Steven Jones sends email to Scholars group

From: Make Music 4 HUMAN RIGHTS
Date: Dec 8 2006 1:00 AM

From: nierika
Date: Dec 8 2006 12:50 AM

Steven Jones writes:

December 7, 2006

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

This is to inform you that I (along with chemist Kevin Ryan and many others) have withdrawn from association with Jim Fetzer (JF) and "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and to provide reasons for this action.

1. On the Scholars web site he manages ( ), Jim Fetzer casts aspersions on my research regarding the use of thermates at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 -- which is fine as long as he provides serious technical objections, which he has not done. At the same time, JF is promoting on the web site notions that energy-beams from WTC 7 or from space knocked the Towers down. I have invited Jim repeatedly to view the video of my talk given 11/11/06 at the University of California at Berkeley which provides the latest physical evidences for thermate use, reinforcing the data in my published paper. He admitted this week that he has not done so. My UC-Berkeley talk is here: 4622

In fairness, I list Jim's talk in Tucson (Nov. 13) also, which you may wish to compare: .

Here you will find Jim's assertion that energy beams directed from WTC 7, or from space, may be the "fascinating" explanation for what caused the Twin Towers to collapse. He also here discusses "falling grand pianos." My sincere efforts to correct his evident errors/misinformati on have been twisted and distorted until I want no more to do with such "tar-baby" discussions.

2. I support this statement made recently by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other (previous) members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which many unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."

(This 'ad hoc' committee has sent out a letter you may have received; I have chosen their "option 1.")

3. On the Scholars' web site, Jim has posted an "Open Letter About Steven Jones" which contains the following: "He is now planning to take control of the web site from me." "... his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him."


Jim's accusation against me is simply untrue and he provided no evidence for his assertion. I replied: "What nonsense. As I have written to you privately . Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research .. Your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre."

The uncivil accusations and diatribes remain on the Scholars' web site (actually managed solely by Jim Fetzer) to this day, contrary to the strong objections of many members of the society. You may read my full reply and pleading with Jim to be reasonable, here:

I have asked Jim to promptly remove any papers which I authored from this web site, but he has not done so.

Jim Fetzer may keep his web site and whoever wishes to adhere to "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Many of us thought this was going to be a collective effort where members could have a voice, not Jim's "sole proprietorship. "

It is most unfortunate that others have been dragged into this situation, and I write out of concern for you to explain what has been going on. Of late, Jim F. refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit- the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers. (I and others have written evidence-based rebuttals to these notions.) These two have written caustic ad hominems about me in particular, and it possible that Jim's association with them explains some of his recent behavior.

I hope Jim will view the video of my lecture at UC-Berkeley and then re-evaluate his stance.

4. During Thanksgiving weekend, Jim F unilaterally dismissed me as co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I felt that this action was improper and unfair. Later he hinted that unspecified legal action might be taken against me and/or Alex Floum, a fine researcher. To me, this was the last straw which led to my ending association with Jim F and "his" society.

5. I join Kevin Ryan and many others in withdrawing from the group so that my name will not be attached to the personalized attacks and ray-beams-from- space stuff on

This I did by simply emailing to joinst911@gmail. com
and stating that "I am withdrawing from this society."

(This very email is set up such that if you simply hit "Reply to all" and state "I withdraw from this society", it will send the message to the membership administrator for the society run now by Jim Fetzer.)

6. Some months ago, I initiated and now co-edit with Kevin Ryan the Journal of 9/11 Studies which publishes peer-reviewed papers which adhere to the scientific method. I hope you will take a look at some of the fine papers therein:

I believe this is the proper way to proceed, with careful studies followed by peer-reviewed publication.

7. An ad hoc committee of scholars (from the old group) is forming a research society which will focus on use of the scientific method and peer-reviewed papers. Their website will be closely allied with the Journal of 9/11 Studies (which I co-edit) and will be managed by an elected committee, responsive to the group. Two sample websites are already available to give further information:

This research group intends to keep in touch with its members and to use the scientific method along with civil and respectful discourse. (We won't spend much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers!) If you wish to join this group, you may write to:

Sad but absolutely necessary

I am with the "TRUE SCIENTISTS" all the way.

It will be very telling who remains with the fantasy scholars group.

Good luck to Professor Jones and all the true patriots and justice seekers.

The world owes you all a great debt of gratitude.

Note to self : Remove ALL links

Does thermate explain all the concrete dust?

What caused the concrete to turn to dust? I'm not saying Fetzer is correct, I'm just asking a simple question?

Any explosive will pulverize

Any explosive will pulverize dense material like concrete, it doesn’t have to be a “mini nuke” or “space beams”. And in fact if that’s what your implying, please then provide an example of where a “mini nuke” or “space beam” has ever been used to demolish a building and pulverise it’s concrete.

Yes, but thermate is not an

Yes, but thermate is not an explosive, as Jones himself stresses in his interview with Infowars (blech). Alex even tries saying, "but is that the explosive; is it an explosive reaction," and Steven clarifies by saying that no, it's an incendiary, the reaction is quite rapid, but it's more like a blowtorch than a bomb, though there is an actually explosive (pushes outward with force) form called "super-thermate", though he did not suggest that he had found evidence of it. Thus, the EXPLOSIONS witnessed at the WTC are yet unexplained and could be accounted for EVEN BY A MINI NUKE (and some of the rescue worked have suffered radiation-like symptoms) until a better explanation comes up. But as of now, it's illogical for any of us to say one way or the other because NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Jones' work appears fine to me and does indicate insider action (thus making an investigation all the more credibly urgent), but it does not address the EXPLOSIONS and this ought to made really clear.

A few additions

"could be accounted for EVEN BY A MINI NUKE (and some of the rescue worked have suffered radiation-like symptoms) until a better explanation comes up"

That is, "...could be accounted for by a number of hypotheses, EVEN BY A MINI NUKE..."

"and this ought to made really clear."

Even just for our own sake in discussing this and pursuing an investigation.

What are you a moron or

What are you a moron or disinfo? Dr Jones has stated a billion times that, paraphrasing - "Thermate might have been used in conjunction with regular more explosive demolition charges such as HDX or RDX". "Mini nukes" "Space beams" "No planes" "Tv fakery", all that shit is obvious disinfo that anyone with a brain can spot a mile away.

I had an American-Israeli shill bring up RDX and "det cord"

Without my even mentioning it. I said I thought they were obviously brought down on purpose and he said well, it doesn't make sense--using RDX and det(onation) cord wouldn't be feasible, bla bla bla. He also claimed to have firefighting training but did not know that jet fuel couldn't melt steel.

At the time I thought he was mentioning det cord because he knew that radio transmitter detonators were used and was trying to throw me off. But Scott Forbes' testimony about workmen with spools of "cable" made me think twice. I think the shill may have gotten ahead of himself (and me!) Basically, when you meet a shill, argue a bit but make it seem like you're open to being convinced, and see what kind of things they say--it's fun!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


That's a bit aggressive and

That's a bit aggressive and unwarranted, Dem. Let's just go with a "chill the fuck out" and don't give me any excuses. I hadn't heard him say that but was looking for it, i.e., I hadn't come across it.

look at

standard controlled demolitions. it is in fact a SIGNATURE of controlled demolition. it is a result of high explosives.

Fetzer claims the STEEL turns to dust. this is clearly inaccurate.

to everyone else - please no not give a negative rating to people who are simply asking questions.

Didn't the steel core turn to dust? What happened to it?

I thought the video of the collapse showed the steel columns collapse into dust. Again, I'm not trying to cause an argument, I'm just curious.


The dust is probably just the fireproofing coming off the "spire" (really a section of the core wall) as it falls.

I steel don't see what happened to the steel.

If the fireproofing was what I saw at the end of the collapse turn to dust, where did the steel go? Your explanation just doesn't sit right with me and I'm not sure why. Could you expand on it?

The spire fell straight down

The spire fell straight down leaving dust behind it as is visible via the 2 movies I link in my debunking below.

I.e., he's saying the spire

I.e., he's saying the spire falls but the dust hangs in the air for a minute or two in its place.

why do you imply the steel went anywhere but straight down?

Is there not enough steel at ground zero for you? Do you have any analysis that we can see that indicates that the volume of steel at ground zero is less than what would be expected? Can you show us a study ANYWHERE that indicates that steel turned to dust or disappeared?

IF not - then why are you framing questions in this way?

Steel and dust distraction

I have looked at literally hundreds of photos from ground zero looking for any steel that showed ANY signs of cutting/melting/etc.

I have not seen one member "partially" turned to dust, disintergrated or anything resembling the steel to dust idea.

very very very weak an unsupported claim. 

What the hell is a "core wall"?

Core, maybe.

Wall, maybe.

"Core wall"? Is that a Jones term?

Big Dust

And that photo is?

Of what? From where? Taken when?

Try a real picture, it might be more convincing.

(I love the ladder in the middle, nice touch)

what an embarassing job you have

i feel sorry for you

where do you work? the pentagon?

i suppose its better than going to Iraq - right?

the insurgency is in the last throes - right?

WMDs are a slam dunk - right?

how humiliating to have to take orders from such a clearly inept administration.

i've had jobs that were humiliating also. maybe some day you will grow half a sack and walk away from all this and have stories to tell your kids. maybe you will be able to tell them - with a straight face - that their dad had integrity.

"get a real photo?" that's the best the Pentagon braintrust has to offer america? i feel sorry for you. you are just going through the motions and must know now that you are fighting a losing battle - like Iraq - that the morons above you cannot acknowledge.

