Live Interview Tonight with James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Woods

We are having an interactive interview with Professor James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood tonight at 10PM Eastern. You can listen via Shoutcast, Real Player, Windows media player or Itunes. You can participate by joining a Skypecast as well. Details:

Judy wood is a no

Judy wood is a no planer..... end of discussion.

Show ""videohoax"- funny name" by Anonymous (not verified)

Anonymous...typical for a no planer

Planehuggers; something you should be calling the government.

Truth seekers; The 9/11 movement.

videohoax is a no

videohoax is a no planer..... end of discussion.

Now, aren't we better off knowing that?

To anyone

who decides to call into this show - be careful - it is the goal of organized disruption to create chaos and articial disputes.

remain calm and simply state that the 9/11 Truth movement does not advocate their work.

Try to not personally attack them. That is what they want - and that is what they are designed to do - make us all look like a bunch of angry upset crazy people.

Simply state that they do not represent the interests of this movement or the victim's families or represent any credible line of research.

I would direct questions to the moderator - and ask why they would even invite these two on the air when there are so many credible researchers out there. Attempt to embarass the interviewer.

good advice

I'll second that.

"who decides to call into

"who decides to call into this show - be careful - it is the goal of organized disruption to create chaos and articial disputes."

Agreed. Nico et al feed off of bad vibes.

Fetzer begins his one man show: a tragedy in three parts

Come one, come all, watch the amazing Jim Fetzer destroy his last thimble of credibility!

With all the piercing questions surrounding 9-11, Fetzer makes the "space beam" strawman his centerpiece. Simultaneously, he joins up with the character assassins of Dr. Jones and attempts a hostile takeover of ST911 which fails miserably.

Is there any doubt as to what is going on here? Fetzer conveniently began his destructive path at the same time the "no plane-micronuke-everyone is an agent" disruptors began infesting 911blogger with their "space beam" echo chamber.

The strategy is always the same: Sectarian divide and conquer tactics, label everyone an agent, and push the latest fringe theory that can be easily disproven. It's a tired playbook that could use a few updates. I am sure after the "space beam" fails, they will move on to another scheme...Or maybe Fetzer can can go on national TV again and tell us how Barbara Olson is alive.


Will Elvis and Jim Morrison

Will Elvis and Jim Morrison be guest speakers too? ;)

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!

Who is

And why are you hosting this crap?

We host anybody, We believe

We are a site that represents a small group of folks that gater in a voice program called Paltalk, where we have a room called 911Was An Inside Job.

We host anybody, and let them interact with folks in Paltalk and Skype. We believe in being open minded in all areas, we niether endorse nor oppose any of our guests, we let the people that call in do that! this Sunday will be interviewing someone with opposing views, not sure but I think David Hawkins, will find out for sure and post when I do.

I personally have not kept up with the "who's who" in the truth movement, so please don't shoot the messenger, just get on Skype and voice your opinions to the Guest! :)

'so please don't shoot the messenger'

what else is there (around here)? :)

"I didn't say it would be easy, Neo, I said it would be the truth."

Fetzer/Woods is not easy.

Shooting the messenger is.

Not shooting, just asking

If you don't keep up on who's who - how did you find them?

I hope people skype in some damn good questions...

Try to see if Woods will

Try to see if Woods will agree to update her (and Reynolds) misleading image/video usage as well.

Reynolds/Woods current image/video usage

This image misleads people into believing that the spire just turned into dust. It does not show that the spire collapsed leaving dust behind, but rather implies that it just vaporized.

This image shows the beginning of the collapse of the spire, but due to poor quality and exaggerated contrast ratios it appears the spire turns into dust.

I have already seen on the Randi Rhodes forum the image series and animated gif above used to argue that the core turned into dust completely. These images are misleading. It is only reasonable that they provide all footage, including that which shows the numerous horizontal floor slabs which would have generated the dust which they claim to be steel vaporizing from a directed energy weapon.

Ask them to provide these images

These pictures clearly show there was more than just steel beams that remained standing. Obviously these floors would have been full of debris from the collapses and would have released that pulverized debris when they fell.

Ask them to provide these videos
To view the second clip you will need the 3ivx codec which you can find at

These two video clips show the spire collapsing, not being obliterated by a 'beam weapon'.

To not show these video and images is not acceptable. Given that the 2 items that are provided are either misleading or of poor quality it is important that they share the better photographic and video evidence as well to show that they are not intentionally using deceptive items.

The 2nd video you cite IS in Dr Wood's paper,

and has been there a long time. In addition, she also references a CNN video. All the videos clearly show the spire turning to dust as it falls.

cbbrooklyn=killtown in disguise

hey killtown, why do you continue to post under the name cbbrooklyn? doesn't the government have a better use for you, like being a park ranger or something?

I am not killtown

I am not killtown

more relevant photos for

more relevant photos for Woods/Fetzer. click for higher res.

You know they will ignore

You know they will ignore these photo's, especially the one showing a parking lot fire... those cares are going up one by one because of their proximity to one another...

They pack them in very tight in lower manhatten, space is at a premium...

Fetzer, Woods, et. al. are failing in their task to create disharmony in the movement. By their actions they have solidified agreement that disinformation is in our midsts. They have played one of their Aces (Fetzer) and he proves to be no more potent than a joker...

Jim Who? Judy Who?

Move on.

