Dr. James Fetzer founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth on the Hannity & Colmes Show.
It's like nails on a chalkboard.
"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."
Listening to Oliver North call something someone else did illegal makes me want to vomit in my mouth and swallow it.
Yeah. It's that bad.
"President Bush stop the genocide now"?!
I "LOVE" how it was ok for the Bush Administration to leak Plame's name.
An excerpt from Scooter Libby's letter to Judith Miller...
"Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."
Judith Miller was both a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, and the White House Iraq Group.
Look it up some time.
so disgusting. the guy sat there and said "they should be in jail" with a straight face. i almost upchucked from that coment. great job though Fetzer. in a tough enviroment with 2 douchebags trying to frame the debate, i thought you did a nice job.
For some damn reason, video google fails to work anymore on my mac browsers. Would someone mind youtubing this video? Must see it.
Thanks in advance.
Id rather watch a snuff flick....like a mainstream 911 movie...
I've gotta hand it to Fetzer. He did a good job. Too bad other MSM TV programs aren't having Fetzer on. Or thers. CNN viewers need to be exposed to what FOX viewers have just seen.
In my opinion, he was terrible. He looks like crap on film, he never answered even the simplest questions directly, he came across as a stiff and wooden puppet simply repeating rehearsed lines instead of actually engaging.
And what's with the crooked glasses?
"The government's story isn't even physically possible." -- James Fetzer
The man is full of it.
Here is a link to the video,
FInd a better copy. They seem to have edited this tape. For example, he said I was acting like Bill Clinton, which brought a smile to my face. My wife believes they cut out at least one more question about Cheney, which I used to make yet another point. So something very odd appears to be going on here. See if you can find a more complete recording.
You are doing these interviews with regularity- I think you should be taking a dictaphone with you, or some other recording device- just so you can document your side of the story and put it out here after an big interview like the H&C one.
If they are censoring key content, being able to prove it will call particular attention to what they chose to remove...
Your demeanor was most excellent.
I've been one of your biggest critics, Dr. Fetzer, but tonight I thought you hit a homerun. Thank you!
I think he did a good job. Of course there's no way to get all of points out that we'd like to, but Fetzer does a good job. Good job bringing up building 7 and the fact that not even NIST has attempted to explain it.
Sorry but Colmes is one weird lookin' dude.
Yea, right. I was going to say:
Who's the crazy person who said Colmes looked better than Fetzer.
Not on my T.V.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Watching Fox is always irritating.
Funny Ollie North is there again.
Is he a bad actor, a rabid fascist, a mind control victim or trying to please Mommy? Or all of the above.
"I am the only person on this show who has ever looked at Intelligence analysis."
"Our enemies can hear it"
"This is just pathetic. I don't mean to offend you."
What a putz.
HIp Hip Horaay.
He;'s doing so well.
Go for it!!!
Props also from me.
Great job also pushing NISTs inability to explain away a controlled demolition :)
Fetzer also finally skipped his weakest link of expertise, a flawed analysis of the alleged 'official' suspects.
Jim is smarter than most of other self-appointed leaders of this movement. It's just a matter of time until he sees the complete picture of media complicity :)
Jim Fetzer about 9/11 TV Fakery:
"I'm certainly not prepared to deny that film has been altered" (September 10th, 2006)
Nico Haupt hit me unexpectedly in New York. Because of my extensive research on the Zapruder film of the assassination of JFK, on which I have published a book, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, I am well-aware that film has been altered in the past, in this case, even recreated. That's what I said. I was not endorsing the idea that films of the WTC attack had been altered, but saying that I know it is possible and that I am not opposed to research on that subject.
Sean Hannity just got his ass HANDED to him. Colmes depressed me. I thought there might have been hope for him.
is hard to do.
"Coming up next cowboy star...
Plus a hotbutton ....
You won't want to miss that....straight ahead..."
talking over Fetzer the whole interview
he sure did, what a bastard. i thought Colmes was "agnostic" about 9/11. sure didnt seem like it based on that "interview".
he's not neutral when he's on TV...consider the overwhelming make up of the H&C audience. he's a spineless joke.
Just finished, nice try at a hit piece but at least in between them cutting him off he did get some good stuff out there
Fetzer's fighting spirit seems to work so WELL on T.V.
He's trained in logic.....what can you do?!?!
i agree, his interview with Oliver North is still one of the best MSM interviews on 9/11 yet. he ripped old ollie. Fetzer is pretty quick on his feet. im sure the Fetzer haters wil be here soon to tear him down though........
It's a real shame that he can't seem to exhibit the use of any.
He just comes across as a fat, sloppy buffoon who wouldn't know logic or critical thinking if he tripped over it.
Wow, the football jerk is annoying.
Fetzer did an EXCELLENT job. He got a lot of information out, especially how the government's account defies physics. I wonder if the average FOX viewer has the intelligence to understand.
Looking forward to seeing it. We canucks don't get fox.