Thanks for your concern

Do you believe the photo is authentic (un-doctored)?

Whatever your position, using forged evidence will not help (in the long run).

Is the ladder there to help them climb atop the ruins?

You must have something better than this.

Do you use forgeries in your movies?

Here's an example of FORGED Imagery...


On the image below he has falsely placed a "9:04 am" time stamp approximately 56 minutes earlier than the ACTUAL time... and he has the audacity to claim the south tower is still there

The below image is from 9/11 Eyewitness at the same moment as above image - The actual time is when south tower collapsed almost one hour later, approx 10:00am.

He used his forgery to claim that WTC6 was blown at 9:04 am... Naughty, Naughty Jack White !!!

I find it very interesting that Jim Fetzer wrote a book with Jack White (never knew that).

I suppose anything the "Jack White" has been involved with, requires investigating at sometime in the future.

Both have issues

please refer to this map:

the camera (POV) is on the line connecting the northeast corner of WFC and the southwest  corner of WTC1.

the smoke was blowing south east therefore no smoke (trailing plume) would be visible to the right (west) of this line.

for NASA photo showing smoke direction, please see:

Many sacred cows.

I suspect the Fetzer crew

I suspect the Fetzer crew wants to minimize the link and history between Fetzer and White...

JFK Symposium -

Saturday, May 10, 2003
8:00 - 9:00 AM     Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:00 - 9:30 AM     Introduction and Orientation
    Presenter: James H. Fetzer
9:30 - 12:00 AM    Solving the Assassination from A to Z with Photos
    Presenter: Jack White (bottom)


"Jack White's studies of anomalies in the Apollo space program raise the disturbing question, if man went to the Moon, then why was it necessary to fake so many photos? This parallels his earlier work on JFK, which raised a similar question about alleged assassin Lee Oswald, namely, if he really shot JFK, then why was it necessary to fake evidence to frame a guilty man?"

James H. Fetzer PhD
Dr. Fetzer is a Distinguished McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth


(1) Jack White, 20 Years of Thoughts About the Zapruder Film, included in Assassination Science (1998)

Ron Redmon, a school principal in Indiana, has studied the Z-film extensively. Ron discovered that approximately 20 spectators along the north Elm curb east of the Stemmons sign do not appear to move for more than three seconds, while every spectator on the south curb does move. By overlapping images from two slide projectors, I determined that Ron was probably correct. It seems to me that a single image of the 20 spectators had been repeated over and over. It seems improbable that in this period of time not a single person moved an arm or leg, waved, or changed position to any noticeable extent. Ron speculates that when frames were removed in this sequence, spectator movements would have been very jerky so they had to be stabilized by repeating them. In correspondence with me, Ron also mentioned many other possible signs of tampering, which he summarized in The Fourth Decade in March of 1995. These include:

(A) In frames 144-153 (one-half second), spectator Hugh Betzner has moved a distance which exceeds human speed capability indicating excised frames.
(B) In frames 155-161 (one-third second), spectator Linda Willis has turned 180 degrees and comes in contact with spectator Robert Croft, another instance of superhuman speed... again indicating excised frames.
(C) In frames 161-180 (approximately one second), Linda Willis takes several steps, and Rosemary Willis takes several steps... again much too fast, indicating excised frames.
(D) Looking at the Stemmons sign, in frame 161 it is in perfect condition, but by frame 183 there is a significant notch on the top left edge, yet by frame 188, the notch disappears.
(E) In frame 255, Ron speculates that a fake shadow has obscured driver William Greer, to his west. Since the sun was overhead and to Greer's left, Ron says this shadow is inconsistent.
(F) In frames 312-321, Governor Connally turns 90 degrees in one half-second. Also the white spot on the grass in the background moves more than 10 feet in one half second.
(G) In frames 321-336, JFK's head moves from the seat back to leaning forward with his head in contact with Jackie's left arm in less than one second, seemingly too fast.
(H) In frames 153-155 (one-ninth of a second), a woman who is the thirteenth person east of the Stemmons sign has shifted her feet significantly... more than should be possible.
(I) In frames 335-336 (one-eighteenth of a second), Jackie moves her right arm a significant distance. Ron reminds us that laboratory tests show that a human eye blink is one-twenty-fifth of a second, and a flinch or startle response of moving an arm, leg or head takes one-fifth of a second as a basis for his conclusions.
(J) Comparing the Willis and Betzner photos, which are almost simultaneous in time, Ron notes that in Willis five adults and a child can be seen framed between the posts of the Stemmons sign, but in the Betzner picture, from a similar angle and a split second earlier, the same persons are not seen. Also, two women appearing in Zapruder in this sequence (188-210) should be seen in Willis and Betzner are not seen.
(K) In recent correspondence with me, Ron cites Dan Rather's description of the film and compares it to what is seen. Rather, of course, was one of the first persons to view the Z-film. Early in his commentary. Rather says the film shows... "The President's automobile was preceded by one other car... (the film does not show this) ... the President's black Lincoln automobile made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street (the film does not show this). It got about 35 yards from the corner of Elm and Houston... at the moment the President put his hand up and lurched forward and it was obvious he had been hit." The present film begins with the limo already on Elm at frame 133 and the forward lurch is between frames 188-200. "Governor Connally," Rather continued, "... in the seat just in front of the President, sensed something was wrong... his coat was unbuttoned... and as he turned he extended his right hand toward the President, he exposed his entire shirt front and chest... and was wounded with... a second shot (as Redmon comments, no existing Zapruder frames show the specific action that Rather describes, with the governor in full turn with hand extended toward the President). Rather continues"... the third shot hit the President, and... his head went forward with considerable violence." Was Rather looking at an unaltered different film... or is he just a lousy reporter?

(2) Jack White, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, included in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000)

Abraham Zapruder, with his secretary Marilyn Sitzman, allegedly photographed the JFK assassination while standing on a pedestal in Dealey Plaza. But did he? Recently analyzed evidence shows not only that Zapruder could not have filmed "the Z-film", as it is known, but that this film and several other movies and photos of the assassination have been fabricated, altered, or faked to conceal evidence of the crime.

(3) Jack White, Was Mary Standing in the Street?, included in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)

In 1982 JFK researcher Gary Mack noticed what he thought to be the image of a gunman behind the fence on the knoll in a Moorman slide copy given to him by Robert Groden. Mack asked whether I could copy the image, enlarge and enhance it. By copying the slide at great enlargement and using a wide range of exposure stops, I was able to derive a number of optimum exposures which show in clear detail the face of a man whose chin is obscured by a puff of smoke, in a rifle-firing, pose. He seems to be wearing a Dallas police uniform, complete with shoulder patch and badge. Considering the original image is smaller than an eighth-inch square, the image is extremely sharp. This image was later confirmed by computer photoanalysts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Lab, but neither would go public because of political considerations.


I believe all three books are Fetzers. 





Why would I want to do that?

Whether I "wrote a book with Jack White" depends upon what you mean by that. I have published three books on the death of JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), to which Jack has contributed. Far from wanting to separate myself from Jack, I am extremely proud of our association. In my opinion, he has been a pioneer in photographic analysis and has probably discovered more anomalies in more photographs in more contexts than any other living human being. He is not always right, but he has a remarkable batting average. Even when he makes mistakes, they are interesting and plausible. I really don't understand the burning desire of some contributors to these threads to destroy everything they can. It is some weird kind of "scorched earth" policy that I simply do not understand. So be it!

Do what you criticize others of doing...

and examine the facts of your fellow fantastic researchers before shouting your mouth off...

i.e. the considerate lazer that folds down the roofing felt prior to burning a hole in WTC5.

and the hole in WTC6 with nothing in it...

Shame on you...

PS... The seismic recordings (2.1 and 2.3) tie to the pre-collapse explosions and not the buildings falling...

Do your research

A Mistake - An unintentional

A Mistake - An unintentional error or misunderstanding

Jack White's studies related to 9/11 at both the Pentagon and WTC do not contain mistakes but deliberate lies.  Its too late to play the "moderate" card. 

There's dust, but no concrete!

Exactly the point.

Where are the chunks of concrete from 100+ stories of concrete floors?

5 Minute Debunking of the

5 Minute Debunking of the 'Steel turned into dust'

Just to prove how little research it actually takes to debunk this junk science...

Woods, Reynolds (and now Fetzer) make use of the following clip to argue that the core turned into dust via space beams

They further their suggestion of steel turning into dust by using the following image series

The video clip is of low quality and the image series is deceptive in that it appears to show the steel turning into dust instead of the actual collapse of the spire, perhaps that is the reason why they are chosen to promote their exotic 'theory'. This could be considered intentional deception given the quickness at which higher quality clips and photos can be readily found on the web.

There are 2 other clips of the spires collapse which are much better quality. These clips are not used however. Perhaps that is because these clips clearly show the steel core collapsing, and NOT turning into dust.
To view the second clip you will need the 3ivx codec which you can find at

To judge just how poor quality the clip and image series are check out the following close up image of what the remaining spire actually looked like:

From that image it is very easy to see that there remained horizontal slabs which most assuredly would have collected concrete powder during the collapse. Therefor when the spire collapsed it released a large amount of this accumulated dust which obfuscated the view of the spires collapse. This is the dust which is seen, not the 'steel turning into dust'.

