off the media gigs to the best of the best spokespeople. Bad spokespeople or even mediocre spokespeople can hurt us quicker and more seriously than just about anything else.

i think that if we want to

i think that if we want to have other people speaking about 9/11 truth then we need to form our own organizations.

The too best debaters I've heard are Kevin Barrett and that Lionel show guy.

But Jim,David and Steven have an organization and they decide who speaks for st911.org.

Resist any suggestion that pitts one of us against another.

Get your self on local radio or stand on a busy corner with a sign and take a few rocks thrown in your direction. Then you can critize Jim.



- Alex Jones Â…

disinfo agent | 07.02.06 - 12:09 am | #
Here is an example of how Alex Jones tackles a topic.

The first two links discuss a professor and a talk he gave earlier this year in Texas:



Alex Jones has an article on the above speech:


This is just one example of what Alex Jones does that I was able to track down in about 5 minutes on a low bandwidth internet connection. (And I do believe he has cleaned up his web site considerably since last I looked at it about 2 years ago.)

IÂ’ve seen other people dig deeper into what Alex Jones has said, etc. in the past and IÂ’m left feeling a bit unsettled about seeing him in such a lead position in the 9/11 movement.

It is the fact that Alex is not digging deeper into his research that has me concerned about his credibility, trustworthiness, etc.

There may in fact be people with such an agenda of exterminating a significant piece of the human population, but it does not look as though Professor Pianka was actually advocating such an action.

However, Alex Jones is quick to sensationalize this story. What is his reason for doing this? To attempt to generate such fear is no better than the fear other people and institutions are constantly trying to impose on me.

And it looks really bad when Alex Jones get caught acting like a grocery store check-out tabloid in which there may be strains of truth to what he has said, but the stuff that is bogus ruins his credibility.

(This is meant to be a performance based criticism of Alex Jones.)

Here is a link to what Prof.

Here is a link to what Prof. Pianka has to say about this topic of mass extermination.


It seems that Alex Jones could have picked up on these ideas, amplified them, and would have maintained his credibility, trustworthiness, etc.

And it would be at least as powerful a statement and much more honest.

I believe it is much more to

I believe it is much more to the point to say that 2.3 trillion dollars amounts to about 8000 dollars for every person in the USA. That is a figure that can be readily compared to everyday life.

YouCrazyDiamond | 07.02.06 - 2:01 am | #

First, thank you for the clarification.

Now, what *you* find to be a clear analogy is not what *I* (or plenty of others whose eyes quickly glaze over when thinking about numbers) do.
Point being: we are all now defacto Teachers. The best teachers are able to present information in *several different ways/contexts* because there are people who think more like *you*, and there are people who think more like *me*. And others who think/understand best in altogether other ways. Neither of us is "right"; that's not the point.

The point is *making the exchange of information*.

An analogy that works for me is that of a game of catch. Say we're standing a few feet apart and I toss you an information "ball". If my primary concern is giving you every opportunity to catch it, I'll do several things: make eye contact with you before tossing it; take into account your body language; give you an idea of *how* I'm going to toss ( and a One, and a Two . . .) and then Make an accurate toss.
All of these varibles change based on who I'm tossing the information to . . .

Relating this to 9/11 spokespersons:
Many will respond best to David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Jim Hoffman,or Steven Jones.
Others will connect best with the passion/enthusiam of Jim Fetzer or Alex Jones.
Others, for *whatever reasons* will connect best to someone else.

So yes, it is important that those representing 9/11 Truth use the most solid evidence, and stick with it . . .but it is also important that we all appreciate the different ways the uninitiated connect with it for the first time.

You guys can say what you

You guys can say what you want about Ruppert, and I will probably agree with you on most points, however, truth be told... I learned a lot from Michael. I'm not talking about information either. I'm talking about what to look for, where to look for it, and the most important lesson I learned from Michael was to "use their words against them".

The "Mainstream Media", unfortunately, is what regular people trust... well, as we learned from Paul Thompson, who incidentally was inspired by Ruppert, if you dig DEEP into the "Mainstream Media", you sometimes find what I refer to as "nuggets". If the media trusted by the people, then if you can find those "nuggets", and use them against them, they are priceless.

For instance...

Dick Cheney said in regards to the wiretapping, "'It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

Really Dick? As it turns out, Bloomberg reported that you did have the capability:

"The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

"The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. "This undermines that assertion.''

So tell us Dick. How did 9/11 happen?

Anyway... you get the idea.

I agree we should appreciate

I agree we should appreciate the different ways the uninitiated connect for the first time.

I also agree that 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?

Jeff, Well-put. No

Well-put. No disagreement here.

A review of this thread reveals both constructive and attacking criticism.
To those who merely attack, consider that as your posts accumulate, I, and perhaps others, don't even read them anymore.

cormorant, Fetzer was given


Fetzer was given constructive criticism on this thread:

But he ignored it and now he's being exposed for ignoring it. What's your problem with that? Should we instead applaud him for his performance on the Alan Colmes and Laura Ingraham shows? And that's exactly what I think it was, a "performance".

Sorry, but he had his chance, and now it's time for him to step down from "representing" us on national shows.

All IMHO of course.

Finally Truthout posted

Finally Truthout posted something worth reading...

When I Paint My Masterpiece
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday 02 July 2006

Everything's gonna be smooth like a rhapsody,
When I paint
My masterpiece.