Fetzer did an excellent job. At the end it didn't seem like Hannity even had the energy to fight anymore. I don't know if his brain computes the fact that he's been a bulldog for mass murderers.
yes, yes, fetz did way better than I thought they would let him. That was huge!!! People will go look into it from watching that. Why would fox allow that to happen? Good job fetz!!!
they thought they could sandbag him and make him say "America is a force for evil". thats what they were clearly going for, a soundbite to make 9/11 truth activists look like rabid anti-american(in the average Fox viewers eyes) loons. it didnt work too well for them. great job Fetzer.
yeah thats what they were going for, and they telegraphed it badly and Fetzer did a great job not falling into the trap. Once Hannity realized that, he didn't really have a damn thing to say.
Prof Fetzer - Top Dogg!!
Fetzer, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, Griffin, the Loose Change Crew will forever be remembered as American heroes. Without these guys, I'd be totally in the dark with what is going on in the world.
3 years ago I had never heard of them, now I can never forget them. Keep it up guys you have no idea how many people are behind you all!!!
I present to you...
The American Moonbats
James Fetzer ROCKED!! I can't believe how much info he was able to squeeze through those lying sleaze-bag hosts. Congratulations Jim...you were unstoppable! Building 7, stand down orders....WOW!
I agree, Fetzer did a great job. He didn't back down on anything and managed to get in some very incriminating evidence. Excellent work Jim!
He was terrible. If the truth movement is going to survive, let alone gain a foothold, it needs spokesmen far, far more articulate than Fetzer. It needs people who can think on their feet rather than just spout the same old tired lines over and over without even answering the questions asked.
It needs people who can actually engage in discussion and debate in a manner that wins over the audience instead of looking like a ranting blowhard.
It needs people who look and sound credible.
Fetzer failed spectacularly on all counts.
Hate to say it but,
I wish Fetzer were more telegenic. The FAUX News faithful are very impressionable, and looks matter. Mostly the problem appears to be the pursing and twitching of Fetzer's lips, and a slightly lopsided mouth, like you (imagine) you look after taking novacane to one side of your mouth at the dentists. Of course hannity/colmes are made up like pretty prom queens.
That was such a dumb question they started with, something like, "is America a force for justice, or evil, in the world?" Reducto ad absurdum... black & white, like someone can choose just one... pffff, what whores!
oh jesus christ, maybe he'll wear lipstick for you next time. nitpick away. you know, it is possible Fetzer has some sort of medical condition for his "lopsided mouth" as you put it and your sitting here shitting on the guy for it. thats just shameless Mr. Anonymous. the "is america a force for evil" question was an obvious tactic to use a broad brush to make us all look "anti-american" for questioning 9/11. shameless tactic but very effective on the right.
That was a bullshit comment about the way the guy looks. It's fucking rude! Old guys look old. Jesus, give the guy credit. He totally navigated those shithouse binary questions like a master. He deserves a medal of valor. "he looked funny." fuck that noise!!!
so please cut anonymous above some slack, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to offend. It's sad, yes, but it's hardly his fault.
Why do you believe you only see glitzed up BS on TV? Why does Hannity wear more make-up than Zsa Zsa Gabor? Why were Milli Vanilli casted? Because nowadays, people take in information primarily through the tube. And visual appeal counts. I'm not saying it should, I'm just saying it does - it's certainly unwise to simply ignore that.
Apart from that, to anyone who was listening, Fetzer did very well!
God, I'd love to punch Hannity sooo much...coming to think of it, Hannity should have Ventura on. I'm sure he would gladly demonstrate Sean some of his moves. :o)
Who cares how he looks! My God, what kind of an a**hole are you? Our country is bombed by our own government and your worried whether he is photogenic or not? Pathetic. Wrong blog buddy, your looking for Inside Hollywood.
Sorry about that. It's an old habit that I usually overcome. Tonight I was tired. That was the best I could muster.
You skillfully avoided several pre-planned setups and turned them around in (y)our favor! Kudos.
You did an excellent job jim (both times you were on the show)
Im in england and eagerly awaited the video as i cant get fox.
I would love to see you debate those spineless muppets from popular mechanics, i bet they would run a mile
good job jim...next time: missing air defense & pentagon being hit
Prof Fetzer, an idea for a future msm episode... mention that NIST did not even analyze the structural behavior of the towers once collapse initiation was reached. Also direct home viewers to the wtc.nist.gov to verify it for themselves!
how about Bush's recent remark about explosives in the towers? (But be sure to explain that only an inside job could have done this.)
Bush wasn't even talking about the WTC. Reading comprehension goes a long way.
I just want to say thank you. It really takes a lot of guts to go on television period, especially to defend a cause of this magnitude. I thought you did a hell of a job this evening and it's so obvious how blatant the pre-determined outcome of that interview was meant to be.