Just to clarify here, folks,

Just to clarify here, folks, and so we don't go biting each others' heads off over confused semantics, the towers were pulverized, i.e. turned into dust, this being a notable feature distinguishing what appears to be explosives from just the "it was fire" assertions on the part of the official mythmakers. But now we are presented with the "it all, even the steel, turned into dust, and so it was laser beams" people, taking this a step further (and perhaps a step too far). For Christ's sake, can we get an investigation going and subpoena some evidence before the disinfo crews start saying Godzilla did it?

"...can we get an

"...can we get an investigation going and subpoena some evidence before the disinfo crews start saying Godzilla did it?"

shhh...  They are taking notes... 

Show "Where did all that Steel go? Where is it?" by CB_Brooklyn

Of course it doesn't, which

Of course it doesn't, which is why Jones frequently states that other forms such as RDX were probably used in tandem.

The issue is the false dichotomy that some tried to create suggesting that you either believed in thermite 100% or you knew that space beams were the real answer. This is bogus. Thermite is a theory and you don't have to buy into it 100% to know that the space beam theory is nothing but a suggestion, and that the claims that the orange flow from the towers was 'faked' is intentional misinformation.

Short answer to your simple question is...

explosives are required to pulverize the sheetrock plasterboard and concrete...

Watch his latest presentation at Berkeley for further clarification (highly recommended).

Good luck with your research

Ah, good! I hadn't heard

Ah, good! I hadn't heard him state this lack. Very good, indeed.

Very true. I'm not coming

Very true. I'm not coming down on Jones; if he's found thermate evidence, that's one thing. But though that's a plausible piece of the demolition, that WILL NOT EXPLAIN THE PULVERIZATION. Now, it's entirely likely that a cutter (thermate) and an explosive (something else, EVEN A MINI-NUKE; WE DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN), but so far, Jones has not addressed this point. I'd like to hear him do so, just for clarification.

"Does thermate explain all

"Does thermate explain all the concrete dust?"

No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean it wasn't used; it just does account for the pulverization and explosive ejection of debris material.

anons can't edit so let me help

I think the last sentence should have read: 

"No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean it wasn't used; it just does [NOT] account for the pulverization and explosive ejection of debris material."

Good point.

Yes, that's correct. Typo.

Yes, that's correct. Typo.

Show "orwellian pseudo-science" by mormoncultmanipulation (not verified)

Kick out the jams

Way to go, Professor Jones!

Show "Owellian pseudo-science to enhance our credibility" by urantiagate (not verified)


Jones, Ryan, etc. were right to leave. Good luck to them.

Very good news. Couldn't the

Very good news. Couldn't the title of this be a little bit more nicely phrased though?

Good luck to Dr. Jones.

Does anyone know...

If Kevin B. has left Fetzer's group?

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

I'm eagerly awaiting news

of that development.

It is sad

To see arguing among us 9/11 truthers.St 911 was the first place i found after watching loose change on the truth seeker web page.
I believe Dr. Jones work is exceptional,and he is an awesome asset to the 9/11 truth movement.
Mr Fetzer must understand that the last thing we need to do is speculate.SPACE BEAMS? I can hear
Orilley now!
I really can't understand why Jim has done this.He has put in alot of time ,and effort on the 9/11 movement.
Anyway in closing there are some really good items on st9/
Think we can go through it and add the good ones here?

Ockum's Razor

"I really can't understand why Jim has done this."

Okum's Razor states "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Absent any real scientific evidence of "energy beams" the simplest explanation as to why Fetzer is fowarding this theory is Cointelpro.

I reviewed a video sent to me by Dem Bruce Lee Styles last night of Dr. Fetzer presenting his "theories." It was extremely disturbing in that he followed nearly the classic model of disinformation - mixing the truth with absurdist lies.

He starts well, talking about the near-free-fall speed of the collapse. But then he begins to make statements that, even to an amateur, seem inaccurate. For example, he claims (over and over again) that no known energy source could instantly turn steel to dust.

well..... i do not know of any credible research that claims that the WTC steel itself was turned to dust. severed - yes. the concrete and contents of the building pulverized - yes. but - i know of no claims that the steel beams themselves were "instantly turned to dust."

and then Fetzer takes a surreal turn as he talks about laser beams - claiming a giant slash on an adjacent building was "clearly" a sign that the laser had malfunctioned and cut a giant gash in the building.

he says this while swinging his arms around like a Jedi-Knight swinging a light-saber, talking about energy beams originating from Building 7. i could not believe my eyes and ears.

Looney Tunes. Inexplicable. An utter vacuum of evidence to support this.

so - what does Ockham's razor suggest? Dr. Fetzer is clearly highly intelligent and sane. So, what other explaination is left to explain this behavior?

It is intentional.

The good news in all of this is that he and others involved in the disinformation game will pay a very high price for engaging in this charade. The information age affords us a very efficient weapon in combating this.

Disinformation in the information age. That's the title of my new film. I pity the clowns who think this will work.

When I started this project i viewed it as a funny-aside to the real work of documenting 9/11. i thought it could be a humorous respite to my other work.

But, increasingly, as i am compiling this material and finding all the links between Fetzer and Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds and Nico Haupt and Killtown and WingTV and Physics911 and 911Review and Criminal Politics and FoxNews i began to realize how interconnected all of these entities are and how IMPORTANT this subject is. Just compiling all of their "quotes" in one place - and viewing it - almost makes your skin crawl.

It is in fact extremely important to expose this. It is extremely important to introduce newbies to this concept. They must see that this is going on, and be asked to consider WHY this movement is being attacked in this way.

We fight a war on two fronts - from within and without. It is essential that we get our own house in order. We cannot attain credibility if we continue to allow ourselves to be represented and portrayed in this way. 2007 will represent a strategic shift for this movement. We will win the hearts and minds of the public by contrasting ourselves against those who seek to discredit us - and allowing people to choose for themselves.

BTW - Humor is a very powerful tool - and i wonder if certain people realize what professional laughingstocks they are on the cusp of becoming.

Historical precedent

Jack White did roughly the same thing with the JFK assassination...  Fetzer and White wrote a book together...

They are BUSTED

The Little Disinfo Gang That Couldn't is so fucking busted. Their complete stupidity and incompetence is a gift to the truth. I think this will ultimately prove to be the case with 9/11 itself. Such a vile, colossal LIE demands that the truth come forward and be known. Instead of taking over the world they are going to have ALL of their shit exposed and they will fail. Truth will prevail.

Looking forward to your film.

btw it's Occam ;)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor)


Show "False choices and strange spellings" by JohnGault

Another false choice

It's not about one is right and one is wrong - it's about one is very, VERY wrong and also acting wrongfully. The other is acting in a dignified, professional manner and is quite open and welcoming of critique. If that critique is founded in junk science and ad hominem, it's neither valid nor welcome.

The good laugh I got from that one...

"The major difference is that Jones work/theory has been discredited while Fetzer/Woods is still being considered."



I choked on my milk when i read that...

I still can't even believe

I still can't even believe that "space beams" has been proposed. Though now that I think about it, kinda shows the lengths the disinfo folks have to sink to. Or that unscrupulous folks, thinking there'll never be an investigation, are trying to cash in on and dupe the gullible with.


giant laser beams and keebler elves should be seriously considered. i'll take that into consideration.

spelling does not concern me when typing a quick post to a message board. and your jabs do not intimidate me.

but - liars and infiltration does concern me.

i have come under fire from this website for questioning Jones' work. i never said i agree 100% with his work.

but - i can tell you this - Jones' work is worthy of debate and has credibility and sincerity. i can debate his work without attacking the man's credibility.

Unfortunately, i cannot do this with Fetzer and Woods.

The subject of space beams does not have any science or evidence to back it up. It is clearly a bald-faced assertion - and as much as people like you keep CLAIMING that there is 'physics' to back up your claims, i myself have reviewed Judy Woods' paper and found it utterly lacked even a SHRED of evidence to support an energy beam theory.

Jones, on the other hand, provides AMPLE evidence of his theory based on metallurgy, chemistry, physics, math, photogrphic evidence and logic. This represents a cross section of scientific disciplines.

Does this make him correct? Not necessarily.

But - Woods' theory of 'beams' exists in a vacuum. it is simply a bald-faced assertion unsupported by evidence or research. It is utterly without merit, with the advocates of this theory failing to provide even the most BASIC ATTEMPTS to prove their theories with empirical evidence of any kind. Her paper includes photos of Looney Tunes cartoon characters.

please - go back to whoever you work for - call a meeting - and tell them that all of this is a waste of your time. you seem like a smart guy. you really should find something better to do with your life than engaging in this chicanery and fraud.

"Disinformation in the

"Disinformation in the information age"

^ Great title!


"BTW - Humor is a very powerful tool - and i wonder if certain people realize what professional laughingstocks they are on the cusp of becoming."

Excellent point.

Ridiculing the ridiculous "facts" of the government story with humor is a tool that is not used exaggerating and mocking the ludicrousness of believing, at this point, the absolutely crazy story they've foisted on us, soon it could be completely unhip to believe it....

Sometimes we're too polite and patient with unbelievers and bend over backward to reason with them....yes, that is the best approach sometimes as this is a daunting truth...but I'm all for expanding our persuasion skill set from outrage and facts.

There is an even simpler

There is an even simpler explanation, Fetzer is just missing a few bricks.

Think about it. All he has done is repeat what others have said. From 'Barbara Olsen is still alive' to Jone's theory to Wood's theory. All he has to do is hear it to in turn spout out how great it is. He has absolutely no critical reasoning skills left and is a few bricks short, just like is obvious with Nico Haupt and Judy Woods.

