Support 911Blogger


Easily showing that Jim Fetzer is a fraud

I am posting this as a Blog entry so that it's more visible, since the original reply that I just posted to Jim Fetzer, is in the comments section of a topic that'll soon have disappeared from the main 911Blogger page. I want it to be more visible so that he sees it.

As someone of Fetzer's apparent intelligence, who pretends to be well researched, he couldn't honestly believe the non-evidence nonsense that he promotes, supports and propagates about the Pentagon, in an obvious, subversive effort to try to help destroy the work of real, honest, good intentioned people involved with 9/11 research and activism -- guilt by association being a primary motive. But not the only one.

I am also posting this to say that you DON'T speak for me, Jim Fetzer. So any time that you do a public appearance in person, on a radio or television show, you, your views/opinions and your continued promotion, support and propagation of blatant disinformation, non-evidence and lies DON'T represent me, nor my involvement with 9/11 related matters whatsoever. Unless you stop lying about the Pentagon, using non-evidence such as is dismantled in this response to you, I am going to post the following text after any and every comment that I see you make at 911Blogger. But I doubt that you'll do so, since you're clearly a purposeful fraud.

I would love for -- and challenge -- you to prove me otherwise. You can start by seeing the following dismantling of the photographic non-evidence, disinformation and lies that you proudly promoted, supported and propagated in the AmericanThinker response to Dunn. (None of what I write is in defense of Dunn. I don't know who he is, or anything about him, other than your response at AmericanThinker was directed at Dunn. This is entirely directed squarely at you.)

The following is the comment from the original reply --

"Fetzer: "What do these swamp rats come from?"

I don't know who Conspiracy Smasher is, but if that was also directed at me since I rightly called you a fraud, Fetzer, then that isn't saying much coming from a fat Jabba The Hut looking liar.

From+the+AmericanThinker+website

Fetzer: "A photograph of the initial point of impact, before the upper floors collapsed, is archived here."

Pretty convenient how that photo is a purposely, deceptively CROPPED version of the original photograph, with the center and right-side of the actual fuselage impact hole completely cut-out of that picture.

Here's the uncropped version of that picture.

I expect that you'll only present that uncropped version from now on.

Here's the left-wing engine impact zone that was completely smashed through -- to the LEFT of the LARGE main fuselage impact zone -- being held up by temporary wood supports and steel supports.

I expect that you'll only present that version from now on.

From the AmericanThinker website

Fetzer: "The opening appears to be about 10 feet high and roughly 16 or 17 feet wide, or not much larger than the double-doors on a mansion. It is rather difficult to see how a Boeing 757 could have fit through that hole."

This is a close-up of the main fuselage impact hole. Take notice that since this is a close-up picture, the whole left-wing engine impact zone in the above pictures (that you lie to try and pass off as the whole entry zone location of whatever you claim hit the Pentagon -- other than the actual 757 that hit the Pentagon), isn't even visible in this picture of the main fuselage impact hole. The fuselage impact hole is at least 15 feet high, and at least 15 feet across, without even touching the "10 feet high and roughly 16 or 17 feet wide" left-wing engine impact zone. Click this picture link. I dare you.

I expect that you'll only present that version from now on.

And take a good look at this picture too.

Jim Fetzer, you DON'T speak for me!"

I request that 911Blogger

I request that 911Blogger does not delete this Blog entry, as showing fraudulent people involved with 9/11 matters should be of a high priority.

I apologize to any other user who doesn't like the brief profanity. But I hate fakes like Jim Fetzer. Especially fakes like Jim Fetzer who are trying to maneuver themselves into leadership roles regarding 9/11 research and activism.

The fakes don't speak for me.

Show "OREZ, your links are quite" by james ha (not verified)

Dude, you try and seriously

Dude, you try to seriously push "no planes at the WTC". I'm not clicking anything that you present as "evidence." Go away.

James Ha: "the loose heap that the photos in your links show."

Only one of the pics that I posted the link to shows the Pentagon post-collapse. The rest are pictures of the impact damage to the Pentagon, pre-collapse.

But hey, "nice" use of a lie in an attempt at tricking other readers who may read comments before reading the actual Blog entry, James "NoPlanesHitTheWTC" Ha. Go away.

Show "orez i didn't say anything" by james ha (not verified)
Show "Yea, and you're wrong about that too" by Peggy Carter
Show "Fetzer hater Ø®£Z is a COWARD" by Tony Nicer NYC (not verified)

*yawn at the entirety of

*yawn at the entirety of that bullshit comment*

Show "I also think his name is a sign...." by Peggy Carter
Show "I hate fakes like you" by Peggy Carter
Show "- Ø®£Z - seems like the fraud to me!" by Visitor

Please read the quotes by

Please read the quotes by Fetzer at the AmericanThinker website, that I posted and responded to in the Blog entry. And look at the related pictures that he uses as his (non)evidence with those quotes. Then look at the pictures and comments that I reply to Fetzer with. Thanks.

Show "- Ø®£Z -, you should make better use of your time" by Little Pipe

Little Pipe: "Least

Little Pipe: "Least convincing however, - Ø®£Z - , is your determined dubbing of Mr. Fetzer as a "fraud" and a "fake 911 truther""

I didn't use the term "fake 911 truther" anywhere in this Blog.

The "determined dubbing" isn't there to try to convince anyone that Fetzer is a fraud -- the pictures and text that I posted in response to the pictures and quotes of his, do that just fine on their own. The "determined dubbing" is to make sure that my feelings about fetzer are loud and clear. And especially so he knows it. Call it anger at a fake.

Little Pipe: "For me, anybody who spends more than 20% of his/her time in denouncing other activists in the 911 truth movement as a "fake" or "cointelpro" or whatever, is not worth while to follow. You seem to fall into that category for me."

Mmmm, and you know how much time I spend "denouncing" other "activists" how? Your figure of 20% was calculated based upon?

Show "Just my gut feeling" by Little Pipe

Little Pipe

Little Pipe: "My fault to put it into quotes. Apologies for that. This phrase described (for me) the spirit of your post.... Do you disagree with that?"

Apology accepted. I do not disagree.

Little Pipe: "I don't know, and I didn't say I know. I said you seem to fall into that category for me. I may add now: "based on what little I read (from a character using the nickname "- Ø®£Z -") on this website." -- It was an entirely subjective, personal statement, see?"

I understand what you mean. I don't actually agree with the figure of 20%

Little Pipe: "Just my gut feeling. Again: subjective, personal. See?

(And I'm not going to extend this exchange much longer now either. Otherwise I'm myself trapped in my own 20% guideline, ya know? :-) Back to campaigning"

Yes. I understand what you mean. I would rather you get out there and continue campaigning also.