You have my respect, and I apologize on behalf of all those above attacking your appearance. Everyone knows that looks sell, and everyone knows that there's a lot of physcology that goes into the corporate media's approach....but, in my opinion, if someone isn't intelligent enough to see past someone's appearance, they aren't worth our time. If I had just done what you did and came on here hoping to see some support from the team, my feelings would be hurt to see people insulting my looks.
We are in this together. We have got to start acting like it. Support one another and encourage one another through every triumph and failure. We ARE making a difference.
“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke
no one "attacked" his appearance, someone just said that looks unfortunately matter to many viewers, which was probably misunderstood. This is true, as is the fact that people who can only be convinced by good looks are irrelevant to our cause, anyway.
So let's lay it to rest. I'd much rather be represented by a grumpy looking honest man than slimey soulless Hannity, and the same most likely goes for all of us.
You are truly an American hero, Jim. Thank you for putting everything on the line for your country and for your countrymen. When the final chapter is written, you will have made a huge contribution, I assure you. Hannity and Colmes are not worthy of your presence. Onward...
But one which a good spokesman and a good debator would have addressed so easily and turned it against the questioner.
The obvious answer was, "Of course, America is a force for justice in the world. However, there are times when even the greatest forces for justice contain factions who have less honorable plans and less honorable intentions, and the current administration is an example of the latter. In the case of 9/11.... etc etc."
Instead, Fetzer just ducked the question to spout some pre-packaged answer that had nothing to do with the question.
Poor debating skills.
dz, feel free to put it up on podcasts.
The file doesn't play for me.
I thought he did a commendable job. However, once again -- no mention of the war games and (2) when Colmes said the theory of government involvement "stretches credulity" he should have mentioned that the US and other Western states have a long history of false flag terrorism, a fact which is not controversial amongst scholars.
I'm stunned and puzzled why neither Fetzer nor Griffin nor other leading scholars ever bother to mention, in their public appearances, that there were war games occurring on the morning of 911 simulating hijacked aircraft crashing into buildings. The average viewer here's about cd and they dismiss it as kooky (at first), but throw the war games at them and big alarm bells go off everywhere.
Another wasted opportunity.
I've noticed that the last appearences by Alex Jones, Kevin Barret and now Jim Fetzer have shown the desire by Hannity to squeeze names out. Anyone else notice this? Why is Hannity so set on getting names?
What do you mean? You think they're going to start hammering these guys with a bunch of slander suits to shut em up?
merely interesting. I don't know what it means, if anything at all. I just find it curious that Hannity has done this three times in a row now with three different guests.
Would you be surprised if slander suits were in the works?
The last thing these guys want is a court of law. Obviously NSA/CIA is building a database of 911 Truth activists - they'd be stupid not to. I hope I'm in there (Come and get me ya treasonous scum). I think that is why the trolls on here are so persistant - obviously they are not trying to persuade anybody with their brilliant rebuttal of 911 truth, they must be gathering data on us.
You know you're over the target when...
I thought it was great, Jim.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
you did a great job jim(both times u appeared on the show)
Im in england and couldnt wait to see the video as i cant get fox
Id love to see u debate those spineless muppets from popular mechanics, they would run a mile
I also doubt the perps would want a slander suit in the courts. A defendant can win a slander suit simply by proving what he said is true. In other words, a slander suit would bring the issue of whether Fetzer's claims are true or not squarely before the court. I don't think the September Criminals want that at all (unless of course they paid off the judge).
That makes complete sense to me now. I always wondered why silverstien didn't slap people with lawsuits about this stuff since you know he has the guns to do it.
What names did you say he was fishing for three times?
All I heard was Fetzer reel off names of perps.
Was there even time for him to give names of activists?
I certainly didn't see it.
to the names of potential perps.
Another outstanding performance Professor. It takes real skill to override the disinfo experts and put some truth in front of the people while being attacked by a gang. I'm proud to be on the same side. I know loads of people watch this pair of clowns just hoping that someone will hand Hamnnity his ass in a bag. I'll bet you gained a few souls for the movement tonight. Kudos.
How many Americans will it take to question the official gov't story, before the advertisers for FOX, CNN, etc start noticing us and start telling Hannity and Colmes to show a little more respect.
How many, before some Congressional candidates wake up and realize we could make or break their election chances, if they simply call for a new 9/11 investigation?
How many, before more veterans like Chavez realize there will be a safety net of support for them if they openly share what they observed that day?
How many before some upstart prosecutor with dreams of making it to the Supreme Court someday decides to challenge the powers to be?
How many before some journalist eyeing a chance to win the Pulitzer Prize convinces his editor to let him investigate what was really going on at Command Central and in Cheney's bunker that day?
How many before some Nobel Prize winning scientist weighs in on the evidence?
How many before some prominent conservative preacher decides to speak truth and justice?
How many before Cheney and Co. realize they are had?
amen brother dennis
.....I don't know....but I do know that everyday there are more of us who question 9/11 than there were the day before, and fewer of those who don't....