Incompetence Theory

That seems charitable but having watched Fezter go toe to toe with Oliver North, I don't buy it.

They fuckin' with him, you

They fuckin' with him, you think? BTW, loved the Uticans on Vyzygoth comparing Fetzer to a QVC host..."my golly, Judy, it's FAB-ulous!"

Picture of a Raytheon energy-beam weapon

Released to WIRED this week as a result of a FOIA request to DOD.

Let me guess

You're implying that one of those in space took down the towers?

How respectable do you think

How respectable do you think it is to steal someone else's work?

Jim Hoffman's Excellent site which almost everyone refers to

Your new site on beam weapons bullshit which intentionally copies the same style (which pulls from

You have no leg to stand on pulling that type of bullshit. Are you proud of yourself?

Show "Internets" by TotalInfo



how does it feel to know...

the best parts of you slid down your mothers [self censored]?

DARPA says...

The Airforce Research Laboratory
Directed Energy Directorate

Directed Energy Video August 18, 2006
A video overview of the Directed Energy Directorate. 9 minutes and 9 seconds long.

Available Formats:

WMV Video: 19.1 MB
MPG Video: 99MB

I'm with Dr. Jones 100%! The truth movement is no place to

promote cartoon planes & space beams! Such outlandish science-fictions makes truthers look foolish & destroys our credibility!

Dr. Jones has once again proven..

..that he is a thinker and scientist and I am in full support of his new project.

Manage or own?

" the Scholars web site he manages" -Jones

"Jim Fetzer may keep his web site " -Jones

So does Fetzer manage the site or does he own it?

Who does "own" st911?

Has the ownership changed (recently)?

Breaking news...

You can't own a web site AND manage it too. It must be one or the other. Pathetic...

Yes it's possible but, in this case, is it the fact?

Who DOES own the st911 domain?

Jones statement suggest it is Fetzer, yet he earlier refered to "manage".

Just trying to clarify.

Do you know the answer?

George Washington

Floum has bought it for some law firm, as I understand. Floum speciality is intellectual property, copyrights, patents ... that sort of thing.

Reflections on Steve Jones remarks

An objective observer might conclude that his remarks are self-serving for reasons such as these:

(1) I have become convinced that the extent of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the fact that the bathtub survived functionally intact, and the existence of "toasted" vehicles as much as a half mile to a mile-and-a-half away is, in my opinion, very unlikely to be explainable on the basis of termite/thermate, even in combination with other explosives. If we want to get serious about what happened in New York, we have to consider a broader range of alternative explanations. That is not "castng aspersions"; on the contrary, that is what science is all about. If we do not consider all of the possible alternatives, we may never discover what happened because we omitted the true hypothesis on a priori or political or psychological grounds that were independent of logic and evidence. Science can be messy, complex, and controversial. Welcome to the search for truth!
If thermate/thermate can provide a more adequate explanation than the alternatives, then he will have been proven to have been right; but you can't do that without considering the alternatives!

As for the grand piano illustration, getting these things right can be tricky, since they require taking all of the relevant variables into account and calculations can be complex. I usually use the figure of 12-13 seconds for a grand piano to reach the ground, which drives home the point that, if we accept the official account, according to which the South Tower "collapsed" in ten seconds (The 9/11 Commission Report) or 11 and 9 seconds, respective (NIST), they were destroyed faster than free fall, which is physically impossible under the influence of gravity alone. Some have argued that free fall in a vacuum from 110 floors could occur in about 9 seconds, which is true; but the Towers were not in a vacuum. Air resistance extends the time of fall from about 12.5 second up to as much as 30 seconds for a piano of a certain weight with its lid open functioning very much like a parachute. This is a special case, however, like a piano that has a parachute attached! I am now being more qualified in discussing it. But I find it odd that Steve should be making a federal case out of this when his own calculations turned out to be physically impossible. Which is worse I will leave for others to debate. A virtue of mathematics is that precision promotes testability. We all agree that Steve is more likeable than I, but that does not mean that he's always right. He's not.

(2) Indeed, the exploration of alternatives involving mini-nukes, directed-energy weapons, or even HAARP is a subject that should be very familiar to a physicist who has conducted research on or at facilities devoted to these subjects. Judy Wood has speculated--and without speculation as a source of conjectures, hypotheses, and theories, science would be impossible--that the source of energy could even be the Sun. Interestingly, that is one of Steve Jones' areas of expertise. One of the oddest features of this siutation, in my opinion, is that he should be ideally positioned to know that these are not science fantasies or science fiction but genuine possibilities. Here are some links that some may find informative about his history in these areas of research and development,
which leads me to wonder why he belittles serious conjectures as "space beams" and non-sense:

Look Ma, No Smoke: Solar Cooker to Relieve Suffering (Fall 19997)

LAMPF = Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

TRIUMF = Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics

Professor Steven Earl Jones

(3) A classic example of the falllay of accent occurs when the accused claims, "I didn't kill him. I paid someone else to do the shooting!" I have reams of evidence from the forum that Steve was patiently explaining to others how they could proceed to take control of the web site and even the society from me. He wants you to ignore his actual conduct, which was offensive, on the ground that he was merely offering advice about how it could be done and not pursuing power for himself. But those whose loyal followers acquire that power following their leaders instructions are going to be beholden to them, as we all know. Steve could have said, "There has been discussion about taking Jim out of the society he created on the forum, but I do not support it." Instead of disavowing what had been taking place, where he was a principal in the discussion, he instead described my
belief as "bizarre"! Well, there is nothing bizarre about drawing obvious conclusions from ample evidence. He has to know better. As for our exchange, I have had it shifted to another web site, it remains accessible from my "Scholars: On its First Anniversary" statement, in which I announced that I am transforming the society into a non-profit corporation managed by a board of directors, who will supervise the editors of the journal, moderators of the forum, and manager(s) of the web site at their discretion. I have advanced several slates of possible directors for consideration, but I have never had a formal response from Steve, Alex, or others who are involved in these things. (I acknowledge Carl as an exception, who proposed a method of selection whereby some of the directors would be decided by a vote of the members. It was not clear anyone else supported it.) If they really wanted a solution to our problems, I have propose one that should resolve most of them.

(4) I removed Steve as co-chair after I discovered that he had cut Rick Siegle from the fourm even as he was composing a post that was critical of Steve. I told him that, if he could justify this action, I would be glad to reconsider, but I thought it was very inappropriate for him to exclude a member on what appeared to be political grounds, especially since it involved criticism of Steve, reflecting an obvious conflict of interest. Steve wrote me to say that he supported the moderator who had done this. Because Steve and Carl were the only persons authorized to serve in that capacity--and Carl had been on line in the forum when it occurred, as he subsequently explained, and could not have cut him off at that time--I asked Steve to tell me who it was who had done it. He refused to identify that person. This has reinforced my belief that it was Steve himself who did this, but I could be wrong. If someone else was authorized by Steve, I supposed he would explain that and allow me to evaluate the situation again, which might have led to his reinstatement as co-chair. But he has been unwilling to comply. Carl has described this person as a "mystery moderator" because even he, who has long served in that role, admits that he has no idea who Steve could be talking about.

(5) There is no evidence of "personalized attacks". That I no longer believe that Steve's theory of thermite/thermate can provide a complete explanation of the demolition of the WTC does not mean that it cannot provide a partial explanation of the demolition of the WTC. I find it extremely difficult to imagine how anyone who has actually gone to Judy and Morgan's web site and reviewed the photos and diagrams there--even without consulting the text!--could not appreciate the magnitude of the problem we confront. The damage is massive and extends far beyond WTC-1 and WCT-2 to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, leaving WTC-7 to one side. The lack of more serious damage to the bathtub is stunning, considering these were 500,000 ton buildings. The seismic evidence and the toasted cars provide additional reasons for believing that, whatever caused this massive devastation, it cannot have merely been conventional explosives with thermite/thermate mixed in. I could be wrong, once again, but that is my considered opinion, which could be affected by new evidence and new hypotheses. We will never know if we don't compare the relative strengths of the alternatives by applying the principles of inference to the best explanation that define science.

(6) As for the journal, it was originally founded with Judy Wood as co-editor and me as managing editor. I probably have more editing experience than anyone else involved in 9/11 research, but I stepped aside when I realized that this was something that Steve wanted to do without me. I was preoccupied with the web site, which, including sorting through emails and locating appropriate news items to post, has consumed as much as 8-10 hours a day of effort. One of my reasons for retiring after 35 yhears of teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning was because I place greater importance upon dealing with these complex issues that make such a difference to the future of our country than whether I offer another college course. But I was glad to not have to carry that burden, too. It was with considerable distress, therefore, that I discovered the editorial board he appointed was not chock-full of first rate, "hard science" types. Its lack of appropriate balance has led to cricitism on various 9/11-related sites, criticism that I acknowledge to have been well-founded. Several times I suggested to Steve that he ought to add as many as a dozen of the members of SPINE, for example, to strengthen the board, but until this contoversy broke, he had done nothing about it. I would also point out that, even though the journal was created as a part of Scholars, he and Kevin, who have both resigned, are trying to conceal that fact by declaring it to be some kind of private preserve that is not a part of Scholars. Those of you who think that I am the bad guy and the Steve is not operating to benefit himself should consider this point carefully. In the course of our negotiations, which were ongoing and out of the public eye at the time, I offered him the journal and the fourm as part of a settlement that would leave me with the web site. Now he appears to be trying to bypass the stage of negotiation and simply take part of Scholars for himself.