The main reason that I posted this Blog entry, is so that Fetzer has a better chance of seeing it, instead of it only being in the other comments, since they'll soon disappear off the main page.

I didn't post the Blog entry to argue with people. I did it to easily and quickly expose blatant lies about the Pentagon attack, promoted, supported and propagated by Fetzer. To show yet another reason of why I conclude that he's a purposeful fraud. And to see what he has to say in repLIE.

Show "You didn't answer the question" by Peggy Carter

Come on, Dunn links & cites stuff from the Moussaoui trial

Dunn links/cites the "evidence" from the Moussaoui "show trial." That "trial" was a joke! So is the evidence!

I'm not defending Dunn. I

I'm not defending Dunn. I don't even know who he is, other than that is who Fetzer's reply was to at the AmericanThinker website. My comment is not in defense of Dunn, it's squarely aimed at Fetzer, and only about Fetzer.

This is really quite simple.

Jim Fetzer uses his own name. y - Ø®£Z - o uses some obscure nomme d'plume and expects us to take him seriously. y - Ø®£Z - o is a fraud.

Call me if you want to understand more.

Raymond Duray, Bend, OR.

I use my real name in the

I use my real name in the published Letter To The Editor of my local paper regarding 9/11: Press For Truth. You can read about that at this Blog entry of mine from a day ago.

Raymond Duray: "Call me if you want to understand more."

That doesn't make any sense, man.

I have no problem with you

I have no problem with you challenging Fetzer's credibility, but if you want to have any hope of convincing me I suggest you remove the "fat Jabba the Hut looking" comment and the "fuck you" at the end. You also might not want to declare FRAUD in bold letters at the end of every line.

Does Fetzer act like he's speaking for you or did others cast him in that role? Did you contact him and correct him on his errors before publicly declaring him to be a fraud?

Just curious.

about Fetzer

- Others may have helped cast him into that role, but he's trying to maneuver himself into a leadership position "representing" 9/11 researchers and activists, nonetheless.
- It doesn't matter if Fetzer acts like he's speaking for me, he helps to try to discredit every real, honest, good intentioned person involved with 9/11 research and activism -- me being one of them.
- I've called him out previously at 911Blogger in comment pages that he'd been writing at. And every time that myself or someone else called him out, he switched the topic to Jim Hoffman. About how "Jim Hoffman always attacks me. Jim Hoffman. Jim Hoffman. Jim Hoffman." We'll see if he responds to this Blog entry. And we'll see if he can actually answer to his lies, or switch the topic to Jim Hoffman as usual.

The Jabba comment was because of Fetzer's "swamp rats" remark.

I shall remove the profanity.

I wonder how you can claim

I wonder how you can claim to know what his motivations are and that he is attempting to "maneuver" himself and trying to discredit all of us. How can you know that? Maybe he's just misguided and frustrated. He is human after all. As far as his status within the "movement", I see labels applied to him in hit pieces but I think that has more to do with his being a co-founder of S911T than him trying to be top dog. Of course I could be wrong.

I don't recall having seen these other threads where you or other people have responded to him and he changed the subject. I wonder how you can be sure it was him. I still think it would be better to contact him directly and lay out your rebuttal to his claims without calling him fat or Jabba the Hut. You say the Jabba comment was in response to "swamp rats," which I think is a dubious reason because you assumed it was directed at you and someone else on this thread pointed out that you've called him "fat bastard" in the past. I do appreciate that you have responded to comments on this thread and toned down your post somewhat. Thank you for that.

I'm not saying Fetzer isn't a fraud; I don't know, but I doubt he is. He seems sincere to me, even though sometimes I wish he would stick to more solid evidence and claims. The first time I saw him was on Hannity & Colmes, and he did great. In my mind that appearance alone makes up for whatever has appeared in print in the Star Tribune and the American Thinker exchange. I do agree with you and Jon Gold that he should get his quotes right when he is writing them and has the benefit of editing.

Back to the original point of the post, two of the links don't work for me. I have tried to download them from different locations but the connection times out. Anyone else having this problem? The two are:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6862/lxn0.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9351/raj3.jpg

Maybe those are the smoking guns that will convince me that you're right and Fetzer is a fraud. :)

Pressed "preview" and I see I wrote a lot lol

Both of those links work. It actually took many attempts at uploading those to the ImageShack server. The browser kept going to Connection Timed Out/Connection Was Reset nonsense. It was really frustrating. I just clicked them both and they both worked. Try again, see if it works.

I don't recall ever calling Fetzer "fat bastard". So if Chris, who wrote that I said that previously, would like to provide a link to that, I would love to see it. Chris has a tendency to not accurately quote people. I actually believe that this Blog entry (and the original comment page) are the only times that I've ever said anything negative about Fetzer's physical appearance. I could be incorrect. But I honestly don't recall any other time that I have.

As for Fetzer changing the subject, some other users should clearly remember what I'm talking about, and be able to validate that. I don't know what date or what pages they were in. Not too long ago. But long enough that I'm not too keen on searching through who knows how many comments. Anyone who remembers any of those times that Fetzer changed the subject to Jim Hoffman, feel free to speak up.

I claim his motivations -- of which, I only named one -- because of paying attention to him, watching and listening to what he says and does. He's pretty transparent. I've been highly suspicious of him for a while. I see right through him. I normally would only say that I suspect or strongly suspect someone of being a fraud, or a possible spook or agent of some sort, mostly it would be "agent of disinformation and destruction." But with Fetzer -- as with a few other "truthers" -- I am saying outright that he's a fraud. Conclusive.

You don't have to believe me. That's fine. This Blog entry isn't so much about trying to make people believe me, although it partly is. It's more about directly calling out Fetzer for his blatantly fraudulent "evidence."

I wrote at 911Blogger at least a few times in June 2006 that Morgan Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction, months before he started proudly promoting, supporting and propagating "no planes at the WTC" or "no commercial airliners at the WTC". When I wrote that, months prior to him outting himself, nobody at 911Blogger wanted to believe me. And now, after late-August, the general concensus is that Reynolds is a fraud and/or agent of some sort. Even though I was already strongly suspicious of Reynolds before June 2006 -- since he came from the Bush administration, and early on in his "9/11 truth" articles, he was pushing "hologram missiles at the WTC" bullshit -- it was in June, I believe, when Kevin Barrett had Reynolds come to the University of Wisonsin to give a "9/11 truth presentation", that I concluded absolutely that Reynolds is an agent. I even wrote that in June at 911Blogger (paraphrasing) "anyone who watches that video and doesn't see that Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction, didn't actually watch that video" and about how my favorite part was when a couple students stood up and left when Reynolds started blabbing about "no plane at the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile", because they stood up, and quickly walked past him like "Fuck this bullshit liar" without even nodding at him or uttering any words of "we need to get to class" or "good presentation but we need to go". They just stood up, quickly walked down the aisle past him, without even barely looking at him, and then quickly walked out the right side exit by the side of the stage like they couldn't stand another word coming from his lying mouth. But as I wrote, nobody at 911Blogger wanted to believe me. But I was shown to be completely correct about him. I say that without trying to sound egotistical or some nonsense. I'm just proud that I correctly spotted a fraud, openly labelled him as such months prior to that becoming the general concensus.

