Dr. Jim Fetzer at National Press Club on Wednesday 10-Jan-07

Our next meeting will be on Wednesday, January 10th, 7 p.m., at the National Press Club.

The speaker for this session will be James H. Fetzer, who has published over twenty books and is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.911Scholars.org).

Since we have heard a variety of credible and incredible stories describing this day of tragedy, Fetzer will be presenting us with the hard facts on the truth of the following scenarios: (1) that the Twin Towers were pulverized by a special form of controlled demolition; (2) that WTC-7 was brought down by a classic form of controlled demolition; and (3) that whatever hit the Pentagon, it was not a Boeing 757.

In addition to his books, Fetzer has written over a hundred articles on the philosophy of science and the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

No stranger to controversy, this former Marine Corps officer has edited three books on the death of JFK, and has co-authored a book on the airplane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone.

Our speaker will be coming to us from Athens, Greece, where he was featured on a three-hour fact finding international satellite television broadcast.

So plan to be with us... and please remember to bring a friend.

N.B. National Press Club members may attend free of charge, but they must pay for their meals. Parking is free with NPC dinner validation of your ticket from the PMI garage on G St, between 13th & 14th.

Thanks Thomas for the heads up!

Preview of a new film featuring Jim Fetzer

Disinformation in the Information Age

Hilarious! i love that

Hilarious! i love that song...

hi people. who is the woman

hi people.
who is the woman sat between the host and james brolin?


Barbara Walters

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi

Why is this Fetzer crap on the front page???

Does he think we've forgotten about his little SPACEBEAM stunt with his sidekick Judy Wood? IMO they're both obviously controlled opposition.

Yea totally, what the f*ck

Yea totally, what the f*ck is this Fetzer promotion bullsh!t on the front page for?! The guys a complete and utter shameless sell-out!

Fetzer, Mattingly and the acceleration of the disinfo. route

Interestingly, Fetzer's move away from sciencific reasoning accelerated sometime after the O'Reilly interview on or about July 12, 2006. His relationship with a Mr. Mattingly appears to have flourished at that time. Mr. Mattingly's posts can be found on this blog. He (Mattingly) is a proponent of the energy beam theory (amongst other things). His affiliations with other entities are quite interesting.


What other affiliations does Mr. Mattingly have? How do I find his posts on this blog?

Fetzer & Space Beam

I agree with you. I think Fetzer has been a leader of the opposition all the time. He started the organization 9-11 Scholars then after Prof Jones draws attention, Fetzer pulls the switcheroo with the whack job theory of space beams. And then HE gets the invitiation to the National Press Club.

It was a setup.

Fetzer...... the Trojan Horse's Ass

I believe that the goal of this film is to expose and discredit those inside the 9/11 Truth Movement who may be infiltraitors... people who are spreading these contraversial and unprovable theories....... people who are speaking of things that only divide the supporters and scare off those seeking answers.

am I right???

a film to show them in a light which seperates their beliefs from ours

I believe that if Fetzer was a smart man these theories would be the furthest from the frontlines of this movement... he is supposed to ber moving us forward but instead he leads us in circles which have no ends..... He started the site which was there to give this movement credibility...... yet he discredits us further.

YOu know that the easiest way to destroy a movement is to let it gain credibility.... then just as it's nearing a point where momentum is gained..... someone does something to completely discredit the movement...... this will strike a deep blow... which will criple if not destroy it all together....

You think these people are not thinking one step ahead of us on this? This has all been done before. These people may not be all that smart... but they surround themselves with those who are..... like Kissenger..... He's playing them as they're playing us.

What did Fetzer teach? Mind Control / Propoganda / Etc.... I forget the exact description...... to be able to teach these subjects... you need to know them inside and out.... both sides of the coin.... I'm guessing that the people who took his course..... did not take it to learn how to epose how these techniques are being used.... they took it to learn how to use these techniques.

Where did he get his beginnings? Recieves honors and leadership awards in college then goes into the Marines? Becomes captain...Then teaches at the University of Virginia.

Wasn't he the first to get into the MSM?... Doesn't he always get the best opportunities to influence investigation and thought on the subject? Why?