(7) This "ad hoc" committee has improperly commandeered the society's membership list without consulting me and has used it to distribute an anonymous invitation to join a non-existent new society. If they had approached me about it, I would have had no choice but to consider it. The irony here is that one of Steve's major complaints about my "Open Letter about Steve Jones" is that I had not consulted him in advance. Well, the fact is that I had previously sent him and his group an
"Open Letter to Steve Jones" discussing these things and offering various proposals for settling our differences in private and out of the public eye. These have included several slates of possible members of the board of directors, as I mentioned above. I only took these matters public AFTER I had discoverd that they were plotting a hostile take over of the web site and the society. If anyone has any doubts that I was right about that, the subsequent course of events, which includes making up a fake "membership administrator" and using a fake email address to deceive members into the false belief that this was taken as an action by the society, should put the lie to that. Surely, if all of their intentions were noble and their actions were just, this could have been done in an open and public fashion without deception and subterfuge rather than sneaking around to try to bring down the entity that has attained so much success. I respect the right of this group to form a new society of their own with their own web site, forum, and journal. But they are not entitled to take this one.

Welcome Dr. Fetzer

Thank you for participating.

As you may or may not know I am a filmmaker specializing in 9/11.

I would like to challenge you to a one-on-one interview - to be filmed - where we can explore some of your opinions, theories and beliefs.

I would be willing to travel, at my own expense - to whatever area of the country you reside in to conduct this interview.

Given the controversy your theories have generated, surely you would appreciate the opportunity to defend yourself.

Your invitation . . .

Sure. Send me an email or give me a call. (608) 835-2707. But don't think after reading your absurd posts this morning that I have any illusions that you are more "fair and balanced" than FOX.

well -

unlike FoxNews I will allow you to talk and express yourself fully - and i will not engage in personal attacks.

But, it is not the job of journalists to coddle guests and lob softball questions either.

I am sure you are fully aware that your work has inspired quite a bit of controversy and divisiveness within the movement - much of which you have encouraged through your public announcements and writing.

I think it is only fair that you respond to this criticism.

About this interview . . .

I would like to impose one condition on doing an interview with you, which is that you provide me with a copy of the complete, raw footage before you leave this vicinity so I can offer proof if what you use is seriously edited in ways that distort my position. Reading you describing me as a "no planer" and a "space beamer", however, does not instill me with confidence. I happend to believe that planes hit the Twin Towers, though I suspect they may have been military versions used as fuel tankers in order to achived a more spectacular visual effect (with more impressive fireballs); and I am not (at least, not yet) a "space beamer", since I find the conjecture fascinating but have yet to see enough proof that I would regard it as an acceptable hypothesis. So you might want to do more homework before we sit down to chat. You can find remarks of mine about "no planes" archived on the "Resources" page of; and if you listen carefully to several interviews I have both conducted and given lately on, especially on "The Dynamic Duo", it should not be difficult to discern that in endorsing the investigation of alternative hypotheses, which I consider to be indispensable to the advance of 9/11 science, I am not thereby endorsing one or another of them. I find the whole situation to be quite fascinating intellectually and scientifically, where we are attempting to unpack one of the greatest mysteries and political hoaxes of world history! This is not for the weakminded or for those who want to avoid controversy. But if you have the courage of your convinctions and believe, as I believe, that the future of our nation hangs in the balance, then join us in the search for truth, perhaps the most exhilarating experience known to mankind. I am convinced that we are going to discover the truth about 9/11. Please join us!


Why are you concerned about John Albanese editing the interview in ways that distort your position, but you don't give a SHIT about the media, OUR ENEMY'S GREATEST TOOL AGAINST US, doing the same thing with your "energy beam" nonsense?

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Let's take a tally...

How many individuals here remember relying on the television set to tell you what's going on in the world?

How many individuals here remember being sold on the Iraq War, and being made to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD?

How many people remember what it was like to be asleep?

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

They were able to do that...

By using the media, and the trusted Television set, and Jim Fetzer wants to gamble with the credibility of this movement by giving them soundbite after soundbite that could be used against us. That is unacceptable.

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Media Time...



HOW DARE YOU use this movement's time on the television for your own personal glory seeking?

That, Jim Fetzer, is also unacceptable.

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member


I'm done.

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Jim, if you haven't figured out by now, John Albanese" by Killtown


but why am i not surprised that someone who would promote hologram theories would suddenly run to the aid of the energy beams theorist?

and isn't it interesting that you also defend the no-planers?


there's a pattern in here somewhere....


Still running on the hologram promotion lie?

I'm not "running to the aid" of anybody. Just kindly letting somebody know that you are an attack dog meant to divide the movement.

I am a no-planer, so why wouldn't I be interested in defending other no-planers?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

you promoted holograms

that's a fact

now you're a no-planer defending a star wars beam advocate.

your record speaks for itself.

Where do I say Holograms were used at WTC?

Where do I say I think holograms were used anywhere else on 9/11?

"now you're a no-planer defending a star wars beam advocate." 

Sounds like:

"now you're a [Yankee] defending a [N*gger]."


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

where do i say

that you said they were used at the WTC? i didn't.

but you go on and on and on and on and on about holograms on your 9/11.

can you tell us WHY you go on and on and on and on and on about holograms on your website? i can use the answer for my film. in fact - can i interview you in person? we can have copies of your work handy and you can explain it.

"you go on and on and on and on and on about holograms"

I do???


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Please provide a link

Again, Mr. Albanese, I would like to assess your credibility and Killtown's credibility. Could you please provide link(s) to where Killtown talks about holograms. This dispute is still he said she said -- if you can prove your case, you should do it.

i answered you below

with a link to Killtown's own website and the hologram info.

so - lets now test YOUR integrity Mr Anonymous.

Do you now concede that Killtown promotes holograms?

ADA, do you think any exotic weapons were used

on 9/11?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.


They are called "airplanes"

don't waste your time with any more questions. you are an embarassment.

More ignorant answers

From Attack Dog Albanese (ADA).


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Do you have an answer, Mr. Albanese?

Killtown denies promoting holograms. You say he did. I would like to know who is telling the truth so that I can assess each person's credibility. Thank you.

What a waste of my fucking time

here i sjust one example - and there are many many more:

Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?

7. Hologram technology (such as projected over a missile or other aircraft, or maybe projected flying into the Pentagon while bombs inside blew up).

► 5.6 Airborne Holographic Projector

Brief Description

The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.
-Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area
-Supports PSYOP and strategic deception management
-Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors -Air Force/Wayback Machine

► When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
"Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.
For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.
"Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.
Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.
To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.
Allah on the Holodeck

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.
The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.
But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions." -Washington Post (02/01/99)

► "Making Three-Dimensional Holograms Visible From All Sides
A technique for projecting holographic images to make both still and moving three-dimensional displays is undergoing development. Unlike older techniques based on stereoscopy to give the appearance of three-dimensionality, the developmental technique would not involve the use of polarizing goggles, goggles equipped with miniature video cameras, or other visual aids. Unlike in holographic display as practiced until now, visibility of the image would not be restricted to a narrow range of directions about a specified line of sight to a holographic projection plate. Instead, the image would be visible from any side or from the top; that is, from any position with a clear line of sight to the projection apparatus. In other words, the display could be viewed as though it were an ordinary three-dimensional object. The technique has obvious potential value for the entertainment industry, and for military uses like displaying battlefield scenes overlaid on three-dimensional terrain maps." -NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (04/02)

► "Computer-generated characters are common in movies and video games and on the Internet. But imagine walking into a store and seeing a virtual model hovering in front of you, even welcoming you and selling you the latest makeup or clothing styles.
Cameron has been turning heads at Hugo Boss in New York.
He's a digital model projected into free space. Star Wars fans will recall R2D2 beaming Princess Leah into free space. But Cameron is in a real environment, not on a movie screen.
Cameron's highly realistic three-dimensional presence is completely computer-generated. He's the product of Virtual Characters of New York City.
"We can beam characters into your living room," says Lloyd Nathan, CEO of Virtual Characters.
"We have a series of optics that we've designed that can take a computer-generated image and project it onto a point in space where your eye is trained to focus," Nathan." -CBS (12/23/00)

► "Holographic Real Image Targets and Countermeasures
This Phase II program resulted in an entirely new process for producing uniform and virtually defect free large Photoresist Holographic Coatings (PHC) for applications ranging from military decoys and countermeasure systems to large scale 2-D and 3-D commercial displays. This process allows for holographic recording and mass-replication of various surface microstructures, and has been a gateway for Physical Optics Corporation (POC) entry into a large display arena.
This technology can produce unique 2-D and 3-D decoys and countermeasures that operate in the spectral range from UV to near IR.
Military decoys, camouflage systems, cockpit displays, head-mounted displays, advanced countermeasures, invisible lidars, range finders, and military optics." -Navy SBIR/STTR Bulletin Board

There's no need to curse

Thank you for the link. At least with only this link, I would say it's a draw at best. You said he was promoting holograms, which is an exaggeration at least as to this website, because it mentions holograms as one possible theory . On the other hand, what he said may have suggested he never mentioned holograms, which this link shows is not true. If promoting means mentioning, you are correct, but I disagree that considering these theories is inherently bad. Whether a scholars group should be publicly moving so far out in front of what is known is a different issue. That criticism is legitimate.


you should learn to do you own research because this guy has been pushing holograms as a plausable theory ad nauseum for years. this was just one link i gave you.

this leads me to believe that you are just a shill and i am done asnwering your questions.