- Bob Dylan

Any starting point requires that we remember that this nation which birthed us, inspires us, blesses us, puts us to work, this nation that challenged us to remember the original promises whenever we said the Pledge of Allegiance all those times in school, this nation we'd all die for, this nation we call home is, in the end, nothing more or less than an idea.

An idea. A dream, an experiment, something sociologist Max Weber once described as "the slow boring of hard boards," a serious endeavor with a good chance of success but a better chance of failure, and if the one was to be saved from the other, there would have to be a lot of good will and hard work and devotion to the premises that got everything started in the first place. The lady who asked Benjamin Franklin what had been wrought after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 got the right answer. "A republic," Franklin told her, "if you can keep it."

"We the people" was a good start, if we're talking about the premises. No one had ever before, in all of history, bothered to lay down a national charter with that kind of thinking in mind. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was another original stroke. There were a dozen more at least, ideas that have been around since time out of mind to be sure, but ideas that no one anywhere ever used collectively and comprehensively to define the reasons for a diverse people to stand under one flag and salute, and mean it.

It was supposed to be a lot of things, but it was never supposed to be easy.

That is America, or at least it was for a while. The song remains the same, as the band once said, but we are certainly not operating off the same ideas that marked the blueprint these last several generations, and anyone who tries to tell you different is also trying to sell you something. Rose-colored glasses are selling cheap these days. They're going for the price of a flag or a few hours of round-the-clock cable-news talking-head pablum, and unfortunately for all of us, that's about as cheap as it gets in the 21st century.

Why? Because America was about a lot of things, back when it all meant something, but there was always a virus in the matrix. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the great thinkers put all the good ideas to paper, but they also made sure the thing was hard-wired to favor anyone with a lot of money.

It was the taxes that burned the Fathers out of neutrality, after all, as well as the denial of commerce by the Crown. So when the revolution was over and the smoke had cleared, the Fathers carved out a separation of church and state, and codified free speech, and laid the groundwork for more freedom for more people than had ever been seen before, but they also made sure the well-to-do were going to remain thus for time out of mind. That was fine, because they put the work in, and freedom also means freedom to make money and be rich. Before too much time had passed, that kind of thing was called The American Dream.

The problem, though, was the virus, which was money. Money slowly bought power, money slowly won elections that used to be free, money started to be the defining reality of Congress and then the presidency, money began writing and signing the laws, money got judges put on the Supreme Court by the purchased aforementioned, and money made sure those judges made decisions designed to benefit the money. Washington and Franklin would have been horrified to see the way it started to shake out even fifty years after they finished their work, but of course, they were gone by then.

Two Supreme Court cases tell the story of where we're at: Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, and Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. The first, a relatively straightforward eminent domain case, granted 14th Amendment rights to corporations. The second declared that money spent to influence elections is a form of Constitutionally-protected free speech.

And we roll the bones, because the 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," which makes corporations exactly the same as natural-born American humans, and further says that no state can create or enforce any law, "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So corporations are the same as natural Americans, but thanks to Buckley v. Valeo, all the money thrown at elections and candidates and campaigns and political parties is the same as free speech, and when massive multinational trillion-dollar corporations throw millions at the politicians, they do so with the same set of basic rights as the guy who empties their trash. Except they can't be held liable for anything, because they're corporations, and can hire million-dollar law firms to defend them, and those lawyers become judges appointed by the politicians who are bought and paid for, and it's all perfectly legal, and that's the virus.

Buy the laws, buy the law-makers, and you become the law. That is the definition of corporate freedom.

Money is why we're in Iraq. Money is why it's legal to spy on Americans, why the laws are rewritten to suit policy, why we go to war for resources, why we torture people. It doesn't have anything to do with safety or national security or anything else except money. Foreign policy decisions these days amount to little more than business deals writ large and with body counts to boot, but the latter is always folded in somewhere beneath the bottom line.

These are the Augean stables that have to be cleaned. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with George W. Bush or any of his merry men. That pack is a symptom, merely a cell, a string of proteins holding the genetic code for the virus that is everywhere, and it was there before they showed up, and will still be there when that pack is gone.

There is an election in November, which is good, because there are some people in Congress who know all this, and if it all shakes out the right way, those people will be in a position to make some changes. It's good because elections still matter, even with the corporate ownership of our votes. It's good because the idea may have been paved over with a hundred miles of money and corruption and greed, but that doesn't mean the idea is dead.

The nation which birthed us, inspires us, blesses us, puts us to work, the nation that challenged us to remember the original promises whenever we said the Pledge of Allegiance all those times in school, the nation we'd all die for, the nation we call home is, in the end, nothing more or less than an idea. It has trembled on the edge of dissolution for more than two hundred years, and never more so than today, but the margin is still there.

The margin, of course, is you and me, and everyone else. A lunatic might call this a great time to be alive, while a patriot would say it is a terrible time to be alive, and in the end, they'd both be right. Only a lunatic would think any of this could be changed, and only a patriot would stand up and volunteer for the fight to create that impossible change.

Lunatics and patriots, and a guarantee of broken hearts. That is what you sign up for if you get involved tomorrow, and that is what you've seen and felt and choked on if you were involved today. It was supposed to be a lot of things, but it was never supposed to be easy.

That was the idea to begin with, when you think about it. It has always been in danger, this idea, this dream, and it has been sustained all this time by edge-riders and lunatics and patriots. It was a masterpiece when it was created, and will be again when all is said and done. Too many of us refuse, absolutely refuse, to have it any other way.

maddog: Thank you for the


Thank you for the post.