Now That You Know, What Can You Do? Activism Section

"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."

Where is the feed

Where is the feed information? It was there b4 now it's gone...

CCC-Media: Watch, Read, Think - Decide!

Its in the

Its in the node:

Had to move it around, tables in teaser was messing up rest of front page.

Also Skypecast time is listed wrong, I will be manually starting it at 9:30pm, interview at 10, so there will be dead air during that 1/2 hour

I see the skyecast and

I see the skyecast and paltalk info but nothing is listed under the streams... It was when I first checked, not now.

CCC-Media: Watch, Read, Think - Decide!

Ah is ok, it's back now.

Ah is ok, it's back now. Wierd. Must be a slow page load.

CCC-Media: Watch, Read, Think - Decide!

Who is the host/interviewer?

Is this person someone who posts here?

The host is the person who

The host is the person who posted the blog - redpill.

CCC-Media: Watch, Read, Think - Decide!

Actually a friend of mine,

Actually a friend of mine, Charles Guliani from Boston, he doesnt post here, he's not too internet savvy


because your very neutral "we host anybody" statement above is somewhat belied by his obvious enthusiasm for the Space Beam Fantasy.

I'm not saying that I object to you having them on, but a more neutral host would be more appealing to me.

Oooooh, Fetzer's mad at us here at 911blogger

for being ignorant and unscientific, and attacking the people who are doing the most to advance 9/11 science.



Thanks redpill

great show.

Cool, JohnGault!

I'm glad you liked it! I only wish more folks would have "called in" with their questions.

Thanks for tuning in!


Are you doing?

"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."

scientific exploration of a hypothesis, Jon

Do you have an alternative theory which accounts for all of the observed phenomena?


Couldn't it be done behind closed doors as opposed to publicly where the media would use said, "scientific exploration" against us in a second? What part of that don't you, Judy Wood, and Jim Fetzer understand? This ENTIRE struggle is an uphill battle, yet, people like the previously mentioned want to make our fight that much harder. Do you have any idea how many times I've had discussions with people like dz about "theories"? "Theories" that could probably be used against us by the mainstream media, but aren't because it's awfully hard to use information that was spoken about in a private manner.

What part of that concept don't you understand?

"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."

The goal is not to appease the media, Jon

The goal is to discover the truth of the events of 9/11.

The media IS one of the perps Jon.

They created the "planes" you saw, they peddled the lies, they reinforced the fairy tale.

I recommend for your consideration this article posted by dz last week. It contains an extensive list of subjects NOT discussed by the media.

Please see:


I'm done...

I have nothing but contempt for you and your friends.

"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."

Information overload?

I know how pesky facts can be.

Better luck next time.

More like...

A sanity check... of which you and your friends have NEVER partaken in.

"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."

And again dipshit...

I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to the Queen Beam.

"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."

great article!

JohnGault, great article you linked too. extensive lists of things the MSM will not mention because, along with other reasons, the MSM is not our friend! they do not have our back and they do not look out for our interests. they do not work for us, and they do not seek to inform us. this is sadly a fact that self appointed 9/11 'truth' leaders (Jon&John) don't understand or more likely, do understand and try to obfuscate.

the road to 9/11 truth does not go thru FOX studios or the front page of the NYTimes.


Show "glad you enjoyed it" by JohnGault

And I believe...

I was talking to Judy Wood.

"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 "thanks to" by Anonymous (not verified) completely discredited itself

This was a pro- Space Beams love fest -- not an impartial investigation and interview.

New Article About HAARP

New article link just added to, details the HAARP device in Alaska:


Background of the HAARP Project

Prepared by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH



dammit CB, stop introducing facts.

didn't you get the memo?

I'll just look at facts, such as pictures of gaping holes @ WTC

John G, when will the ppl here look at the facts?? 

The facist attitude of a small number of so-called "truthers" here kinda reminds me of the small group of "elites" controlling/killing the world, with their brainwashing/mind controlling techniques and all, don't you agree? (i.e. discouraging others from looking at evidence.)


But I'll just stick to the facts, like this picture from Dr Wood's paper. What could have caused that big hole in WTC 6? Where did the building debris go? What about those round holes in WTC 5? What could have caused these, if not Space Beams? (Perhaps a beam from HAARP reflected back to earth via an orbiting satellite?) A phaser set to kill?? Beam Me Up Scotty!


Some of them will never look

yet their shrill and hollow attacks do not represent the wider audience who come here seeking answers.

As you and I are aware, reasonable people have no problem understanding the facts which point towards the use of exotic weaponry at the WTC complex on 9/11. Those who feign ignorance do so in a transparent attempt to hinder the dissemination of the truth. Whenever they are cornered by a simple question, they run like rats.The readers will make their own judgements as to what these behaviors reveal about these individuals.

The photographic evidence of the WTC complex is among their worst nightmares. It appears they have NO explanation to offer, relying instead an infantile ad hominen attacks and unsupported lies to divert attention from this damning evidence.

In the article I referenced above (from dz's post) there is a quote which suggest a possible source of opposition to the dissemination of the truth:

"CIA/Media Cooperation-Both the civilian and military intelligence agencies are completely entrenched in our media and now, on line. It is no secret that CIA employees and paid shills, infest our media and edit, dilute, obscure and propagandize the real truth at every level"

If it walks like a duck...