The video was available at 911Blogger. Locate it and watch it if you want. Go to June 2006 and search, if it isn't available in 911Podcasts. If you can't see that Reynolds is complete fraud from that alone, you aren't paying attention to how and what he's saying and doing. So, when I say "Fetzer is a fraud", I don't say it lightly just to say it. Many things led to the conclusion. Just like with Reynolds. A main point is his lies about the Pentagon. The only time that he really didn't do that publicly that I know of, was during the FAUX NEWS appearance with Colmes and North. But that may be because a few people at 911Blogger wrote that if Fetzer mentions no plane at the Pentagon on FAUX NEWS, they were going to flip. And I wrote that Fetzer has proudly promoted, supported and propagated that in every television and radio appearance that I'd seen or heard of him up until that point, so it's a sure bet that he would. Those were all comments made in a 911Blogger comment page (in the HaloScan version), with Fetzer being present leaving comments in said page prior to the FAUX NEWS appearance, and most likely reading our comments. He probably didn't mention "no plane at the Pentagon" on FAUX, since he knew that a lot of us were watching to see what he was going to do. And watching to see if he was going to say anything fraudulent like I'd called him out on about the Pentagon. Trying to not fully expose his fraudulent ways, I guess. Especially since people were paying attention to see if he would do that. A way to try to help quell any discussion about him in that light, maybe. That aside, without even mentioning any other reasons from a litany, the quick and easy photographic & text dismantling of his purposeful lies in my Blog entry are enough to show that Fetzer is a fraud, right now. And that is only one small piece. I'm writing too much and I'm tired. I'm probably boring you lol My apologies.

The "swamp rats" remark may have not been directed at me also. It may have only been directed at Conspiracy Smasher and Mark. But since Fetzer's remark was in a comment directly following a comment by me, I spoke up about it. That's why I wrote "but if that was also directed at me since I rightly called you a fraud".

I could contact him directly. But it would be too easy for him to ignore my emails. This way I'm forcing his hand. Now let's see what he says. It isn't a given that he would see this Blog. But it isn't hidden. And someone else might tell him about it. If he hasn't posted any responses by tomorrow when I come back online, then I'll contact him directly with a link to this page.

I'm out. Later.

Jim Fraudtzer, I am waiting for a proper response.

Wow, you did write a lot.

Wow, you did write a lot. That's okay, though. Thanks for the back story and clarification.

I did notice that someone claiming to be Jim Fetzer has commented on at least one other thread today while remaining silent on this one.

I guess we'll see.

UPDATE: Also, I apologize to you, orez, for assuming that the "fat bastard" claim attributed to you was accurate.

"Fat Bastard"

I am personally reserving judgment on Jim Fetzer at this time.

However, I do recall that someone referred to him as "Fat Bastard" *several* times and I am confident that it was not -Orez-. I may be able to dredge that poster's name out of my memory, but for now I simply can recall that it was someone who was already classified in my mind as trollish, which despite differences of opinion, -Orez- has never seemed to me to be.

Show "NEFT CLEFT" by tony nicer nyc (not verified)
Show "TO THE NEFT CLEFT" by Tony Nicer NYC (not verified)
Show "YOur not" by Peggy Carter
Show "Coward Neft Cleft" by Tony Nicer NYC (not verified)

*yawn at the entirety of

*yawn at the entirety of that bullshit comment*

hate is for ldi0ts

I think , that your post is B.S. ,but that´s just my opinion.
Because he doesn´t believe in 767 in Pentagon, it makes him FRAUD ? You have NO right to judge others Sir.
I´m FRAUD too, but it´s OK, nothing new for me :)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

I wonder, did you even look

Zerrox, did you even look at the pictures that Fetzer used with his quotes? Did you even look at the pictures that I posted in response?

ps. It was a 757, not a 767.

Show "It's obvious that only a" by CXharles Lindbergh's dead baby (not verified)

Quite possibly one of the

Quite possibly one of the most condensed, nonsensical comments ever written at 911Blogger.

Show "LOL" by Anonymous (not verified)

*yawn*

*yawn*

Show "It's not nonsensical" by Peggy Carter

Good points Ø®£Z

And I fully agree that disinfo should be rooted out, but adding "FRAUD" all through your entry gives off the impression that it's just a personal attack. Ditch the vitriol and more peeps may read what you have to say, rather than start slagging you off in the comments.

A good link anyway related to the subject: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

Thx, dodgy.

Thx, dodgy.

I heeded your and BCS' advice and deleted some.

Cool :)

And keep these blogs coming, top stuff!

you get that impression too

you get that impression too huh?

yawn. still at it huh? oh

yawn. still at it huh? oh well, you may still be obbsessed, but at least you dont call him a fat bastard anymore. you've grown so much.

symbol man said-"I'm going

symbol man said-"I'm going to post the following text after any and every comment that I see you make at 911Blogger. Unless, you stop lying about the Pentagon."

really? obbsess much? we get it. you dont like Fetzer. you make sure to slander him every time his name is brought up. we all know about your obbsesion with Fetzer. you do know that Fetzer is far from the only 9/11 truther that thinks Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon right? are you going to slander and badger all of them too? gotta be consistent right? if not, it might look like you have some sort of obbsession with Jim Fetzer. seriously though, you act like Fetzer is the only person with those views on the Pentagon. is that the sole reason why you hate him though? because your obbsession/hatred seems to go deeper than that.

Obsession? You act as though

Obsession? You act as though I write about Fetzer non-stop. I barely even mention him. I read about him in the BBC/Wisconsin topic and after seeing what he wrote in the AmericanThinker "rebuttle" posted by 911Blogger user, Conspiracy Smasher, I figured it would be a perfect time to expose his lies about the photographic "evidence" that he was using to support his bullshit claims about the Pentagon attack.

And maybe you'll notice that I challenged Conspiracy Smasher in that topics' comments as well regarding 9/11: Press For Truth.