At some point there will be a huge tipping point as the people in the middle, those who are afraid to be in the minority opinion, will shift, just for that reason. And then, our numbers will be overwhelming.
Keep reaching out, folks...our day is coming....
I think he probably alienated a whole bunch more people from the truth movement.
Someone got the memo, ** If Fetzer starts talking 9/11, make him sound insane, then ask if he teaches his students this information; I seem to recall the same interview techniques used in a past interview in early september; can't recall who it was though.
Congrats again on bringing up the Mineta testimony.
Notice how Colmes was chatty on top of you stating the Mineta facts.
They had NO interest in hearing about the Mineta testimony, although it's documented history.
Instead of Hannity or Colmes saying, "Oh really.........Cheney said that"?....they turn it around, trying make you say that Cheney was behind the ENTIRE orchestration of 9/11.
As my signature says, "They can't explain the Mineta testimony"...... No matter WHAT they claim about it, Cheney shouldn't have even been there at that time to begin with..........so the whole event, no matter what Cheney intended or how it's spinned, stinks to high-heaven for them, AND IT NEEDS TO BE FORCED DOWN THEIR THROATS AT EVERY TURN !!!!!
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
wow, thank you for the link; that is my first time actually viewing the clip. seems far more powerful when viewing than simply reading a transcript.
I'm starting to have the opinion that before any other aspects of 9/11 are discussed, either on threads or interviews, that the Mineta testimony should be forced.
The skeptics should be forced to answer exactly why it's never been investigated as to what was Cheney doing there at that time.
The skeptics should be forced to answer exactly why it's never been investigated as to what the orders were that "still stand".
The skeptics should be forced to answer exactly why it's never been investigated as to who the aid was that kept giving Cheney the periodic updates as to how far out the craft was from the Pentagon.
After this incident is explained (which is impossible), THEN move on to how and why buildings pulverized..............which probably can never be proven one way or another until people start getting subpoenaed.
On the other hand, Mineta witnessed something HUGE of which he testified about - on film - and the issue should be forced in a court of law somehow.
By the way, I'm not one of those who say that certain aspects of 9/11 shouldn't be discussed. I'm only saying the Mineta testimony should be priority because it's documented and unexplainable.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
Those aren't skeptics - or they would have already asked those questions.
I think you're the skeptic.
I meant skeptics of the truth movement, or the truth in general.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
Wow! That was good. Thanks Dr. Fetzer for handling them both so well and staying calm and getting good points out there. I like the end mostly, the very notion that the American people have been lied to and that we just want the truth, that the "Official" theory is not even possible---these are things a lot of people have never even thought of. They just ate up what they were fed, like I did until recently.
People are coming around. We just have to give them a chance, give them our best.
Dr. Fetzer did an excellent job.
The second time watching the interview seemed even better. Jim was in command of the situation, and was approaching the point of being profound. It seems he had the chance to emulate a revivalist of sorts. Like a Jonathan Edwards calling for national repentance. Approaching the spiritual implications of all this. Absolutely amazing. Who'd have thought the next Great Awakening would be for America to recognize her violent character, and then repent of it?
Hannity could only muster his usual brow-beating disdain for anyone who doesnt agree with him.
Colmes, however, really intrigued me. He did a good job articulating what he was unable to believe, (that our national leaders could commit such a horrible treason), and by calling it "uncredulous", he put an exclamation point on it. I think it actually worked in Jim's favor. It's like an alcoholic saying "I don't have a drinking problem" to finally come to grips with knowing he does.
In fact, when Jim ran down the list of suspects, Colmes cut him off by saying, "Yeah."
Could the October Surprise for the Democrats be their shift of support towards the 9/11 truth movement? Believe me, I think they must be considering that course. And we know they like to shift.
Democrat Party is polycentric. If any faction is flirting with "9/11 Investigation" it would be Dean at DNC, maybe with suport from Gore.
Clinton/s are doing a full-blown kabuki show with Bush tio reenforce "Osama done it," perhaps to pre-empt any such move from Dean.
Rahm Emmanuel runs the Democrat House election money, he's Mossad's North American chief (cf Skolnck) and you figure out the rest...
They won't be able to get behind the truthers until they have a smoking gun. Something like bin Laden was a creation of and works for the CIA. Oh . . . . wait.
are you kidding me, they offered him no support whatsoever! talk about a framed debate. fetzer took controll though.
Great job Uncle Fetzer,
Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are experts on controlled demolitions! The twoof movement needs more of these qualified experts.
Fetzer was pretty right on point, thankfully they didnt really cut him off. H ebrought up more facts ya don't hear people mention. The left thinks Fox has Fetzer, Barrett, etc on to "make the left look silly", but the left already makes themselves look silly by calling us nuts...how can the left criticize the right's war on terror, when they believe the phony 9/11 story? The left whined about ABC, saying they werent telling the truth about 9/11...can a lot of the left handle the truth about 9/11? We know the modern right sure can't.
Btw, what the hell is up with Shayler, Siegel, and Rey nolds believing the no plane BS? Geezus.