WHAT Caused this Gaping Hole in WTC 6???

A NEW picture recently added to Dr Wood's paper


Could a Space Beam have done this?

Where did all the building debris go?

Could a Space Beam account for this and all the other evidence?




Yeah what debris...

The lies being pushed by Woods, Fetzer and co are disgusting...

Where did all the building debris go?

mmmm - this picture shows a little bit and I have hundreds more...

Yeah... total disintegration... can't you see !!!! look harder

Show "hmmm... how 'bout looking with a clear head?" by CB_Brooklyn


Jim Fetzer is a dishonest liar. I asked him specifically why he is lying about how we are currently building an oil pipeline through Northern Afghanistan. He simply repeated this lie, said it was common knowledge, and added that we are building 2 major military bases along the path of the pipeline. This not only false, it is patently false in several ways.

1. Various companies have discussed building a pipeline, but even 5 years after 9/11 it is still in the planning stages.
2. It was never an oil pipeline, it was a natural gas pipeline, which would serve Pakistan or India.
3. The 2 major military bases at Bagram and Khandahar are not in Northern Afghanistan, and are not located on any logical path for a pipeline if there were one.
4. A pipeline which ran through northern Afghanistan would not run anywhere you would want it to.

Afghanistan's New Pipeline Deal May Be Just Another Pipe Dream

By Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi and Amanullah Nasrat

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 17, 2006 (ENS) - The deal has been signed, the partners agreed. Within the next two years, Afghan government officials say, construction will begin on a major gas pipeline that will extend from energy rich Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, and perhaps on to India.

But even before the ink had dried on the mid-February agreement in Ashgabat, analysts were second guessing the deal. Despite the brave face shown by the major players, this latest plan could follow several early versions into oblivion – and for the same reason, that instability in Afghanistan casts doubt over any infrastructure project, especially such a big one.

Why does Jim Fetzer continue to lie, even about relatively minor stuff, after people have told him he is wrong? What else is he lying about?

I was listening. He flipped

I was listening. He flipped out like a raging mad man to your statements. Ranting about how it is 'common knowledge', mocking you for your question, etc. despite him being wrong. That is his issue.. that he accepts anything he reads, and apparently never challenges the data if it fits his understanding.

Fezter didn't see the questions typed in last night.

They were relayed during the interview. The moderator must have not considered it important or pertinent enough to the topic.


So.. he says oil instead of natural gas. So what???


If you want to be that detailed and accurate about things, why not be specific about what might have destroyed the WTC? 


It makes a HUGE difference. Saying, "The US is building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and building two huge bases to protect it" evokes all sorts of cool Dick-Cheney-is-stealing-their-oil conspiracy theories. If he said the truth, "Some Central Asian companies are considering building a pipeline to provide natural gas to South Asia, but they haven't decided yet because the security situation is uncertain", would only evoke a disinterested shrug.

I think it is indeed important to study this

I will tell you why...

How many of you have read the book "The Guns of August?"

It details all the strategy of all the top generals in World War 1 - and how they all expected to win - quick and clean.

Unfortunately - all of their military expertize and theories were based on the LAST big war - and was obsolete. They all failed to take into consideration the advent of new technology (namely mechanized machine guns) - and the war became bogged down in a tragic trench warfare model.

I believe this particular brand of cointelpro that Fetzer and Wood and all the useful idiots who promote it is based on the LAST big war - the 1960s. But what they have failed to take into account AGAIN is the advent of new technology - the information age - the information superhighway.

Simply put - this model of cointelpro cannot work in the information age. In fact, its kinda patheticly weak.

So - what we have here is another example of the 'opposition's grasp exceeding its reach. Like their dellusional PNAC writings that ridiculously believed that they could subjugate an entire nation through a "new Pearl Harbor" - and their shortsighted belief that they could subjugate Iraq - and their shortsighted belief that they could spread american empire around the world - they are making the same tragic mistake here. They are expediting their own demise.

This silly pathetic excuse for organized disruption is soon to become a liability to them. Not only are they making laughingstocks of themselves - they are EXPOSING themselves and providing us with yet one more smoking gun to exploit.

Do you smell that Fetzer? Its blood in the water. The truth is circling like sharks, and i pity the fool who thinks he can throw more lies into the water to appease them.

Albanese has already been exposed

as a scared little lying rat. He swore he saw both "planes" hit the towers. And when it was proven he was in a location making that physically impossible, he refused to discuss it further. Albanese cannot be trusted. He's a perfect example of true cointelpro. He, and the other useful idiots, are making a mockery of the truth.

what location?

Show us the documentation where it was proven where i was when I saw the plane.

Show us.

Since you say it was proven - show us where it is documented.

"when I saw the plane"

what plane?

1) Where were you?

2) What time?

3) What did you see?



you MUST know the answers to these questions already since it was PROVEN that i could not have seen the planes.

how could you have "already proven" this without knowing where i was?

we'll wait.

Waiting for what? You said "when I saw the plane"...

I asked:

What plane?

Where were you?

What time?

What you saw?

Thanks (again).

learn to read

i already answered your question

You answered nothing (because you can't?)

Quoting from your statement:

 "when I saw the plane"

I then asked:  What plane? What time? Where were you? What did you see?

The record (above) shows that you have not answered any of these questions.

Can you not explain your own words?

it certainly has been documented.