Show "Why do you keep lying ADA?" by Killtown

poor you

and now - what a coincidence - here you are again in the same camp as the no-planes - death beams - keebler elves - mini nukes - cartoon network advocates.

whaaaaaaaaaaaat a surprise!!!

ppor Killtown is such a tortured soul - such a victim of mistaken identity. here we all were thinking you were either an idiot or a dsinfo scumbag - but we had you all wrong. you are in fact a poor victim of mistaken identity.

poor you

Or maybe, NONE of us knows

Or maybe, NONE of us knows what really happened for absolute certain, and that's why we need an investigation! It's only when somebody stops considering possibilities prematurely (from a scientific perspective) that ego, i.e., division begins.

Of course Attack Dog Albanese forgot to mention

This important note on my site that I bold face:

"There have been many theories proposed as to what crashed into the Pentagon or caused the explosion either used alone or in combination. Note that this website doesn't necessarily agree with all or any of these theories. "

(ADA is so obsessed with holograms it's frightening!)


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.


you're just an innocent and honest victim of mistaken identity.

it was someone else's theory and you were simply doing your civic duty by setting up websites that go on and on and on and on and on about the possibilities of holograms being used in the attacks as a way of "educating the public" in a responsible and mature way.

i see.

this was your HONEST way of bringing 9/11 Truth to the public and helping to bring the true culprits to justice. it was someone ELSE's theory and you were just 'covering it'.

Killtown = such a victim of mistaken identity.

that's ok - i will definitely write a nice disclaimer at the beginning of my film that will explain to people why i am singling you out.

Are you really this dumb?

I list ALL the known theories about the Pentagon (including Dicky Eastman's hilarious F-16 shot a missile theory) and you think the hologram one is my favorite or something.

Why are you so ignorant?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

"you're just an innocent and

"you're just an innocent and honest victim of mistaken identity."

That's really not what he's stating. BTW, who the fuck would care about a film revolving around your little petty bone to pick?

Albanese smears people by making up lies

Albanese wrote on this site that i spread anti-semitic material at St. Mark's Church - which is totally untrue. I asked him to correct his libel and he did not.

He lied. And wouldn't correct a libel.

Why should anything else he says be trusted?

Dr. Fetzer, Have you watched

Dr. Fetzer,

Have you watched the DVD 9/11:Mysteries which discusses the damage to the bathtub? Given that you freely admit you had not even heard of the bathtub prior to Dr. Wood's argument that it was not damaged, don't you think it wise to counter balance her claim with other freely available materials?

I highly suggest you get the DVD 9/11:Mysteries. One of the sections of the movie is specifically on the bathtub. Perhaps it will add to your understanding.

About the bathtub . . .

Since Sofia consulted me about her documentary during its production and my name appears in the credits. I was familiar with the bathtub, but its IMORTANCE AS EVIDENCE had not come home to me before I was confronted with Judy and Morgan's photos and studies. So, while I appreciate your suggestion, that was not quite what I meant.

Jim, who owns the st911 (domain)?


My dog has more credibility

My dog has more credibility and honor than you will ever have.

....and he even licks his

....and he even licks his own ass. (No disrespect to your dog there imgstacke lol!)

Please, Don't compare your

Please, Don't compare your dog with a skunk.

Please don't compare skunks

with disinfo trash.

The jig's up Jimmy. No

The jig's up Jimmy. No one's buying it.

Mr Fetzer

You are a complete fool if you really think a 'lack' of bathtub damage is evidence of a space laser... There is no previous case of a massive building falling on a reinforced underground concrete structure, so really nobody has any idea how much damage to expect. But keep in mind that the bathtub was singly responsible for keeping every subway tunnel and basement in lower Manhattan from flooding, so it was built to be robust (to say the least).

Note that the 'tub was constructed of extremely thick steel- reinforced concrete that was backed by solid earth and stone. In other words, it was much stronger than just the concrete itself - it was reinforced by the infinite mass of the planet below. Debris from the falling buildings would be very unlikely to have enough mass to fall through 6 sub- basement levels before actually smashing through the concrete into the earth below. The much weaker walls of the bathtub were not in the direct path of debris from the buildings, so it is not surprising that they were also relatively undamaged. Of course, to say that the bathtub escaped any damage at all is completely false, and engineers were tasked with the very difficult job of stopping leaks in the retaining walls during clean up. The bathtub evidence is really as lousy as the Loony Tunes character evidence, and both couldn't hold a perceptible amount of water in comparison to Jones' research.

The 'toasted cars' are suspicious, but suggest them as evidence for a space laser is just crazy. It is of course impossible to know what happens when a laser from space hits a car, but if the result was to 'toast' it then I think we would have seen very different things when the same laser hits the WTC (like every piece of paper and wood and drywall in the building simultaneously bursting in to flame). The most simple and functional energy- directed weapons are those that focus heat on the target (like the new laser- based anti- missile systems), which shakily supports the toasted- cars evidence - HOWEVER it doesn't even begin to explain the building collapses. The bottom line is that IF there was a space laser, there would be visible evidence of it (kinda like the visible evidence of thermite we already have). The smoke above the building would be affected, fires would erupt on the roof, and lower portions of the building would be visibly damaged as the inner core was 'vaporized'. Thermite is a much better explanation for the toasted cars, even if it requires planting charges outside the immediate WTC area (like big smoke grenades to create a smokescreen - think movie special effects, and how the whole event is one big VFX production). Maybe demolition crews were lazy and left some of the wireless charges in the van at the nearby parking lot. Or maybe they were REALLY smart, and knew ahead of time that a future 'Star Wars' theory of the building collapses could help shield them from scrutiny, so they deliberately burned the cars just to give weight to the phony explanation and help obfuscate what really happened. Any of those three explanations is MANY times more plausible than a space laser, and I'm sure I could come up with more if I had any reason to.

The disturbing part is that Judy Woods ridiculous research took me, what, five minutes to discredit entirely? I don't think someone like you could be easily misled by what is clearly junk science in it's most recognizable form. Not only that, even, but to actually inspire you to go against the legitimate researchers and try and discredit them. HIGHLY suspicious, to say the least. I have one question for you Fetzer - do you truly think any of this is helping the movement AT ALL? Would you deny the assertion that every time you perpetuate silly fights and what at least seems to be junk science, that you are inflicting critical damage upon the cause as a whole?


that's all I have to say, really. Call it "scorched earth policy", if you will.


You are a backstabbing fraud and a traitor.

You dishonor the victims of 9/11 - those that died on that day and those who will die today because of that lie.

You are a foul disgrace to humanity.

I hope I never see your abominable visage in person.

I will spit in your face.



Dr. Jones outplays Fetzer's backstab & sabotage- Well done!

Congratulations to Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, and the others who will make the correct decision to leave a group which has been sabotaged by Fetzer and the sectarian clique.

Jim ("Barbara Olson is alive!"-"The Pentagon hole was 12 feet!") Fetzer doesn't exactly have the best eye for truth or pragmatism. And now he is choosing to sink Scholars, becoming a shameful megaphone for the already disgraced Reynolds and Wood. Beyond that, he has backstabbed Dr. Jones, the man who risked everything for Scholars and is the leading edge of scientific CD research.

Reynolds, who worked for Bush, first said it was no planes, then a micro nuke, and now a space beam. Wood told me at the NY conference that it was a microwave beam and all the plane wreckage at the WTC was planted. Both of them are the obvious "second wave" of 911 sectarians, which began with the message board-ers who did trial balloon's on these "theories."

It appears they did research to see which theory was most damaging. Clearly "space beam" won over micro nuke (or Rick Siegel's hilarious "helicopters with detonator charges"). Surely the "no plane" tripe will also become part of their effort when they get TV and radio time. It's rather obvious that FoxNews and other corporate media outlets will absolutely jump at the opportunity to bring on their straw man theories.

Now Fetzer is deliberately joining their effort. Historically, all social movements have suffered such disruption. Whether it was the student activists of the 1960s, labor unions, or the anti-war movement, there has always been a Jim Fetzer and his team.

Luckily, Dr. Jones & Kevin Ryan will pull away the thoughtful scholars and avoid being tainted.


Look at Fetzer in the JFK movement- he pulled the same moves

John Albanese's eloquent posts raise the serious questions: who amongst us will have the guts to discuss Fetzer's motives and history? Who will have the courage to expose and expunge these saboteurs and their sloppy outdated attempts to wreck 911 truth?

One minute he is praising WING-TV, the next it's space beams. He says he is open to TV fakery.

Hey Jim, this isn't the JFK assassination movement in 1991.

1991: As the Oliver Stone movie JFK become popular, Americans begin to re-examine the Zapruder film and become more familiar with the Grassy Noll, multiple shooters, and government complicity. ENTER Jim Fetzer, who tells everyone the Zapruder film is fake.

Ask around what people in the JFK community think of Fetzer. He spent the last ten years calling everyone an agent, especially Josiah "Tink" Thompson, the respected JFK assassination analyst who (*gasp*!) believes he Zapruder film was real.

Fetzer is trying to see if history can repeat itself...

"Disinformation in the age of information." I can' wait.


Fetzer describes disinfo (in his own words...) Et tu Jim?

Here are some quotes from Jim Fetzer circa 2001, writing on the art of disinformation (in the JFK movement):

Fetzer in 2001: "One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may
not be gainfully employed by some "shadowy government agency") is that
a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true."


Fetzer in 2001: "The objective of disinformation is less to convince anyone of the false than it is
to create a set of conditions under which everything can be believed but nothing
can be known."