Pocky, if you take a look at the polls you'll find that a far, far larger percentage of democrats believe in "inside Job" or "complicity" than Republicans. This is natural. The stats would probably be reversed if a democrat was in office. Not to say that democrats are "leftist" in any way -- they're not, nor are "republicans" conservative. But we're not talking about our self-professed "leaders", we're talking about regular people. The radical left, especially, and the old school conservatives, are the most skeptical of the official story. It's only mouth-pieces and entranched intellectuals on both sides that shy away from the truth.
it's profound that the only place you will find harmony between so called DEMs and REPs is in the Truth movement...there is strength in that alone.
I just got to thinking...
You know, I bet Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Tucker Carlson, and the like haven't done a bit of research into 9/11. I was listening to Air America today and there was a guest on who was from an organization that provides a service to major news outlets. They get advanced copies of new books and movies, they review them, and then they provide the news outlets with a synopsis or a summary, sometimes in favor of certain political viewpoints. This makes complete sense and honestly, gosh, what a great business idea. O'reilly and Hannity and all those idiots don't have time to read - that's why they're idiots.
So, am I out of line by suggesting that these fools may have never done a lick of research into 9/11, based on the fact that they comment on new books and movies as though they've read them cover to cover?
Here's an interesting quote by the anarchist Bakunin from hundreds of years ago which sums up quite niceley the government funded "scientists" at Nist:
The greatest scientific genius, from the moment that he becomes an academician, an officially licensed savant, inevitably lapses into sluggishness. He loses his spontaneity, his revolutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and savage energy characteristic of the grandest geniuses, ever called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the foundations of new. He undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom, what he loses in power of thought. In a word, he becomes corrupted.
A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower...
...And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
-9/11 Hero William Rodriguez
Good job, dr fetzer. You're looking more like a pro on tv everytime. Ever try getting on other programs beside H&C? Like keith olbermann, maybe?
Remember, I can't arrange to be on one of these shows. They invite me. I am a huge fan of Keith Olbermann, so recommend me for his show or others. Thanks.
Colmes has done fair interviews in the past on his radio show with 9/11 truthers. He even at one point seemed to slightly side with the Truthers. But this shaking his head and rolling his eyes is as low as you can get. Fully expected from Hannity but in my mind Colmes is an absolute worthless whore when it comes to being a reporter. Shame on Alan Colmes.
Fetzer on the other hand did an excellent job dealing with their moronic questions.
it's possible Colmes just wants to keep his job. Afterall, he did interview Alex Jones on his radio show. And let's not forget Cheney watches FAUX all the time.
Hannity however, is in bed with Rep Nass
Excuse my language......but those f**ks at Fox always do the same Bull Sh*t on every interview. They never let a person answer the question. they frame the questions as leading, or so ridiculous, it is impossible to answer that question in 10 seconds......which is the max time frame they give before they BUT IN.
"Do you think cheney was responsible for 9/11" What a crock of Sh*t. That is the worst question I have ever witnessed presented to someone that is on Fox trying to tell the truth. WHY DO I JUST WANT TO PUNCH these Fox guys. These guys at FOX are in bed with BUSH...but for my last thought......JIM....I cheered at my computer when you mentioned WT7. THANK YOU!!!!!
Those guys don't try t interview people , just annoy them and talk over them. How rude. Hannity doesn't like the fact that Fetzer can have influence over his students. Fetzer should have turned that one around and told Hannity in didn't like the fact that someone so stupid as him can have influence over the viewing audience.
They are actors.
I suppose you could say that makes them like whores. But I think whores, in general, have more integrity than what these guys do.
But remember, the job is to get the info out, not to insult the host - when time is limited anyway. I think Fetzer was right to stick to the debate at hand and stay cool.
I thought Fetz did all right. On a side note - this film could use some blogger's help as it is a transparent view of 'motive' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6917530144343888396&sourceid=doc...
Amazing job in pointing out the Mineta testimony and NIST's inability to explain WTC 7.
I wish you brought up the NORAD war games...but hey -- we can't get too greedy :)
All in all, I thought you did a splendid job.
OT, but great news!
300,000 visits per month now at 9/11 Blogger, and a 300% increase since March of 06.
Personally, I think Dr. Fetzer should stop trying to recreate the Mineta testimony "sir, its 10 mins out, blah blah" He's done the same spiel on numerous interviews and I think a more novel, perhaps socratic, approach to mentioning the testimony like, are you aware of Norman Mineta's testimony to the comish? why would he say "do the orders still stand"? that kinda thing, would be fresher and possibly more powerful.
Very good MSM appearance, Dr. Fetzer! I too hope you can get on different shows, especially Olberman whos the current darling of the lefties. Get on Olberman and that'll be powerful, I think you'd get a more respectful dialog regardless. Colmes and Hannity are pathological fucktards and should be ignored completely (unless someone like Fetzer is on, natch.)