When those who have taken screen shots of your posts on 911Blogger, they will be provided, and all will see the little liar you are.


we'll wait.

just to be clear - it was proven that it was impossible for me to have seen the planes.

we'll wait.


I wouldn't bother responding

I wouldn't bother responding to these people.

CB_Brooklyn -> why don't you go haggle this NYPD member of the 9/11 truth movement who is dying from inhaling toxic debris? After all, he is too stupid (to use your words) to see the 'physics'. The last thing we need is some "planehugger" fighting for our cause right?
Having been assigned to the Transit Bureau in the NYPD, I have seen people cut in half by trains, people bleeding out from wounds, compound fractures caused by people just being in a hurry, and countless other morbid forms of human tragedy. You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me.

You are disgusting and apparently brainwashed. You are nothing but a mocking bird. In fact I have seen you ask your idol Nico whether or not the "towers could have been CGI". You are brainwashed, wake the fuck up.

Only cowards use "Anonymous" for their name,

and that means you.

The people brainwashed are those too stupid to understand that emotional responses do not give scientific answers.

That also means you. Put up or shut up. If you can't discuss the science then shut up.

You want justice for the NYPD, FDNY, and all else? Doesn't seem so. 


You are brainwashed, wake the fuck up.


On your birth certificate...

Does it say "CB_Brooklyn"? I'm guessing not. How are you any different than an anonymous poster? You're not.

"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 need to protect myself from

the wild, ad hominem, violent type people in here. Those clowns are prone to violence.

In other words...

You're a coward.

"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."

must be a democrat... hehe 

must be a democrat... hehe 


I have a brain.

btw, are your shill contributions tax deductible? 

Not a very good one...

I don't know. Ask your handler.

"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 hear chickens

do you hear chickens?

oh dear god...

shut up jon.

Unlike you

Jon and I both use our real names

but - lets not digress

you were in the process of proving that it was impossible for me to see the planes


you (Albanese) and Gold are on government payrolls, and armed with machine guns. That's not too hard to picture actually... after all, you and he have been doing nothing but discouraging people from looking at evidence based on scientific laws regarding tv-fakery and directed energy weapons. You and he have been using ad hominems. Same tactics are Hannity/O'Reilly. You and Gold behave just like them. Hey.... perhaps you are them!!! 


You shills are going down. As I've said a few weeks ago, more and more people will be getting involved in this, and you will eventually be replaced. Time to take out the trash - good riddance!!

So expose me

prove that it was impossible for me to see the planes like you claimed.

you started this by calling me a lieing rat (ad hominum attack) and claiming it was PROVEN that i could not have seen the planes.

gee - you seem to do alot of twisting and turning and ducking and weaving - but the question remains the same.

Prove me a liar

we'll wait

"Prove me a liar"...well, okay

We need only look back a page or so and there we find the following:

John Albanese:  “Show us the documentation where it was proven where i was when I saw the plane.” 

    I replied: 

"when I saw the plane"

what plane?1) Where were you?2) What time?3) What did you see?Thanks.

   You replied:


you MUST know the answers to these questions already since it was PROVEN that i could not have seen the could you have "already proven" this without knowing where i was?we'll wait.

     I then repeated your statement and my questions.

     You replied:

learn to read

i already answered your question.   

  - - - - - - - -

 That is not true. You did not answer any of my questions. You are a liar. There is your proof.

another ploy

by these clowns is to just play dumb

again - and for the last time-

This thread started with the accusation by CB Brooklyn that i am "a lying rat" because it has been proven that i lied about seeing the planes - because it was PROVEN that it was physically impossible for me to have seen them from where i was.

The challenge is now for CB Brooklyn to show us the proof. He is the one making accusations.

now go back to your manager and tell him that this particular brand of cointelpro is failing

You have been proven to be a liar

You asked for it. You got it.

You better send for back-up.


but i can't read your comment. you have a negative 5 vote from the community.


How "scientific" of you.

How "scientific" of you. Entirely avoid the eye witness report of an NYPD officer who is a 9/11 truth advocate, and instead attack me for posting anonymously. Why is that an issue? Because you can't attack me personally?

So, what is your "scientific" answer to his testimony? Go ahead and tell everyone he is a liar. Obviously he is right? What other "scientific" explanation could there be?

While your at it, go ahead and tell me that all of these members of are on the government payroll too

The pier was suddenly packed with people and in the distance we could see smoke. We ran towards the water to find out what had happened. .. Nothing could have prepared us for the scene we were to witness a few moments later: a second plane was flying directly into the other tower.

I woke up to the sound of the first plane flying overhead. I said to myself "wow that sounds like it is pretty low" then I heard it crash and jumped out of bed.

My Neighbor Survived .. His office was on the 30th floor of 3 World Trade Center (not one of the towers). His office faced the towers and he saw both planes hit.

I work in a building on Water St, probaby less than a mile from WTC .. While standing there, I caught a sight of another airplane, a twin engine jet, it was banking to right. It came, what seemed like slightly below where we were and smashed straight into the other tower. A huge fire ball went up covering almost the entire upper third of the tower. Then it was gone and the second tower was on fire.

My cousin, Maryann, worked in the WTC for the Port Authority of NY and NJ. .. She was on her way to work, on a bus in NYC, when she saw the first plane hit. She, and the others on the bus thought it was an accident. .. Then she saw the second plane hit and realized it was no accident.