Fetzer in 2001: "There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the
work of those they attack to be too good to ignore."



Fetzer in 2001: "Notice when claims are too strong to be true,
sources are not cited, quotations are taken out of context, edited
selectively, or words removed. These are signs."



Fetzer in 2001: "We cannot stop it, but we must understand it. Let us all do our best to
expose and combat it. The cause of justice demands no less." (Hell, I agree with him on this last part)



Jim Fetzer on disinfo... Surely the purveyor of space beams, the scientific master who cozeys up to the no planers, knows a thing or two about disruptive tactics. After all, we should definately trust a man who made his bones claiming "no plane hit the Pentagon" and tanks every interview on television.

Later in the piece, Fetzer labels at least 8 different JFK researchers as agents:

"Notice when someone like Tink Thompson praises someone like Gary Mack
or cites approvingly someone like Todd Vaughan or calls for someone
like Walt Brown to ride to the rescue. Notice when someone like Clint
Bradford or Martin Shackelford or Barbara Junkkarien or Pamela Brown
has an axe to grind."


Fetzer is just beginning his operation. Look at his history in the JFK movement, his sectarian "divide and conquer" tactics, and penchant for destructive straw man theories. Soon he will advance his rabid attacks on Dr. Jones, and begin including anyone who presents a challenge, including Kevin Ryan, former 911 scholars members, or radio host/web site operators like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Mike Rivero, (and myself) who openly call space beams and no planes for what they are: an attempt to destroy 911 truth

And when the space beam dries out, he will find a new script. If you want to see the playbook on Fetzer, look into his JFK past.


Yea, he was attacked by disinfo agents there too

Do you honestly thing the Zapruder film was not doctored?

According to Eric John

According to Eric John Phelps on Peering into Darkness radio this month, Zapruder was a 32nd degree mason. And note that when the shots ring out, the camera remains steady.


got any references or hyperlinks for those quotes?

bloggers normally link to a source if they intend of being taken seriously or maintaining any credibility.

they generally man up and

they generally man up and use a name instead of anonymous too.....maybe you should try it

credibility like claiming Barbara Olson is alive (on national tv

The Fetzer quotes are from his assassinationscience website section on disinformation.

I love the timeline on this man. After 3+ years where Fetzer sits in a perfect position to monitor and misdirect the movement at ST911, he then begins his final flacid campaign to wreck 911 truth and destroy the scholars group.

So I guess his paper on "disinformation" is what English majors would call "foreshadowing."



Speaking of sectarianism, have you ever heard the program "False Flag News" on

The host spends seemingly at least half of his airtime attacking and condemning 9/11 researchers whose lines of inquiry he doesn't approve of (nor, apparently, understand). It's the most sectarian "truth movement" program out there by far.

My show is popular because I have low tolerance for sabotage

I am also one of the most popular radio hosts because I have a low tolerance for stawman theories.

Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and William Rodriguez all called the "no plane" and space beam theories "disinformation."

Does that make them sectarians too?

Disinformation allegations are meaningless

Alex Jones and Jeff Rense are entertainers.

William Rodriguez is a witness to a specific event, and also someone with a personal stake in knowing the truth. I do not criticise him for that. But he has no special knowledge to assess what is or what isn't disinformation.

You ever heard the term "whoever smelt it dealt it? That's how I treat allegations of disinformation. They come from both sides, which I see canceling each other other.

"Alex Jones and Jeff Rense

"Alex Jones and Jeff Rense are entertainers." Bravo! Did I wrote this post? "You ever heard the term "whoever smelt it dealt it? That's how I treat allegations of disinformation." Damn straight. Though sometimes a lot of folks just jump the gun and go for the easy explanation. Of course, when there's a pattern...


Those gentlemen are mistaken; though not overly shrill.

Maybe [b]your[/b] sectarianism isn't sectarianism; and your hate-radio isn't sabotage. Whatever kind of doublethink allows you to sleep at night...

Fetzer, Wood and Reynolds

Fetzer, Wood and Reynolds shovelling disinfo dirt;

I love

The Stooges. I've been a huge fan ever since I was a kid.

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Which one is Moe?

I would assume Fetzer is Moe - always poking people in the eyes - and always the butt of the joke in the end. The more he slaps people the more he gets hurt.

Morgan Reynolds would have to be Curley. The lovable clown who goes out in public - and on TV - and takes the greatest pratfalls.

Judy is a typical Larry. The quietest in the bunch. The deep thinker. The intellectual stooge who creates deep analogies like Keebler Elves hollowing out the towers.

Nico is of course Shemp.





Show "You're Moe" by Peggy Carter

a quick question for John Albanese

John, this is DL from F@lseFlagNews- Can you write drop me a quick email? I have a question


but what is your email address?

John, you can contact me here.

John, you can the email addy it in the "About Me" section of


its a yahoo address

Show "Curly is Jon Gold" by Peggy Carter

Agent Peggy Carter

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Is it just me or does she resemble a young Dick Cheney in a wig?

Wow, that is so convincing

Falcon, thank you for saying absolutely nothing.

She does look a bit like

She does look a bit like Cheney;

I guess you're some psychopath's foot soldiers.

You guys are like a bunch of monkey's that like to gang up on the "out" crowd.

Shows your level of intelligence and moral sense.

Plus, I'm much better looking and smarter, and a better shot, than Cheney.

At least you didn't compare me to Jon Gold

You guys must really be starving for an argument if you have to dig down to showing how beautiful I am.

The gal in that third pic

The gal in that third pic looks a bit psychotic.

It's called beauty and sensitivity

Something you can never hope to attain....on the inside.

yeah, just like Cheney's 2nd

yeah, just like Cheney's 2nd pic... 


For the compliment. He was a genius.

"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

I don't know if you guys

I don't know if you guys have ever seen this, but I was looking for a clip from that movie "Short Circuit" with the robot? There's a brilliant bit were he rewires these other three robots who are attacking him or some shit so that their like the three stooges, so funny.

Hahahahaha, how can someone

Hahahahaha, how can someone take issue with a comment like that? Watching you shills and disinfo morons attempting to vote down everything is hilarious, including comments that aren’t even exposing your ponkasses LOL, its great entertainment keep dancing for us!

Dem Bruce, always trying to create a hostile environment

In the truth movement. That should tell you something about him.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Ain't that the truth. Edgy

Ain't that the truth. Edgy or over the edge? IMO, this whole discussion is turning into a Three Stooges' episode. Investigate!

Obvious Blogger Bias...

the very fact the 911blogger admins allowed this blog entry with this title should show anyone with an ounce of intelligence what this place has become. since 911blogger v2 this summer and increasing greatly in recent weeks, this site has become everything i hoped it wouldn't. dz et al, your site has lost whatever credibility it once had and quite frankly, it's become pathetic.


Steven Jones Responds to the three stooges


Please follow these basic guidelines to avoid having posts or blog entries removed:
- Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
- Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
- Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed

Blog specific rules (in addition to rules above):
- Blog entries may not be used for the sole purpose of attacking or confronting individuals

i'd certainly say that the very title of this entry alone is offensive to fetzer, wood, and reynolds. oh, lest i forget, you've got jones' personal attorney running 911blogger behind the scenes so ofcourse this entry is approved! silly me.

you half-truthers keep fetzer on a pedestal and until he starts turning his attention beyond the 'setup' hypothesis jones' laid down, then you run and hide back to your self appointed leaders and away from any controversial opinions when fetzer steps out of the arena of 'approved' topics.

ignore it all you want, but wood's analysis of the WTC complex destruction is right on, regardless of how you feel about her proposed theories. one doesn't have to support a hypothesis regarding directed energy, but one does have to accept to the facts presented by wood, reynolds, and fetzer regarding WTC complex destruction and toasted cars.

these are the facts your 'leaders' do wish for you to discuss...

This is just ridiculous.

This is just ridiculous. Look at all the effort and attention that is being drained by this lasers and space stuff. If it's not obvious to all that Steven Jones' ouster from st911 is a disinformation coup, I don't think anyone can help you. The goal at this point is NOT to prove precisely what happened that day. It is to provide credible information and convince enough people so that public opinion will be turned and a blue-ribbon commission formed. Jones' work is immensely credible: video of melting metal pouring forth from the building, eyewitness reports of molten steel in the rubble, and scientific experiments conducted. This other stuff is distracting you hard-working 9/11 truth activists.

If the attack was an inside job, you can dam well be sure there will be a strong and well-funded disinformation campaign. You really have to ponder the integrity of various people in this movement. Take a look at these people and ask yourselves are they good, genuine people, or is there something not quite right? I would personally enjoy having a discussion with Professor Jones. I cannot say that about some others in the movement.

This business about no-planes is absolutely ridiculous. You've seen the videos, you've HEARD the engines roaring. What did they put on the hologram missiles that went into the towers, big sound speakers too? As for the laser stuff, leave it for another day! The goal is to turn public opinion with credible theories and information. WIll talking about lasers and space make more people listen? No, it will do precisely the opposite.

We truthers are the choir. We have to put ourselves in the position of those who do not believe the conspiracy theory. What will best convince them that the official conspiracy theory is not correct? I implore all of you to limit your involvement and effort in what is obviously a disinformation campaign. Sideline this garbage! When public opinion is turned - and this is happening! - a blue-ribbon commission will be formed of Ph.D. materials, chemical, and structural engineers as well as demolition experts. The PRIMARY goal right now is to find the best way to convince the American public. Lasers and no-plane theories do NOT convince people. Video and eyewitness evidence of molten metal DOES. Look at the big picture. Keep working hard.