I thought you were on the real, honest, good intentioned side of this 9/11 stuff, Chris? Then ask yourself how someone as apparently intelligent as Fetzer, who acts as though he's so researched on the 9/11 subject, inparticularly the Pentagon, could post such absolute, easily dismantlable bullshit as "fact." I just easily and quickly dismantled that bullshit of his about the Pentagon. Anyone who can't see that, either doesn't want to, or isn't thinking.

Actually read what I wrote and compare it to Fetzer's bullshit.

ps. I deleted most of the "FRAUD" text from the Blog entry, and lowercased the rest. So smile. Have a good day.

And by the way, if you want

And by the way, if you want to know what my real name is, go to this Blog entry and click the ImageShack link to the scan of the published Letter To The Editor of my local newspaper regarding 9/11: Press For Truth.

And a word to the wise, attacking someones screen or user name is probably the absolutely weakest thing that you can do. It's almost as weak as pointing out a few spelling mistakes by someone, and using that as some kind of proof that they're wrong or not intelligent.

And users here, anonymous or registered who try to attack me because my user name is some symbols, and not my real name, is retarded. Raymond Duray tried that in an above comment. But let's quickly look at a few other important 911Blogger users' user names that aren't their real names.

- dz
- somebigguy
- reprehensor
- georgewashington

Get the drift? Good.

If you can't paste my user name, or you can't figure out what combination of keys to type, you can just write - OREZ -.

Now read the Blog entry and see that what Fetzer presented as "truth" was so blatantly fraudulent that it could only have been purposeful. Hence, Fetzer is a purposeful fraud who is lying to you to decieve you. Do you like that? Then why defend him?

Wait a second...

GeorgeWashington isn't the real George Washington? Say it isn't so.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon, I regret to inform you

Jon, I regret to inform you that he is an imposter. lol

Show "He's trying to drive out the truth" by Peggy Carter

I noticed...

In Fetzer's final response to Dunn, he stated the following...

“Sir, it’s fifty miles out.”

“Sir, its thirty miles out.”

“Sir, its ten miles out. Do the orders still stand?”

Cheney, he testified, nearly bit off his head.

“Of course the orders still stand”, he said. “Have you heard anything different?

I would hope that in a written rebuttle to be published, one would be responsible enough to get their quotations correct.

But what do I know?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Nice find, Jon. Thanks for

Nice find, Jon. Thanks for pointing that out.

It would have been so "difficult" for Fetzer to correctly write "to the contrary?", wouldn't it? Nope. It would have been easy as pie, if he wasn't continuously, purposely lying about almost everything.

Show "Oh and that "Lie" made a big difference to the meaning?" by Peggy Carter
Show "The one who is pursposely lying" by Peggy Carter

For clarification...

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Personally, I'm beginning to see that guessing what the order was, isn't as important as the following...

According to the 9/11 Report, Cheney didn't arrive at the PEOC until 9:58.

How can Dick Cheney be monitoring Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 if he didn't get there until 9:58?

That is a "cover-up" in and of itself.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I'm not

Jumping on Fetzer. I'm simply pointing out that credibility is everything in this movement, and stupid mistakes hurt this movement.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "?" by Peggy Carter

I don't like Fetzer either

Mostly because he has problems with accuracy, as you pointed out. However, as a couple of the other comment-posters have said, if there was a little less use of abuse-type language in the blog entry, it would have been easier to read.

I read

a few sentences and then moved on because he/she starts off in attack/defense mode right off, which smells like a troll. Whether his/her points are valid or not, the whole thing needs to be cleaned up to read like a reasoned argument, not an attack on Fetzer with flames, which is what it looked like from the get-go. If the thing I saw was post-edit, it still needs some more housecleaning.

I agree. The only reason I

I agree. The only reason I read the whole thing and have responded to it is because I have seen other comments by orez and have a generally positive impression of him.

I just finished responding

I just finished responding to your other comment in this page

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3163#comment-72965

The reason that I attack Fetzer right off the bat is because I am angry at him. And this is in my Blog. As I wrote in the comment the above link is to, this Blog entry was more intended as directly at Fetzer -- since he obviously comes to the site -- and not so much for everyone else. Although, of course, it still was for anyone else to read also and see. But it was primarily for saying to Fetzer "I'm forcing your card, fraud. now respond"

I can see how it's kind of turning some people off. But I don't care. I said what I felt.

Anyway. Have a good day. I'm out.

I remember when I campaigned

I remember when I campaigned for Howard Dean, I was angry as shit, I let people know it, it turned a lot of people off and I didn't care either. My anger has been been sadly vindicated, 2 years later with the occupation of Iraq now a daily "hell on earth". Hell, we're all angry. We have a right to be. It hurts like a bitch. What can I say?

mel (also mandrake)

Show "What's the point of this nonsense?" by Jim Fetzer (not verified)

He

may very well have some valid points, but if he thinks Fetzer is spreading disinformation, he needs to tone down the attack-speak so people will listen to his side. You guys are soooo tolerant. I give you mega-points for that!

Thanks for your courage to

Thanks for your courage to stand up and speak out against the nonsense promoted by Fetzer. A professor recently resigned from the scholars group specifically because of seeing Fetzers website contents and then he was quoted about that in a newspaper, so you are not alone in the rejection.

People gravitate towards him because of his anger, but it's basically belligerent anger and he isn't interested in being right and using strong points, but in screaming and riling up a crowd. I would guess that he believes the lies he ends up promoting, until they are put in his face in a way in which he cannot escape them.

Show "So Fetzer promotes Lies?" by Peggy Carter

Critical dialogue within the movement is essential

The '9/11 truth movement has established probable cause to suspect that unidentified members of U.S. government, military, and intelligence agencies were complicit in the attacks -- without Jim Fetzer. There are many sources for 9/11 information that add very little to what we already know. Jim Fetzer's writing is a good example. For this reason I am more intested in examining the authority and visibility that he has developed within the movement. His facts are not new, and his advocacy is mired in evidence that is not required to make the case, or compell a new investigation. He has certainly contributed to the movement, but it is not devisive to review exactly what that contribution has been. Dave Von Kleist had a lot more supporters in the movement a couple of years ago. His approach has cost him support as a wave of criticism has marginalized 'In Plane Site'.

We should all keep in mind that this movement is in no final state. Debate continues to shape the core priorities of this movement, and I hope that Fetzer is listening, cause he may get left behind. Remember that we still have probable cause without any of the physical evidence. 'Crossing the Rubicon', regardless of what you might think of Rubbert, makes this perfectly clear.

Let's not all feel like we need to walk on eggshells about revolutionary truth. Tell me I'm wrong. I can take it, I listen, and if your are right, I will adapt. We can't have such thick skins that we become conserative within our progressie action.