My wife, Stacy, worked in tower #2, 21st floor. She was in a meeting at 8:45 when the first plane crashed into tower #1. She heard the plane coming in, loud enough to make her think it was flying unusually close to the buildings.

I live 2 blocks from where the WTC used to stand .. I saw the second plane hit the building as I was on the phone with my wife who was staying at her parents with my 3 week old son .. I saw debris fly everywhere and a huge fireball.

A few minutes later, another jet roars overhead, and plows into the second tower. It looked kind of like it tried to change course at the last second - the plane sort of banked as it approached the tower.

So I licked my wounds and made my way northeast, staying out of collapse radius for the towers. As I crossed the area directly east of the Towers, I saw bits of what was obviously airplane parts and some chunks of building. No doubt about it, it was an airplane.

These are from 9 regular people, all members of a large website called It wouldn't take you five minutes to find this information, and probably even see how long they have been members, etc. You just write them all off as liars without as much as a thought. I guess that is because you are so "scientific".

great post anonymous...

great post anonymous...

btw - that thread is from September 11, 2001

But of course

This is the goal of organized disruption - to get us to waste our time disproving their theories - instead of organizing.

but - that's ok because i have a feeling the fetzer-woods-haupt-reynolds crowd is on the verge of a very rude awakening.

i don't see you spending anytime disproving their theories

your time is spent griping about them bringing down your precious truth movement with outrageous space beam very alexander cockburn of you.

Documents may be missing

Albanese posted a thread/blog here about his alleged eyewitness account. It was determined he was in an office building on the Upper West Side, about three miles north of the Towers, at or near the Victoria's Secret corporate headquarters.

That vantage point immediately established that Albanese was not positioned to see the alleged UA175 impact incident (south face of South Tower).

Albanese was then asked a few simple questions about what he *did* see, including:

1. What flight path did you see the alleged UA175 take?
2. What flight path did you see the alleged AA11 take?
3. Did you get a clear view of the livery of the alleged AA11, and if so, for how many seconds?

In response to these questions, Albanese threw a temper tantrum and declared he would never speak of his alleged eyewitness experience again.

Said blogpost/thread is no longer easily accessible. It is possible or even likely that Albanese delted the thread, as is his wont when called on his bullshit.

You may recall that at approximately the same time he posted a thread of "firefighter plane witness" accounts. They were quickly picked apart; particulary Albanese's star witness who said "we all saw the second plane." Albanese had in fact taken the quote out of context -- the firehouse on the Upper East Side "all saw the seocnd plane" watching WABC-7 on television. Albanese quickly deleted the thread after he was called on it.

All lies

Rewording a lie does not make it true.

you state: "That vantage point immediately established that Albanese was not positioned to see the alleged UA175 impact incident"

Show us the documentation. Show us how this was "established"

Show us the address of the building and vantage point from which i was viewing. Show us how this was proven.

You see - this is typical of the no-planes death beam mini-nuke tin foil hat disruptors. all lies all the time.

confirmation Albanese deleted thread

Your response is indicative that you have indeed deleted the thread in question.

If you want to provide the location of your alleged eyewitness event, like a serious person would, go ahead and do so.

Here, again, are the open questions that you will/would answer if you are a serious 9/11 researcher:

1. What flight path did you see the alleged UA175 take?
2. What flight path did you see the alleged AA11 take?
3. Did you get a clear view of the livery of the alleged AA11, and if so, for how many seconds?

These are the kinds of simple questions that honest witnesses have answered before. your continued evasion can be taken as evidence you are indeed the BS artist you seem to be.

If this is typical logic I think we won

Also, the building is 6 miles (approx.) from his office at the previous Victoria Secrets corporate headquarters, not three.

My math isn't good and I made a mistake when I first measured it.

He said he and all his office buddies saw both planes hit.

"We were watching it approach the South Tower and then saw it hit" is an extremely close paraphrase.

He also said he saw it bank sharply right before it hit.

I'm open to eyewitness testimony. I generally think it is good. But John refuses to answer any questions about what he saw, claiming he's already answered many times.

Then he gives a list of witnesses, half or more of whom did not actually see the "airplane" hit!

It was very dumb. And we are still waiting. In a few years the number of "witnesses" will probably increase. :)

We've asked for a list of witnesses. Since he says there are thousands, that souldn't be a problem.

It reminds me of Mark Rabinowitz and John Judge who swear there were "thousands" and "everybody in Washington" who witnessed the commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. And that anyone who says otherwise is working for the other side. Same Schtick. And I'm not buying it.

I have discovered from asking around downtown that there are not "thousands" of witnesses, at least that we can find.

Not even one yet.

Other people in the neighborhood are surprised at this too. People in the neighborhood did not know it was an airplane initially. They had to be told that.

However, I did find a credible witness who said, without any prompting on my part, that he was standing in a place where he should have see and heard an airplane, but did neither. One block and a half away.

I digress.

John keeps harping on about how infiltration is a problem, yet I don't hear him mention infiltration by foreign intelligence officers. He focuses on the American government, which I think is a skewed viewpoint.

Just to add to his point.

Its amazing

how many lies you can fit into one post


Don't hold your breath folks.

Like i said - this model of organized disruption does not work in the information age. you can't just hand out lies like this when everyone has access to this technology.

you actually have to show documentation for what you say.