I think the storytelling of the minetta testimony, especially since it is done with point-on accuracy, is better than a dry, "did you know?...and "Why would he say...?"
The storytelling hits in the emotion and guts, which is what you want. IMO. People will resonate with that, I believe, and recognize it's authentic.
The phoney media perps fake that. So it works. And they must be imitating *something.*
My original take on Fetzer's TV apperance - the first I saw, was that it was very good because it was authentic on an emotional level.
He is angry. Which is what an ordinary person would expect, given the info we have. I know others criticized this about him. It's something of a taboo. Only the perps are supposed to be able to show anger or displeasure. Or to speak with authority.
I thought Kevin Barrett stood up to these creeps the absolute best. And with a similar emotional poise to that of Fetzer. Kevin Barrett was just fearless. I have no idea how he learned that.
But I thought it was the #1 quality which made the presentation right. Both for him and Fetzer. They are both also good with argument.
That's something you don't see. The perps types usually have the emotional POV all to themselves. And I was happy, for a change, to see someone on my side with that talent.
I hope Fox just keeps up their arrogance....
"Keep it up and invite us on a few more shows, fools."
The last two sentences Fetzer got in had closure and zing:
"The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened to the Nation on 9/11"
"In every single major respect we have proven the government's story is false"
Then, since he had run out the clock with all that, the stupid host had nothing left to do but ....
cut to the commercial...fast..............
Funny. Hannity or Colmes, [who cares], couldn't cut to the next segment fast enough.
I didn't notice only two mentions of Cheney. I thought there were four.
I did notice the smile at the mention of Clinton. Is that where a cut was thought to take place? Maybe.
Maybe there were four mentions of Cheney?
One...right out of the starting gate, as a counter to the "captive audience" slur. Which was really probably a non sequitur, but who cares, it worked! The more non sequiturs the better. (Fox premises being fuxed up anyway.)
So it was..."How can you say that, when Dick Cheney was on this show and you never asked him about 5 years of not fighting terror [or somesuch]."
(Cheney was their captive audience that they didn't take advantage of it?) haha
Then it was, when pressed on Cheney several times, he was obliquely referenced, by way of the Halliburton, through the financial advantages remarks?
Then the Minetta in the bunker scenerio.
Then the Cheny at the top of the list of the perps.
I liked how the perp list was introduced, somehow the word "massive" was worked in. I think.
Was there another Cheney reference edited out? Phew.
What a glutton to get things out there! The fish that got away.
Well. All was said with the last few lines anyway. So no worry..
Can't check it on my TiVo but watched it on some download and that's what I remember.
These FOX people are so arrogant to think they can get a good chuckle by making 9/11 Truth look bad, and at the same time, not have to worry about whatever info comes out.
I remember the head of the network , Roger Ailes, - who is a a Karl Rovian figure, gave our group umbrellas with Fox News logos on them, when we protested outside their hedquarters in the rain, about the coverage of the stolen election. He also sent us a doughnuts and a coffee cart and invited a spokesperson from our group onto Hannity and Colmes! And personally came out to greet us.
Was it a bribe? A show of arrogance? Did it ultimately do any real good for our [lost] cause?
Cheryl didn't do as well as Fetzer (who does?), but she did a good job. She fought with Colmes. And she may have been asked back once. The second time she scolded them. Newspaper reports never appeared on our movement nor did any great numbers of people back us up.
I think Fetzer did a magnificent job. He got just angry enough, but did not go over the line. I would have flipped out and called these two phonies (H&C) what they really are: worthless asswipes posing as journalists.
Please don't ever make me watch this network again. Just surround the place with gasoline and burn, baby burn!!
Otherwise, it was pretty fun to see JF in there with his six-guns ablazing. :)
The way fox spins things, making an aggressive moral argument, and the sheer framing of putting mr Fetzer to comment after some comments made by some ingorant academics is an attempt to manipulate their own captive audience. I know the effect of the message they give out. It just makes me think there is no hope.
I thought Jim did a great job! probably his best on FOX yet. However, I fear they won't have him on again since he was able to get so much info out in such a short time.
Why the F would they even have him on?
Do they think it makes the movement seem like freaks? Do they think they succeed in making him look uninformed?
I think he came across brilliantly informed and level-headed, and superior to the hosts.
I don't care how conservative or pro-Fox a person is, to watch that guy speak would at the VERY LEAST make me feel a tad uncomfortable with the official story. Uncomfortable enough to go online and see what this is all about. I'd wonder why the hell someone with credentials would be saying this about my beloved govt.
Fetzer was amazing. So glad he got so much info into that segment.
Makes me more and more disgusted with our "media"...what a joke. What a disgusting sad joke.
I can't believe people think Larry Silverstein was "authorizing" an order to destroy the building. He was talking about the fire fighters! PULL THEM out of the way. They were warning people that the building was going to collapse for a while before it finally did. Do you honestly think he's going to get on TV and say something like this if it were true and were a "cover up"?