And a bit of candor makes all of this go down easier. Don't get baited into loosing your cool. Be reasonable, and people will listen. Although these shifts in the movement seem to take time. Repetition seems to be necessary. Let's all help Fetzer stay on the right path, and hope he can do the same for us.

And if he doesn't listen to us, and fails to adapt, and continues to promote our less significant or more speculative lines of inquiry, then I can only hope that he will be marginalized as the movement moves toward promoting the best evidence.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

Fetzer's a better writer

I certainly think Jim Fetzer is a better writer, as demonstrated in the essays he wrote and presents on his site, compared to what you provide on yours.

As far as what I can understand of what you write, you seem to promote just what Fetzer said in his post. ~"If I'm wrong, I adapt, I like to find out, since I'm a scientist."

I'm not sure what your argument is with him. What point does he make that you actually disagree with?

Who is the "us" you refer to: "[]if he doesn't listen to us, and fails to adapt and continues to promote our less significant...etc."?

I'm not sure who you refer to, when you say "us" and "the movement"

Why don't you do better then, if you can?

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Show "Ø®£Z, dude I'm sry man" by Dem Bruce Lee Styles
Show "his work on Wellstone was" by Chris

Exactly, why not consentrate

Exactly, why not concentrate a real fraud... Morgan "I see no planes" Reynolds lol.

I'm with you and Jules,

just my 2 cents

PS - why doesn't he just formally write to Fetzer instead of tossing the gauntlet here? Did I miss something?

No you didn't miss anything

No, you didn't miss anything. The "guy" is fomenting discord.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

As I wrote in an above

As I wrote in an above comment, if there had been no reply from Fetzer in this Blog entry's comments by today, then I would email him with the link so that he knows the Blog entry exists. 911Blogger user, BCS provided Fetzer's email address in an above comment. This is a screen capture of the email that I just sent to it, on Tuesday morning, September 26, at 8:39am [PST].

 

 


Awaiting Fetzer's response.

Show "Jim Fetzer is not a fraud," by ewing2001

:)

...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No but you are, or have

No but you are, or have exactly the same affect as, a fraud. Please leave this site Nico, its totally the wrong place for “no planes at the wtc” disinfo, nobody wants it here!

PS, do you know how creepy and insensitive that cartoon is? Those are peoples deaths your trivializing asshole!

I didn't make that

I didn't make that cartoon.
That was Pulitzer award winner Don Wright from Palm Beach Post.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/wright_bio.html
Complain to him and thx for confusing my work with his :)

Show "I don't see any screen capture" by Peggy Carter

The "uncropped" photograph

The so-called "cropped" version is the first I ever saw from a source that I trust. But I LOVE this uncropped version! If I am supposed to be a phony and a fraud because of the difference between them, I find that quite absurd. It shows all the same features in even greater abundance: vehicles where they could not possibly be if a Boeing 757 had hit the ground floor in front of them; unbroken windows in abundance that suggest no powerful impact had affected them; fencing that should have been torn apart by such a plane. Does this guy understand that it weighs in at 100-tons, has a 125 foot wingspanand a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground. If a Boeing 757 had actually hit at that location, there would have been massive quantities of the fuselage, the seats, the bodies, the luggage, the tail! There is nothing like that here! Egad! There are no wings! And what has become of the engines? I wouid go so far as to suggest that anyone who can study these photographs--especailly in their "uncropped" versions--and concude that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on that basis needs to have his head examined! The facade if the Pentagon, by the way, is made of limestone, soft and highly impressionable. So planes that could cut through steel at the WTC don't even make an impression on limestone? That this should be the basis for a vicious attack upon me by this mental midget verges on absurdity! I am constantly bemused by some of the posts that occur on this forum, including quite a few directed at me, but this one really takes the cake! I imagine this is the same guy who would claim that the two Pentagon videos support the official account precisely because no Boeing 757 is visible! Of course, in making such a claim, he is ignoring that the plane at 155 feet is more than twice as long as the Pentagon at 71 feet is high. So if it had been there, it should have been visible. It isn't visible. Ergo, it wasn't there! Even Bill O'Reilly had to admit on "The Factor", when he played one of them, that he couldn not see it. And, as I am pointing out repeatedly, it wasn't even aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 757 to take the trajectory the govenment has maintained! So what is this nonsense based upon a photo I didn't even know was cropped when the uncropped version supports my position even more strongly? Am I dealing with complete and utter morons? No wonder the movement sometimes flounders. He makes a lot of noise but also appears to be congnitively impaired!

So much to say so little

and ad-hominems thrown in for good measure.

The very fact that Jim Fetzer supports a no-757 at the Pentagon should be the very reason to seriously re-examine the evidence.

I find it interesting how he ignores the question of ACTUAL HOLE size.

"The so-called "cropped" version is the first I ever saw from a source that I trust. But I LOVE this uncropped version! ...It shows all the same features in even greater abundance"

Yes... it shows all of the same features, except for the actual size of the hole

[Jim Fetzer:]The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.

[i]

[Jim Hoffman:] “In fact, photographs clearly show that the region of punctures to the facade extended to a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Thus, the hole was approximately six times as large as Fetzer admits. Fetzer continues to promote the ‘small hole’ fantasy despite the efforts of several people, including Fetzer's colleague Steven Jones, to point out his error.

[ii]

The Pentagon did have

The Pentagon did have reinforced concrete etc, and so that leads some people to argue that the plane vaporized and smashed into undetectable pieces, because of the reinforced structure etc. But if that were the case, how then did the object that struck the Pentagon penetrate through three “reinforced” rings of the building? If it "vaporised on impact", was it the "vapour" that maintained enough energy and momentum to carry the "landing gear" apparently as claimed, which somehow didn’t "vaporise" along with everything else, to punch out on the c-ring? Defies belief.

WOW

Look at ugly attacks on this thread and no one answers for Fetzer's inaccuracies. And look at the juvenile attacks coming from the people insisting there was no plane at the pentagon. It's very clear what Fetzer turned out to be. We need to learn from these experiences in the movement. Sorry to bring back an old thread, but it speaks to the pentagon discussions that have been going on lately as well as how hurtful and divisive dis-information can be to the 9/11 truth movement.

Show "This is very very divisive," by peacefulwarrior

Wow logical fallicies much?

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

– Gandhi

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"Anyone who seriously and honestly is committed to 911 truth and justice should be treated with respect no matter what happened at the pentagon. The photographic evidence cited time and again is just not overly convincing to every person who wants to question the official story of the events of September 11th."

See you try to frame it as though people are disrespecting those who have questions about the pentagon attack, when in reality they are just researching the truth about it. How is informing those who share the shame concerns with you the truth disrespectful? I think it's disrespectful NOT to show them evidence that will help craft the validity of the points they bring up in a discussion.