The lack of documentation then become self evident and the house of cards collapses under its own weight.

But - lets give him a chance to respond. The contention is that it was proven that i could not have seen the planes because i was in a location where it was physically impossible.

Lets see the documentation of this. Lets see him demonstrate WHERE i was and what my vantage point was.

we'll wait

Interesting to note

It is interesting to note that the same people who advocated no planes appear to now advocate space beams.

Why is it that the same group of people always seem to embrace the most unsubstantiated and ridiculous research available?

You see, I could believe that MAYBE someone like Morgan Reynolds could be hoodwinked into believing TVFakery. Aferall, he DID work in the Bush administration and is therefore possibly marginally retarded.

But, for him now to ALSO be embracing Judy Woods' research is frankly laughable..

Yet - he dismisses the work of Stephen Jones which is much more thorough and scholary a theory.

Now, what is wrong with this picture?

You see, I can believe anyone can be guilty of making one mistake. But, when you see a pattern like this of habitual bullshitism, you have to call a spade a spade.

Directed Energy Weapons / TV-Fakery are Based on Laws of Physics

Directed Energy Weapons / TV-Fakery at the WTC are Based on Laws of Physics.




what's wrong with the picture is that you, John Albanese, are too stupid to understand simple logic, common sense, and physical laws.


You and the other cointelpro will not prevent the Truth from coming out. 

I was just thinking that...

The same exact morons who were promoting "TV Fakery" religiously are now promoting what the Queen Beam has to say. Could you guys be ANY more obvious? Really, you're insulting my intelligence.

"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."

what's obvious is that....

those against tv-fakery and directed energy weapons are pretty keen with ad hominems. And you're the queen of them all.

No actually...

We just want to succeed, and you're in our way, but I'm sure you already knew that.

"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."

Partial Truth will Not lead to Success.

Complete Truth will.

To see who's in the way, look in a mirror.


Those not promoting space beams / tv-fakery are doing exactly what the global elite wants them to do. And the elite know they can count on people like Gold and Albanese, with all the dumbing down of America and so forth.

Jon Gold: here's a simple question.. what's one plus one? Sorry if it's too confusing.


Bush said they extracted data from a "terrorist" claiming bombs were planted in the WTC! Can't you see you're being set up? Stop being so closed minded and wake up already.

So who do you work for? DIA?

So who do you work for? DIA? USAID? CIA?  A PR Firm? 

Was that a typo?

Those promoting space beams / tv-fakery are doing exactly what the global elite wants them to do.

I took out the word "not" to make the statement accurate. I'm guessing that was a mistake on your part.

"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."

This could be Alexander Cockburn speaking

"we, the anti-war left just want to succeed and you tin foil space beam twoofers are getting in the way

christ mary...

theres Jon "my way or the highway" Gold again..shut up jon, you arrogant prick.

first they ignore you, then they laught at you, then they fight you and then you win - ghandi

Open debate on everything now

get a name..

get a name..

Jimmy Walter's Reward!

So when are you going to collect the 1million bucks from JimmyWalter since you claim the towers were brought down without the use of explosives???

hey that's an interesting observasion!!

But actually, Drs Wood/Reynolds say explosives may have been used on the lower levels. (This would account for the FDNY testimony at the WTC Task Force Interviews.)


But if it is proven false, then you're right about the $1 million :-) 

Just want to apologize

Just wanted to apologize to all who entered the Skypecast and text chat who did not get a chance to speak or have their questions addressed I was having major problems with Skype and juggling many things at once, normally it runs much smoother then that.

That being said, I also want folks to know that we extend an open invitation to ANYONE on here at to be the primary guest on our format, so that you can voice your position as well.

If interested, contact me at I am user "Phillynet", or contact me via Skype, my Skype username is "glptechradio2"

I can accomodate you as a "Guest" on our show through Skype or standard phone, (I would call you if long distance is an issue)

I think you are doing a

I think you are doing a great job redpill...

But the only problem I have is that you cannot abdicate your responsibility for evaluating who should be a guest. Do you have some standard?

I am not being critical, but these are strange days we are living in.

From my vantage point, it looks like your friend Charles used your platform to promote disinformation to the 9/11 Truth community.  And I think many would agree. 

Thanks, Charlie tends to be

Thanks, Charlie tends to be "nice" to the guests, just out of respect, I can assure you that he has concerns about last nights guests new "beam" theory, and was shocked to here of them also.

We are truly open to all potential guests, I just personally have not been involved with the choosing of such, but after seeing the many comments, I will now take a more proactive approach to the choosing of our guests, and again put out there an open invitation to all. ( i am more the tech guy and try to stay out of the politics)

I have the utmost respect for many of you who have posted comments here and would love to have you all involved!

Well I would have liked to

Well I would have liked to respond to Fetzers & Judy's personal and unfounded tirade to the fact I questioned their theories.

Scientists? pfft. Scientists welcome questions so they can PROVE their FACTS, but they have only hypothesis and supposition so they get defensive, or attack anyone who requests actual qualitative and quantitative, impirical evidence.

Even Jeff Rense is speaking out against no-planes disinfo

Today on the Alex Jones show! W00T!

Thanks Jeff!

Rense should stick to his areas of expertise...

... which apparently includes haunted houses and bigfoot sightings. Leave the hard thinking to the big boys.