I'm open to the idea that the collapse was more than just from damage and fires, especially while we wait for the finaly report, but let's see some real evidence, not this nonsense.
since when does a property owner tell firemen to stop fighting a fire?
my house is burning down and they are going to stop because I ask them to?
stop trying to cloak this guy's words.
why was it permitted to hit that tv special? who knows?
slip up? editing mishap? deliberate attempt to get something out in the open?
Contrary to what apologists say, this is a common term in construction for "pulling down (by demolition)". The word "it" is typically used in English to refer to inanimate objects. He also said "They made the decision to pull and we watched the building come down." And the building came down! So either there is a causal connection or this is an astounding coincidence, so astonishing that it surely would have deserved comment, something like, "And thank God we pulled the firement out of the building because that is exactly when the building came down!" Moreover, they couldn't pull firement from the building because none were in the building at the time. The building had been vacant since around 11 AM. There siimply is no alternative reasonable explanation of Silverstein's remarks.
Are these people liars too? Not Silverstein, but the others below:
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
Yea they are lying. Are you trying to say they are not?
It's amazing what several hundreds of millions of dollars can buy for you.
They are obviously lying just like the spokespeople, including our mayor and Guiliani who told the people neighborhood air was safe to breath.
Many officials lied and many spokespeole and self-appointed spokespeople influenced citizens to stay in the area. People, like me, who knew better, since I know about enviromental issues, specifically toxic waste issues, were pooh -poohed. Since our voices were over-rode by the government officials and the mainstream Proplaganda some people are now dying.
Are you trying to claim it's wrong to disbelieve official or semi-official spokespersons?
I remember a lot of people at the time said, "But the government tells us, the officials including Guiliani, say it's safe. Who are we to challenge or doubt that?" One woman I know was pregnant.
She believed the government.
Are you trying to say now that just because an official spokesperson, or spokesperson of any kind, says something....obviously false, that we should not believe our own reasoning powers?
Are we trying to accuse them of lying? That's the job of a spokesperson. That's their job.
Do you believe White House spokespersons too?
As far a Bld 7....
I've met people who were in the building. And people who were in the neighborhood on the ground.
People in the building were told the building was coming down. An employee told me she was in there all day, and was told all day the building would be coming down. She didn't want to face the truth of what that implied. She was evacuated soon before it came down, but allowed to continue work until then.
People on the ground, who were standing sround there on the street right before it happened, were told to move away from the building, since it would be coming down.
Apart from all that..... it's obvious from the video of the collapse that the building was deliberately brought down!
It didn't collapse in 6.6 seconds, +5 hours later, over sadness that the Twins who lived next door had exploded. The Twins didn't put a hex on it.
There are some psychological reasons people are not getting this. It's just too obvious for there to be any other explanation.
And the stupidest excuse is, "Silverstein would never say that on T.V. if it were true."
But he did, fools, the documented evidence is everywhere
I guess next we're going to hear the video clip was fabricated. I can't see any other way the perps are going to explain this one. And, after all, they have no problem editing their story after the fact!
Yes, it is a big conspiracy. Aprrox. 36% of the American public is not "in on it." You know, the "terrorists."
I meant are you asserting that all those firefighters are "bought and paid for", lying? As the link I provided explains, yes, people were worried about the building coming down for some time. It was not a surprise. They prepared for it. People even feared that the towers would "come down" without knowing exactly how it would come down before it actually happened.
I don't want to introduce three or four other assertions into this thread. I am specifically talking about the issue of controlled demolition of building number 7. If we can keep it to that and discuss the lines of evidence for and against this assertion, then we can make some progress. I said before that I am open to believing this, but I require solid evidence that would negate the official explanation.
I know that the NIST report was not satisfying, but a new one is forthcoming. Just because the explanation had a "low probability" does not indicate controlled demolition as the explanation. Controlled demolition requires evidence of explosive charges to destroy the building structure. Where is that evidence?
The fires in this building were massive, there was a huge hole in the building. And. again, the FD did indeed fear that the building was going to collapse:
"They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?"
This is the question I am asking now: if indeed this were a "secret" demolition, why was everyone evacuated, why was a collapse zone set up, and why did the media know that the collapse was expected?
I'm interested in evidence for the specific claim that controlled demolition is a better and more consistent explanation than structural failure, not ad homenims or strawmen.
This whole business is very odd.
The two rival "denier" explanations for the demolition of Building 7 as follows:
1. On PBS, Silverstein makes his "pull it" comment. I don't know if he had the authority to do that to begin with, as noted in another post, but let's just assume he did.
2. The official version states, Building 7 came down due to fire which would mean a demolition was NOT ordered.
"Deniers," as I call them, fall back on explanation 1 or 2 or both to explain what happened to WTC7.
But they can't have it both ways! If the building came down due to fire, why does it look like a classic, controlled demo? If it was "pulled" per Silverstein's instructions, who pulled it and how did they manage to orchestrate such a beautifully perfect demolition in such a shorth period of time. Where are the witnesses, the demo experts, who carried out the quickie demolition?