This statement falsely presents the subject as though there is only photographic evidence that proves it was indeed a 757 hit the pentagon. What about all the eye witness's!!!?? Still trying to act as though it's big mystery by only focusing on part of the proof?

It may not matter to you what hit the pentagon. However it does matter if you make claims that there was no plane at the pentagon, for this get's our movement written off immediately. Do you still think there was no plane at the pentagon? You need to prove it. Please clarify your position. You can't just say there is a lack of evidence for this is an outdated mentality. There are now scholars who have compiled stacks of witness testimony and photographic evidence proof that it had to be a 757. This has nothing to do with isolation of those who have questions about the pentagon (as you keep trying to frame the subject). It has to do with clarification of pentagon skeptics questions so that they can appear credible when discussing this subject in the public. I heard a radio host the other day, Ed Burns on 810am in San Francisco, beginning to open up to some one discussion 9/11 Truth, and then the caller claims that there had to have been either a missile or a military plane at the pentagon. Burns immediately corrected him and then went off on how people like to cling to theories and he was fascinated as to why people would make such baseless claims.

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"Do you really think that someone who doubts that a 757 hit the pentagon has to be a fraud? "

Who said this? Not me, but you write this like I did. I never suggested this at all. More framing and fallacy.

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"Even if they are committed to a new investigation and outline multiple aspects of the lies of 911 to "your " satisfaction? "

My goodness this has nothing to do with my satisfaction, this has to do with accuracy and TRUTH. Truth you claim isn't as important as numbers of truthers, when unfortunately this type of illogical conclusion is a big part of what has dwindled 9/11 truth's numbers for years. You seem to be claiming that bad info hasn't hurt the movement, if the bad info is seductive enough to get people interested in the subject. This doesn't make sense to me at all. The only times 9/11 Truth has been discredited beyond simple ad hominem's has been primarily from pseudo 'leaders' and members of the truth movement spreading bad info. In the past, the general public and a number of pundits expressed receptivity to the truth movement. If an intelligent, credible individual then look's into the subject, reads 'no planes' or 'we don't know what hit the pentagon,' then go and try to prove it. They will find the claims false, and even offensive to the victims and turn off right there!

Show "You miss the point as usual." by peacefulwarrior

Whoa you reposted the SAME EXACT comment

That got buried?!! Help with this mods? How aggressive. You literally repeated yourself!

Show "Like duh Kdub." by peacefulwarrior

Hardly censored

This is something I find rather silly about those who claim "censorship" when comments get voted down. You are not really being censored. People can open up your comment and read and know why it got voted down. It's not as though your comment was deleted. Re-posting the same comment twice is just sketchy.

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-02-04/just-look-our-governments-history#...

The idea of purification is one that YOU said and came up with. I encourage people to not accept theories which are baseless and dig deeper into the truth. You (peacefulwarrior) describing this as an attempt at purification of the movement is simply inaccurate. Keep pontificating about how getting specific facts and truth doesn't matter! The Truth Movement disagrees.

Show "your past comments as follows:" by peacefulwarrior

Reposting comments is called 'comment spam'

when it's intentional. Duplicates get removed whether by accident or intent. Repeatedly reposting the same comment intentionally will get a user account put into moderation.

As kdub said, hidden comments can easily shown; one click is all it takes. And, as I and others have noted in other threads, hidden comments attract attention; we want to see what it is that so many people found disagreeable or worse. So the claim of 'censorship' is not only false, voting down comments to hide them from being seen is counterproductive. imho, it's most useful for collapsing longwinded rants.

As I noted in another thread in reply to you, peaceful warrior- for years, people have been saying the real questions about the Pentagon include why the DC airspace wasn't defended, the side of the Pentagon that was hit, etc.- but these people were mostly those who didn't buy the claims that AAL 77 didn't hit.

Some people have been proclaiming for years that '9/11 was an inside job cuz AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon', when there's no evidence that AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and there's evidence that it did. In addition, many of the people saying AAL 77 didn't hit have also insinuated/accused, also w/o any actual evidence, that those who disagree are 'supporting the OCT', shills or disinfo agents. This has been the primary source of the divisiveness and contentiousness on the issue.

imho, the truth movement is about uncovering the truth; this means reason, facts and evidence matter, and that we need to acknowledge what we don't know, as well as what's being used to frame the 9/11 truth movement as one of conspiracy buffs whose views are based on misinformation.

If it's not censorship and not such a big deal then

why do it. It's a form of sanction on unpopular comments plain and simple. In my book that's a form of censorship. You want to emphasize the truth then call it for what it is. There is no real function other than sanction and censorship. So cut the B.S.

Regading the Pentagon Loose Nuke : Do you really believe that anyone who doubts that AAL77 hit the pentagon is a shill or disinfo agent? There was a time when folks could disagree about this on the site, that time has passed and anyone who doubts whether AA77 hit the pentagon, or even if it's the whole story is sanctioned and their comments are hidden.

I have said that AAL77 may very well have hit the pentagon but I don't think the surface evidence is very convincing which is why there has been such disagreement. But to insist that the proof is overwhelming IMO at this point is a stretch. Sorry that's how I feel. The photo evidence is vague, the conflicting testimony of Gallop and others, the C-hole has never been explained to my personal satisfaction etc. Some will point to the eyewitness testimony and frankly I still have some concerns. We need to refocus on the bigger picture. As I have tried to make clear at this point it doesn't matter what hit the pentagon etc.

However, my point is really about isolating people from the movement and calling them frauds after they have contributed honest efforts to the cause. Lots of people don't comment on this blog anymore, that's a fact. Many people refrain from commenting on the Pentagon for fear they will be ridiculed etc. I have had personal contact via email with a number of them who feel the atomosphere is hostile.