And yet hes still 1000 times

And yet hes still 1000 times more credible than Fetzer,
Woods, Reynolds and the rest of the spacebeam team...tell ya anything about them?

Show "yeah, how can that be? Jones" by CB_Brooklyn

cuz thats themite, not a spacebeam.

Please link me to a video that I can see a spacebeam hitting the WTC complex...thanks.

Star Wars Beam Weapon DOES Account For ALL Of The Evidence

If you absolutely require a "video" to prove something then you're out of luck. You must look deeper.


Where, in the video you linked above, do you see thermite? How do you know it's thermite?


How does thermite account for:


  • Toasted cars over half a mile from Ground Zero
  • An unbroken bathtub (Manhattan not flooded) after one million tons of towers collapsed on it at free fall speed
  • A big vertical chunk of WTC 5 "missing"
  • "Round holes" in the roof of WTC 6
  • Lack of enough steel at GZ to cover for two 110 story towers
  • Video of steel spire turning to turn
  • More anomalies in Judy Wood's paper


And isn't it weird that right after the North Tower was blown up, the government allowed military planes back in the air? Why did they not want planes in the air during the collapses?


What can account for ALL that evidence? All the information above must be considered and put in context, to arrive at a valid hypothesis. And don't forget, the appendices in Judy Wood's paper has documented proof of space-based laser experiments by the government !!


Judy has been adding more photos and descriptions of toasted cars recently


NOTE: Some of these cars had people in them? Where are the bodies?



toasted cars....the only

toasted cars....the only pics of toasted cars Ive personally seen are either government vehicles or
in the proximity of.
unbroken bathtub...the tub held a river back...its pretty strong. Also the majority of debris fell inside the tub.
A verticle chunk of wtc5 missing...seems much more plausible to me this was done by falling debris than spacebeams.( call me old fashioned)
Round holes in WTC6...this actually( and it pains me to say this) may be the spacebeam teams best arguement. Point conceded. It is very, very odd.
Lack of enough steel...Do you have any documentation that shows a comparison to the amount of debris removed (in weight) to prove there was less than was erected in its construction?
Steel spire turning to dust....this is an out and out lie.
the spire doesnt turn to dust and some grainy images from 2 blocks away are not going to convince me they did. Unless you have a picture of a pile of dust where the core once stood.
Judy Woods paper...sorry, its (to me) laughable.
Lastly, why allow helicopters in the air if your worried about spacebeams knocking down your aircraft.
the very presence of these helicopters negates that

And lastly, regarding thermite in the video...
I am an ironworker and have extensive experience with steel framed construction. Often we have to burn holes in the iron to allow for electrical conduit to pass through. We use capsulized "thermite" (if you will)
at times to do this as it burns cleaner rounder holes in the iron. Ask any iron erector or even an electrical contractor and you will find you can purchase these
if there are any doubts.
That being said, the reaction of whatever is burning
looks exactly like what it looks like when I burn holes only on a much greater, uncontrolled scale. Do I know for a fact its thermite?.....nope....but as Ive said before,
If it looks like a duck......

well, if you're going to consider it laughable

then you're obviously not looking from a neutral point of view. And that will affect your conclusions.

See Wood's paper for pix of toasted over half a mile away from Ground Zero.

When debris from a falling tower collapses on another building, It should cave in. A large chunk of the building should not simply "disappear". Where's all the debris in the holes? It's not there.

The videos and pictures clearly show the spire turning to dust. 

When a building is brought down in a controlled demolition the resulting pile is about 10% of the original. Ground Zero should have contained two enormous 11 story piles. Where are they? Where are the steel piles? The pictures (available in Judy's paper) do not show them.


Thermite cannot explain all the anomalies. 


and spacebeams cannot

and spacebeams cannot explain the above video.

don't use the term "space beam".

it's not a "space beam", it's a Star Wars Beam Weapon, or Directed Energy Weapon, and it did not have to necessarily come from space.


Why can it not explain all the anomalies? Try to explain 

all apologies, I will from

all apologies, I will from now on refer to it as "direct energy weapons". What do you know of the World Trade Centers sprinkler system being "double grounded" me this points to harmonic resonance.
Any thoughts...And we will have to agree to disagree with the Jones/ Fetzer/ Woods issue.

The Beam **Might** Have Originated From HAARP

and reflected to Ground Zero via an orbiting satellite. Let's remember, the Project For the New American Century claims to be perusing total space dominance. 

There's no direct proof of this, but it's a possibility.

Downloads some HAARP torrents here 

If there are no bodies in

If there are no bodies in the cars how do you conclude that there WERE people in the cars? Some law of physics I slept through in High School?

"NOTE: Some of these cars had people in them? Where are the bodies?"

And a reasonable explanation for the cars on FDR drive is that they were moved/towed from the parking lots near the WTC complex to make room for the rescue efforts. And notice how the steel structure above the burned out cars is intact.

cmon man, these cars are

cmon man, these cars are UNDER a either they were dragged there to make room for responders of the spacebeam did no damage to the bridge above
yet burned out an entire row of cars..
And the firetruck with a huge kink in its roof tells me it probably was victim of falling debris.
surely you must have entertained this notion.

I see banged up cars and

I see banged up cars and trucks with dust on them. The one police car has smoke marks on the side of the door, but this simply means there was a fire nearby. If this is supposed to support the laser beam theory, I'm afraid it's lacking. Show me pictures of pools of half-melted vehicles and I'd be interested. As for the cars along the FDR, could they have been towed there temporarily to make room for the clean-up effort?

CB_Brooklyn is a government plant and a total fraud

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Submitted by Peggy Carter on Fri, 12/08/2006 - 7:34pm
Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Fri, 12/08/2006 - 7:35pm

Why are you posting a picture of Kerry?

Kerry is one of the most hard-working activsts in NYC. And he holds the banner every Sat. Rain or shine for years now.

Why are you making fun of him?

Not only is your reasoning bad, your manners and emotional make-up poisoned, but your facts are wrong too.

This picture is NOT CB_Brooklyn

This picture is NOT CB_Brooklyn

What picture?

Get a grip beamboy, I'm just pointing out that you and Agent Peggy always post at the same time.

911blogger administration team

Please enforce your own rules:


  • Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread
  • Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
  • Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
  • Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed

Shall I call

a WAAAAAAAHHHmbulance?

More Lies From Steven Jones...

Of late, Jim F. refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit- the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers. (I and others have written evidence-based rebuttals to these notions.)


Yeah??? Where are those evidence based rebuttals?

Where is the evidence that Newton's Laws of Motion were not violated when the 'aluminum airplane' glided through columns of structural steel and slabs of steel-reinforced concrete just like it glides through the air? Jones has been asked to address this smoking gun of TV-Fakery but has refused every time! 

AFA any Jones rebuttal of Directed Energy Weapons, he has not refuted a thing:

ALL of the evidence must be accounted for.

ALL the anomalies must be put into context.

wow...quite the news day

wow...quite the news day

Wouldn't one of the multiple helicopters hovering over top of the towers dropped out of the sky with the use of such a weapon?

I could be a kook...but doesn't a Pyroclastic flow only occur if it's riding on a wind of intense heat? The damage seen on the vehicles is concurrent with a fast hot wind.

To me.....all that spire clip shows is that without the damage at the base, the collum can stand without a single truss on it :)

Structural Engineer Suggest Exotic Weaponry at the WTC

On the Nov 30 interview with Jim Fetzer... 

Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow says thermite does NOT account for the damage at the WTC.

His reasoning includes the pulverization of concrete and the absence of feet inside shows. (Where did the people go?)


Pegelow suggests exotic weaponry, including Fusion bombs.

He says WTC was not a conventional controlled demolition.


MP3s downloadable here 

Show "Article by USAF Col on Space-Based Lasers" by CB_Brooklyn
Show "I have read considerable" by Anonymous (not verified)

Here's a little FYI for you, buddy.

I'm not going to accuse you of the following; rather, I'm just going to lay it out for you, and if it applies, you'll know.

Shill Central would really like it if Truthers would "unify" behind a single theory. Recently, there has been a noticeably uptick in requests to spell out theories, because someone is trying to better figure out how we think. The fact that there is a plethora of theories, most of which do not purport to be complete explanations of the 9/11 events, makes the shill overlords nervous.

Real truthers know that it is not OUR job to propose overarching theories -- that will be the task of an investigatory entity, which can then use the power of subpoena to gather the evidence necessary to prove or disprove a whodunnit hypothesis.

Scholars for Truth and Justice

I fully support Steven Jones.

His presentation at BYU completely convinced me after watching it on Google video. That was the turning point for me personally.

I fully support the examination of all theories, but when the evidence contradicts a theory it is time to move on.

I find the behaviour of certain individuals very suspect. I would give Steven Jones the benefit of the doubt every time over those who spew nonsense and distort facts. I don't support name calling and divisive tactics.

I fully support the creation of a new 9/11 scholar group where a board approves the content. We don’t need the truth to be hijacked by theories that can’t be proven and that are obviously false.

This is an obvious CIA disinformation tactic. We shouldn’t tolerate it.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Object to the title

I strongly object to the title "... to the Three Stooges" . I did not say this, and I do not support the use of perjorative or ad hominem terms.

"STeven Jones sends email to the Scholars group" is correct and stays away from ad hominems. Please, eschew ad hominems, and don't associate these with me. Thanks, Steven Jones

Another point for the Jones

Another point for the Jones team.