Actually, Jeff is a pretty knowledgeable guy depsite what I might think of his site.

The point being: just about EVERYONE is on to your bullshit!


WTC5 Disintegration Beam - DEBUNKED

Below is a hi-res picture of the hole in the roof of WTC5...

It needs no words and to me is CONCLUSIVE proof that the damage on the roof was not done by a disintegration ray.

Below is the original picture...

Free Image Hosting at

Thanks for posting this.

It's a perfect example of the stupidity and immaturity of the ad hominem people in here

Now let's look in the WTC6 Hole

This one's for Fetz...

Yeah no debris in the WTC6 hole... Hey Jim

Look at the precision cut by the death ray... everything totally disintegrated... look it's true

Another angle for good measure...

first off...

no one has offer to conclusively prove a death ray, disintegration beam, photon ray or anything. it has simply been pointed out that a significant amount of damage was caused to every building with the prefix WTC on 9/11, and that this damage is scientifically interesting in and of itself. for instance...

here is a shot above from perhaps a helicopter:

in which we see one of the WFC buildings (#3? green dome roof, bottom right), WTC 1 remains directly above WFC with a significant amount of the north wall still standing, WTC6 of the left of the north wall of WTC1 and more or less in the middle of the picture, and WTC7 in the upper left of the picture. WTC5 can partially be seen above WTC6 in the top part of the picture. it may have to use this annotated aerial shot for visual reference.

what could have caused the damage to the roof of WTC6? this building is shown with basically a complete hole in the center. you linked to a clear aerial shot of the hole or crater in WTC6, above. your other linked picture shows that the north wall of WTC1 did not collapse because WTC6 walls next to it is more or less standing-- the signicant damage to WTC6 is a crater carved out of the center. so if 110 stores of the north wall of WTC1 collapsed onto WTC6, where did they go?

WTC6 is ~9 story building and 110 stories are reported to have collapsed into it..

Yeah no debris in the WTC6 hole...

yea, you're correct! this is further and more succulently analyzed here:

Ground Zero Smoking Gun #3: What the Hell Happened to the North Wall of WTC1

WTC5-- Normal Verus Abnormal Building Damage

Ground Zero Smoking Cannon: Where Are All the Core Columns and Beams???

with references to The Star Wars Beam Weapon by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

no one is offering conclusive proof that the buildings prefixed with WTC were destroyed by a death ray, disintegration ray or string ray on 9/11, but people have put forth conclusive proof to scientifically unique evidence exists (or existed) at GZ, much of which is not addressed by any current alternative theory, specifically, thermate +/- RDX. thermate cannot account for the toasted cars:

take it or leave it.


torrent up

Interview of Prof. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood Nov. 30th 2006

Personal Investment

In reading through all of the haggling back and forth, it would appear there is tremendous personal investment on everyone's part. IMHO, those attacking appear to have the most to lose. I have not been an active researcher like many who are staking their positions here, but I do try to look at the factual information and the logic to the thinking.

In the case of the star wars beam proposition, it would appear to be looking at the loss of material, the problems with the ground shaking, the basement structure that, had it fallen apart, would have cause tremendous damage to the subway system in Lower Manhattan. Further, it looks at the unusual visual evidence at the site itself (that being the unusual holes in WTC 5 and 6) as well as evidence away from the site.

Now, I am sure that any number for folks will try to beat my post silly. Don't waste your time. The purpose of this effort is expose those who perpetrated these events. The main effort should continue to be to get more people to think about those things that were impossible. Once folks have "awakened", then let them all look at the various research and see what makes the most sense and takes into account the most data. I think everyone that is truly interested in exposing the truth should encourage any and all viewpoints, not just those that support their "staked" position.

Come on folks, we shouldn't be fighting each other, we should be encouraging more folks to give their own perspectives. Read more, think more, bicker less, waste less energy being eggheads with personal vendettas. No one wins if the truth is not exposed?

This is not personal, it's about TRUTH and JUSTICE

I'm sure folks appreciate your conciliatory approach and in theory it makes sense.

Unfortunately the group, who continually promote FACTLESS and OUTLANDISH theories are only helping the perps (and I'm sure they know it).

You state...

No one wins if the truth is not exposed

I disagree, the perps win and I'm sure they are and will continue to do their best to hinder and prevent wider acceptance of 9/11 Truth and this includes deep infiltration of the 9/11 truth movement acting as researchers, with a view to "poison the well".

The main effort should continue to be to get more people to think about those things that were impossible.

I cannot comprehend the above statement, how does it help in getting the truth to people.

Hopefully in time, if you thoroughly research the FACTS it will be as obvious as it is to most of us.

Good luck with your research.

cough cough cough...

ummmmmm, and what are those facts??

Dr Wood Updates Star Wars Beam Weapon Paper

New pictures and descriptions of toasted cars


Any Valid Hypothesis Must Take Into Account ALL The Evidence

(pictures below from Dr Judy Wood's paper)
What on Earth Could Have Toasted These Cars at the WTC?
Many Cars Were More Than 1/2 Mile from the WTC

Military Website:The Strategic Value of Space-Based Laser Weapon

Note that this paper was written in 1982


Document created: 21 February 01
Air University Review, March-April 1982

The Strategic Value of
Space-Based Laser Weapons

Dr. Barry J. Smernoff


some excerpts:

Laser weapons, based in space and capable of the global projection of power to attack a wide range of targets—satellites, aircraft, and missiles—have attracted an increasing level of attention during the past several years.