I personally think this is unproductive and will lead to failure. No amount of scholarship will win the day in this false democracy. History has shown clearly that the facts be damned. The media, our representatives, many people already know the truth that 911 was an inside job and are either afraid to say so or don't really care and think you shouldn't either. That's why I value people over the details of the evidence at the pentagon.

loose nuke said:

QUOTE
many of the people saying AAL 77 didn't hit have also insinuated/accused, also w/o any actual evidence, that those who disagree are 'supporting the OCT', shills or disinfo agents
END QUOTE

peacefulwarrior said:

QUOTE
Loose Nuke : Do you really believe that anyone who doubts that AAL77 hit the pentagon is a shill or disinfo agent?
END QUOTE

btw guys- news from me in london uk
i'm reading DRG's book Cognitive Infiltration and it's not about what it seems just from the title..................
(A very good book in my humble and i've read 50%)

Doug you are being to nice

DRG's book re-issuing his cell phone fakery theories is ridiculous. Look out for DRG in a debate, for he will bore our movements potential into a sleepy hole we can rarely dig out of. See his debate on democracy now some years back. We have much more articulate and out going well read researchers like Nafeez Ahmed.

hi

I'm interested to see your angle on this a bit deeper before i judge what's what with this aspect
pls inform me some more info for your argument- im interested to read some and to click some links kdub- thanks
(I'm wondering if he's tidied up his cell phone stuff since the material of his that you dispute came out)

Looking in DRG's recent book
Cognitive Infiltration
In the index I find:
"cell phone calls from airliners, 60-61, 78-80, 181-82n334" ("82" is maybe a typo. error in book)

from p60:
"About 15 of the reported phone calls from the planes were believed to have been made on cell phones.This information came from the recipients, who gave reasons to believe that the callers had used cell phones. The strongest evidence was provided by Deena Burnett, who told the FBI, according to its report, that she had received "a series of three to five cellular calls from her husband." She was certain that her husband had used his cell phone, she said, because she had recognized his number on her phone's Caller ID. But these calls were reportedly made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and cell phone calls from airliners at such altitudes- as pilots and scientists pointed out- were impossible in 2001, given the cell phone technology available at the time. It would appear, therefore, that the reported calls from Tom Burnett, along with all of the other reported high-altitude cell phone calls, had somehow been faked."

kdub, I'm new to this aspect- pls be gentle!!!!

Doug you already asked me aboutr this and I linked you to this

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6943

The big prob with DRG's cell phone fakery theories and new book is how DRG initially issued the bad info, then issued a re-traction, then re-releasing the bad info in this new book. That thread I linked get's into this subject pretty well. It's a huge turn off to me that DRG is behaving this way. This kind of sloppy work (or worse) is always used against 9/11 Truth. Especially for someone who get's this much media attention, this type of poor research (if that's all it is) is becomes a major liability. Also his CIT support and lack of denouncing CIT speaks volumes. This man has lost his way. His speech's were already INCREDIBLY boring and poorly presented. In a debate he buckles over and takes it and doesn't drop good facts. These points pretty much sum up what value I feel that DRG has to offer the truth movement at this point. I'm disappointed his is as attached to the truth movement as he is.

The link you gave is about Airfones

they are the seat-back type phone

http://www.ichizen.com/goat/goat_travel/images/2000_05_14_08.jpg

I dont think Airfones are mentioned in Cognitive Infiltration (2011)- so far ive read all but 9 pages which are in a summary section at the end
in Cognitive Infiltration DRG mentions cell phones but i will re-read the phone calls from airliners stuff to re check
anyway i want to piece together this info that we all jointly research to accurately see the probable truth of the phone calls from airliners issue
could it be that now in his most recent book (dated this year) DRG has omitted his previous erroneous Airfone info and gone with just cell phone info- what say you kdub?

is the following part of the bad info in this new book ?
from p60 in Cognitive Infiltration:

"About 15 of the reported phone calls from the planes were believed to have been made on cell phones.This information came from the recipients, who gave reasons to believe that the callers had used cell phones. The strongest evidence was provided by Deena Burnett, who told the FBI, according to its report, that she had received "a series of three to five cellular calls from her husband." She was certain that her husband had used his cell phone, she said, because she had recognized his number on her phone's Caller ID. But these calls were reportedly made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and cell phone calls from airliners at such altitudes- as pilots and scientists pointed out- were impossible in 2001, given the cell phone technology available at the time. It would appear, therefore, that the reported calls from Tom Burnett, along with all of the other reported high-altitude cell phone calls, had somehow been faked."

pls be gentle as im not well researched on the high altitude cell phone issue- above quote mentions "faked" and its about cell phones
i want to narrow down whats what so i can understand better- thx, D

I don't believe high altitude

and high speed cell phone calls were probable on 9/11. Not sustained. (Note that I am using the word 'probable' instead of 'possible')

People may have accidentally left their phones on inside planes before 9/11, they may have made calls while the plane was landing or during liftoff, but not at cruising altitude at cruise speeds.

- The plane hull acts as a faraday cage.
- The height weakens the signal of both the cell tower and the mobile phone.
- The position of the signal (above many towers at once), causes many handshakes (initial communication where parameters are established and authentication/identification happens) to occur at once, with many towers.
- Cell towers aren't optimized for broadcasting upwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone)
- Lastly, the time duration allotted to a cell phone to complete the handshake before going out of range is too short compared to the time duration the fast moving cell phone is within range. So, before handshake completion, signal is lost and the cellphone must do handoff again.

We are now 2011 and things have changed. Although I believe Dewdney is a hack for his 'Bob Brigham' gaffe on CBC, I think his experiment is pretty good. But I'm not sure if it can ever be done again, because the technological advancements have rendered the cellphone landscape incomparable to ten years ago. Some further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/AK_Dewdney_and_Project_Achilles (Caution - typical pseudoskeptic bullshit and insincerity)

Does this mean I believe in 'voice morphing' or that the plane passengers were 'in on it'? No. It means nothing other than that I do not believe sustained mobile phone calls were probable at cruise speed at cruise altitude. Note that the majority of the calls were made with airfones, that T. Carter has told Jeff Hill that airfones were still present on AA 77, and some mobile phone calls were made when the planes were at a lower altitude, increasing the likelihood of success.

This is again a great example of the difference between falsification and verification: proving mobile phone calls unlikely results in a state of uncertainty, it emphatically does not mean that 'voice morphing' was used: if one chooses to believe this, then direct evidence must be provided.

Questionable falsification substituting verification, followed by a 'filling in the gaps' with conjecture, is a serious flaw pervasive in prof. Griffin's work. It has left him open to criticism and reproach. An trained logical thinker, somebody well versed in the philosophy of science, should have known not to use falsification as evidence for a hypothesis, certainly not as strong evidence.

My 2c. :-)

so thus far in my fine-tooth

combing of Cognitive Infiltration for info on calls from airlines, it seems that from the first relevant sample on p60:

"About 15 of the reported phone calls from the planes were believed to have been made on cell phones.This information came from the recipients, who gave reasons to believe that the callers had used cell phones. The strongest evidence was provided by Deena Burnett, who told the FBI, according to its report, that she had received "a series of three to five cellular calls from her husband." She was certain that her husband had used his cell phone, she said, because she had recognized his number on her phone's Caller ID. But these calls were reportedly made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and cell phone calls from airliners at such altitudes- as pilots and scientists pointed out- were impossible in 2001, given the cell phone technology available at the time. It would appear, therefore, that the reported calls from Tom Burnett, along with all of the other reported high-altitude cell phone calls, had somehow been faked."