PS - thanks Mr. Fetzer for "representing" on H&C. Having to listen to those two and keep a straight face - that's what I dedication to the cause!
He wasn't telling the firemen to "pull it" : other than to mean "to pull" the building.
People working in the building knew all day that the building would be coming down. They heard rumblings from the basement area. The fireman not only knew ahead of time and got out of the building, but told people on the street to get away since the building was coming down.
Sometimes the subconscious mind of serious perps works in strange ways. Ever heard of the "Telltale Heart?"
Just because it seems ridiculous to you, or you claim it "doesn't make sense" doesn't change the facts. Many truths are surprising or counter-intuitive. Get used to it.
Just watched it, excellent job Jim.
Great performance, Jim. Ironically, Fox continues to give the scholars a platform to speak the truth. Fox always tries to undermine the speakers and it always blows up in their face when the 9/11 Truthers do informative, level-headed interviews.
Dr. Fetzer this is by far the best I've seen from you and you did one hell of a job. I love how you kept your cool and you kept to the FACTS!!!
Rock on my friend.
Long live the TRUTH!!
someone just called into the neil bortz show and referred to this appearance.. the caller of course was full of insults, but he actually remembered the part which jim stated involving cheney being in a bunker and being warned 'the plane is 50 miles out', etc. etc. but, he didt bother looking into it, but he did at least remember it.
i would suggest that anyone who gets this opportunity stress encouragement of the audience to do a search on what they mention!
I thought Dr. Fetzer's performance was brilliant, which may be why Fox considers him benign. Intellectualism, critical thinking and University Professors in particular, have all been vilified by Murdoch's slime machine for so long that Jim might as well have been wearing horns.
Perhaps Dr. Fetzer would consider smuggling in a NASCAR cap for his next appearence.
I am still amazed that they gave Fetzer another go at it.
You'd think they would rather pretend the alternative theories aren't out there than risk having a guest on that might "enlighten" some of their viewers.
Bravo, Jim F. for not being ruffled by their lame-ass "just answer the simple question with a 'yes' or 'no,' please.
I would have had a stroke from that sort of treatment. I had such anger watching that segment. SO glad you stuck it to them.
The gave him another go at it because they know he makes the truth movement look bad.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have had him on again.
Unfortunately, they are right that he makes the movement look bad.
Finally, Fetzer's talking science. He's interviewing a guest with above average common sense, the planes simply cannot penetrate the building.
I call it *A* building.
Did you ever visit the World Trade Towers? Flip through the original pen & ink drawings? Do you not discern a rather rectilinear box?
OK, Good! We're making progress...
So, What makes it stand-up? Do we not require triangular bracing to prevent side-to-side sway? Otherwise, it's going to act exactly the same way as a book-shelf, WHEREAS it doesn't matter if there are 100 shelves, It MUST tilt in a perfectly perpindicular manner. It simply can't dissappear into it's footprint.
Everytime we visit this rediculous notion of 'The melting steel,' we seem to overlook the fact it's encased in solid concrete. Strong concrete at that. So, how do we go about melting ALL that vertical steel?
Secondly, where is the 'tail section'? Matter is displaced in a forward manner. At some point, this energy is deffused. It's spent. So, how does the tail self-destruct? ...It's exploded!
He didn't say that, did he?
Please tell me he didn't say that the towers were like a book case and MUST tilt in a perpendicular manner.
Please tell me he didn't say that the steel columns were encased in solid concrete.
Please tell me he didn't say the fact that the tail section was not recovered intact is somehow nefarious.
That would just be embarrassing if he said any of those things.
why we need philosophers and the study of philosophy. Now if we could get more of thes guys on the job.
that we need better and more intelligent spokesmen on the job.
If you were able to get a blown up version of this photo, you could point out that the steel beams were obviously cut with thermite. This photo solidified the fact to me. It is incontrovertible.
that is good stuff. A picture speaks a thousand words. I think the images of ground zero are quite powerful in that the devastation is so complete. Where are the chunks of concrete? Where are chunks of anything, except for huge chunks of steel tubing?
The powerful thing about this particular photo is that, with the fireman standing in the foreground, you can put the size of the steel into perspective. It's HUGE and it's a clean cut, as if it had been sliced. Which, of course, as we know, is exactly what happened. It was sliced by the charge strapped to the beam.
Fetzer you did a great job on the show, well answered , you seemed well prepared.
Did you notice that every time Jim made a great point the hosts just tried to sabotage it by talking over him?
America is GUILTY of many crimes that have gone unheeded. They MUST NOT get away with 911! PERIOD!
Stand for SOMETHING...or you'll fall for ANYTHING!!
Jim Fetzer is a hero.
He was completely setup by FOX and he stood his ground and gave them nothing to use against him. He did not lose his cool. What a great example he is for how to take on the MSN.