The advent of space laser weapons during this decade might make a military and geopolitical virtue out of technological necessity.

Operating at a level of approximately $200 million per year, the U.S. high-energy laser (HEL) program has been the single largest technology base program sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD) during the past five years. This fact signals both its relative importance within the broad portfolio of military research and development programs and the favorable expectations associated with it.

In many important ways, the evolution of space laser weapons in the United States during the 1980s may prove to be quite similar to the development of the ICBM during the 1950s.


Full Paper Here

NASA Website Article: "The Space Laser Business Model"

The Space Laser Business Model
Industrial Productivity/Manufacturing Technology

Originating Technology/ NASA Contribution

Creating long-duration, high-powered lasers, for satellites, that can withstand the type of optical misalignment and damage dished out by the unforgiving environment of space, is work that is unique to NASA. It is complicated, specific work, where each step forward is into uncharted territory.


Full Article Here

Military Website Article: Using Lasers in Space

Using Lasers in Space
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection

Jonathan W. Campbell, Colonel, USAFR
December 2000



Stop spamming the website, Charlie

dz, will you please flush this a-hole!

SPACE.COM: E-Weapons:Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching—and at the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may well signal a revolution in military hardware—perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.

Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.


Military Website: The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility

The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) is the ideal choice to host exploration of future laser technologies. Appointed the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command's (SMDC) "Directed Energy Center for Test and Evaluation," HELSTF boasts a unique infrastructure with extensive capabilities for ground-based directed energy testing and evaluation. Located on White Sands Missile Range, in southern New Mexico, HELSTF has access to 3,200 square miles of controlled land and 7,000 square miles of controlled air space in which to conduct live fire, lethality, and vulnerability testing, as well as laser/material interactions.


Full Article Here

US House of Representatives Website: Directed Energy Weapons




April 3, 2003


Transcript Here

Military Website Paper: High Energy Lasers

Accession Number : ADA151279

Title : High Energy Lasers: A Primer on Directed Energy Weapons for Space Use.

Descriptive Note : Master's thesis,


Personal Author(s) : Ziska,R. F.

Report Date : SEP 1984

Pagination or Media Count : 86


Abstract Here

Military Website Article: Introducing the Particle-Beam Weapon

Air University Review, July-August 1984

Introducing the Particle-Beam Weapon

Dr. Richard M. Roberds

It is not that the generals and admirals are incompetent, but that the task has passed beyond their competence. Their limitations are due not to a congenital stupidity--as a disillusioned public is so apt to assume--but to the growth of science.

Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, speaking
on weapon-development decisions, 1935

CONSIDERABLE debate has been stirred Cby President Reagan's recent suggestion that the United States embark on a program that would use advanced-technology weaponry to produce an effective defense against Soviet ICBMS. On the one hand, critics argue that the idea of a defensive system that would neutralize the ICBM threat is naive and, at best, would require large expenditures in the development of a very "high-risk" technology. Furthermore, they suggest, even if such a system could be developed, it would be too costly and would also be vulnerable to simple and cheap countermeasures. On the other hand, others argue that we must continue to explore such high-technology options until they have been either proved scientifically unachievable or developed into effective systems. If it were possible to build and effectively deploy such weapons, the payoff in terms of national security would be tremendous. And certainly, if this weaponry is achievable, it must be the United States, not the Soviet Union, that first develops it.



EE TIMES Article: Millimeter-wave energy to be used in a weapon

Millimeter-wave energy to be used in a weapon

EE Times

LONDON — Stories of the soldiers who operate the Arctic radar stations and stand in front of the transmitter to get warm will surely be repeated now that the U.S. Department of Defense has gone public with plans to use the heating effect of millimeter waves within a weapon.


The U.S. Marine Corps says it has developed a 95-GHz system as an antipersonnel "heat ray" and is conducting tests on animals and volunteers.

The supposedly nonlethal weapon, called "active-denial technology," has been in the works for the last 10 years at the Air Force Research Laboratory (Kirtland, N.M.), in tandem with the Marine Corps' Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate. About $40 million has been spent developing the weapon, according to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), although it could be nearly another decade before it is used in conflict. The earliest estimate for deployment is 2009.


[Comment from CB: Let's remember.. the military is always at least 15-20 years ahead from what they publicize. So, subtract 15 years from 2009 for a more reasonable year.]



Photo Examples Of High Energy Sources

see here for much more
Pattern Recognition?

What is common to all of

these images?
(Hint: High-Energy Release?)

Building Monster Opens Mouth and Takes Chunk of WTC 3

It looks as if a gigantic "mouth" bit off a chunk, doesn't it?


Where did it all go? What happened?



(Picture Source )

That looks more like the effects of a bomb

than a StarWars beam.

Note how the space-beam folk

Note how the space-beam folk have to resort to spamming web-sites rather than producing A SINGLE SCIENTIFIC PAPER (FOR PEER REVIEW) EXPLAINING THEIR THEORY.

They attack Steven Jones for his paper on Thermate while at the same time introducing an extraordinary theory themselves, without the extraordinary evidence to go with it.

Disinfo. Disinfo. Disinfo.

could someone please pass on

could someone please pass on a link to the journal which steven jones has submitted his thermate paper to, for peer review?