...the info is good to go and not erroneous- am i right, 9b peers?

i plan to continue my fault - finding mission into Cog Inf

hope all is correct in CI vis a vis phone calls from airliners as the rest of the book is not what it seems on the face of it;

it's a decode

Extra note

See also... (rather creative...) the "cell phone repeater hypothesis"

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

The above is a possibility, not what actually happened, until, again, there is direct evidence for that.

Note that DRG chooses to use the word 'impossible', while I choose the word 'improbable'.

Note also that Deena Burnett was 'certain' that Tom Burnett had used his cell phone because she recognized his cell id, but since witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, I would rather see proof of a cell phone call instead of an assurance from a witness... the whole CIT debacle has taught me that. Witness confidence is indicative of only one thing: the amount of self-confidence in the character of a witness. It has no bearing on the probability of correctness of a witness statement.

Case in point:

"However, a summary of passenger phone calls presented at the 2006 Zacarias Moussoui trial will state that Burnett makes only three calls from the plane; uses an Airfone, not his cell phone; and makes his frst call at 9:30, not 9:27 (see 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. September 11, 2001)."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a927burnettcalls#a927burn...

"Beginning at 9:30 a.m., passenger Tom Burnett made several telephone calls to his wife from telephones in rows 24 and 25 even though he was assigned a seat in row 4 in the front of the plane"

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...

You never cease to amaze

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"If it's not censorship and not such a big deal then why do it? It's a form of sanction on unpopular comments plain and simple. In my book that's a form of censorship. You want to emphasize the truth then call it for what it is. There is no real function other than sanction and censorship. So cut the B.S."

B.S. to hide vote down factless rants or insulting phrases (your "duh" comes to mind) so that intelligent people interested in 9/11 Truth who end up here will see most people don't like that childish behavior? See I don't just say that what you stand up for is B.S. People take time to explain to you in a "peaceful" way that you are perpetuating a childish and divisive stance.

"No amount of scholarship will win the day in this false democracy"

Oh ok, so...no point in being critical of facts or studying anything right? No point in being critical of people if they look cool right? (that's sarcasm just to be clear to our peacefulwarrior)

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"The media, our representatives, many people already know the truth that 911 was an inside job and are either afraid to say so or don't really care and think you shouldn't either. That's why I value people over the details of the evidence at the pentagon."

So your favorite person trumps facts? What are you saying? Trying to imply that those of us critical of false pentagon theories don't value or respect those who ascribe to no-plane theories? Why would people keep taking time to re-iterate old photos and quotes of stacks of witness's who saw the planes. It's cause critical minds here at blogger DO respect those who are skeptical about the pentagon story and want to the truth. Stop trying to frame it as otherwise, for you are wrong. And in fact, attempting to keep insinuating those who are critical of specific facts are somehow turning people off of 9/11 truth is COMPLETELY AGAINST what the Jersey Girls and victims family members are attempting to promote. So STOP IT!

If you value people so much, its time to pay more attention to the people who saw the plane hit the pentagon. That is.....THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. THE MAJORITY OF WITNESSES. See you claim not to care, but then when folks are critical of baseless theories, you run around caring the most about hyper speculation being censored. Yet when it is explained to you how there is nothing being censored (for censored would imply a removal from the board). You just go on and on about how you don't care again, then you say this :
"If it's not censorship and not such a big deal then why do it?"

Followed by this:
It's a form of sanction on unpopular comments plain and simple. In my book that's a form of censorship.

And you continued to sound a lot like the Rock Creek Free Press when you wrote this:

"Regading the Pentagon Loose Nuke : Do you really believe that anyone who doubts that AAL77 hit the pentagon is a shill or disinfo agent? There was a time when folks could disagree about this on the site, that time has passed"

Did loosenuke say this NO!! Of course not. peacefulwarrior keeps trying to reframe the debate as though people are saying this ridiculous accusation I just quoted. See neither loosenuke nor I have called YOU on this, even though you keep claiming that anyone who gets critical about the pentagon is automatically accusing pentagon plane skeptics of dis-info. The reality is, is that educated researchers have taken more than enough time to coddle those who still have psuedo-questions or have embraced outdated or debunked theories about the Pentagon crash. So this re-framing attempt doesn't work anymore. Sorry.

peacefulwarrior also said THIS!!:
"However, my point is really about isolating people from the movement and calling them frauds after they have contributed honest efforts to the cause."

I hope you are not talking about Jim Fezter here, for if you are claiming he is NOT a fraud, you have a lot of explaining to do to many people here, who experienced the entire rise and fall of this lying, fallacy laden creep.

"Many people refrain from commenting on the Pentagon for fear they will be ridiculed etc. I have had personal contact via email with a number of them who feel the atomosphere is hostile."

I'm sure you do. To bad you can just make statements like this out of the blue and we must just accept them as truth. You know people?! I have seen NO holding back on peoples willingness to go on and on about ONE witness who doesn't specifically say he saw a specific emblem of a specific type of brand of a specific type of model of a specific type of plane. I see NO ONE holding back for fear of ridicule. On the contrary, I see people willing to regress and regurgitate outdated psuedo-theories about what "might have happened" at the pentagon discredit our movement to intelligent people left and right. I have seen you try and say that facts and accuracy do not matter, or that specifics do not matter cause they don't change anything. These people are NOT part of the TRUTH movement. The TRUTH movement is about spreading the TRUTH and breaking down the LIES about 9/11. If I lie, or make a mistake about 9/11 truth, I want to be called on it. When Jessie Ventura lies about 9/11 Truth he should most certainly be called on it, especially because he has so much more clout and gets more media attention than I. If you still are going on about how it doesn't matter if folks spread bad info, it says a few things about the people spreading bad info, but MAINLY tells folks a lot about you and your standards of TRUTH.

peacefulwarrior also said THIS!!:
"History has shown clearly that the facts be damned. "

Sooooooooo......WHAT ARE YOU HERE FOR? And how does history show this? History shows that if people don't study the facts they are doomed to repeat errors. That is the most generic sentiment about history around!

Show "Hiding comments is censorship" by peacefulwarrior

My two cents...

I would like to submit the following link (which I found very interesting) to this thread:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=443051&t=2011650

Sincerely,
Jeff

fraud yes but

paid up agent of the neocons- not necessarily

i think man wants to write his name on the cave wall of history, make money, gain kudos

its ego

I agree...

Fetzer likes, and will say anything for attention. I'm sure he also likes making money in the conspiracy industry. I just thought it was funny that Fetzer and his sidekick Jack White were sabotaging JFK research back in the day as they're doing now concerning 9/11.
ie: Video Fakery!

UK ego pop message