Di I think Jim Fetzer is a plant? ... I do.... the man has no sense of restraint or common sense... latching onto theories which he can only speculate.....regurgitating it before she had even written a paper......leaving him on my questionable list...... not somone I trust to carry the name of Truth.

Infiltration was a task that would require more than one plant.... a theory can not truely destroy a movement without a second and a third at the very least...... every suggestion needs a "Here...Here"..... Renolds #1..... Fetzer #2..... Wood #3..... they all gain credibility then all latch onto a theory that has some evidence that some advanced technology does exist... or is made to look like it exists..... a theory that is out there just enough to make people question the validity of those theories.... then question the people.... then question the movement that those people represent.

The people sticking their noses into the blogs and propogating these theories are merely icing on the cake... trying to further divide us... as well as being here just in case someone researching decides to browse this site for information... because there are new people every day discovering the truth. We are having an effect... and it is noticable....they thought this would break us.... but it was merely a speedbump in the path of out juggernaut...and now they are trying their damndest to suppress our momentum

If this film is not exposing these people for who they are..... then there needs to be a film which does

as well as the treatment that our movement recieves when we do get MSM coverage... showing the footage they refuse to show

Jim Hoffman Predicted this...

We should have paid more attention:

Muddling the Evidence

by Jim Hoffman

The website ScholarsFor911Truth.org serves as the public face… but the website's content is not necessarily representative of the views of the group's members… instead of amplifying the excellent work of Steven Jones and some of the group's other researchers, it promises to undermine that work, and possibly the work of all scholars raising questions about the official story.

Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account.

One need look no further than the attack pieces by Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions are not supported by the facts.

Despite the evidence, ScholarsFor911Truth.org has thus far failed to acknowledge that the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the Truth Movement. Even worse, the website uncritically links to many websites featuring work that is, at best, thoroughly unscientific.

The website features three articles that are labeled "Peer-Reviewed."

If Fetzer's paper has received serious peer review, it doesn't reflect that. It advances a series of arguments that have been conclusively debunked. The paper is the subject of reviews by Michael Green and myself…

The idea of Scholars For 9/11 Truth is a very powerful one, given the respect people give to credentialed individuals… Sadly, Scholars For 9/11 Truth might not have its intended effect of building on Jones' work. Instead it is likely to have the effect of discrediting it by associating it with junk science, such as that used to promote the no-planes theories. Because of the visibility of the flawed ScholarsFor911Truth.org website, this seems probable despite the good intentions and excellent credentials of many of the group's members.

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

Heads up!!!

Get ready folks, because this looks like it will be coming to a head real fast. Get your critical thinking caps on tight, and be ready to weed wheat from chaff, and pull the baby before the dirty bath water is thrown out.

For all the good words and good will Fetzer generated for this movement in the past (his once smooth hand, is now wielding a rather nasty stick), the hideous sloppy cluelessness of his "cutting edge" Judy Wood must be confronted head on if/as O'Really has her on his show to "point and laugh at the entire kooky twoof movement".

This is NOT a debate about whether or not people like The Dick and The Bush would covet and/or use nasty exotic secret weapons against it's own people... this has been framed into a one way street by Renolds/Fetzer/Wood/ into an inevitable debate about the unbeknownst "energy secrets" needed to run these postulated weapons.

That is the only place this line of thinking can lead: An electrified third-rail of world-wide truth, justice and peace, that we can be sure the Powers That Be have booby-trapped to secure their hold on power itself.

The fall out from this setup could be very ugly and saddening. Stay strong, and check your truth and justice compass as we head into very rough water ahead.


Show "Dr. Fetzer will do us proud" by Dachsie

You obviously are also controlled opposition, Dachsie

Blessings from stallion4...lol

Show "If you can't say something nice!" by John Bursill
Show "I personally think all WTC's" by Anonymous (not verified)

one thing has nothing to do with the other

the SPACEBEAM crap was deliberately introduced to muck up the waters. There's absolutely no evidence that that sort of technology was used on 9/11. It's an obvious misdirection used to lesson the credibility of the proven controlled demolition theory of explosives being planted inside the buildings. If you want to start a SPACEBEAM truth movement, by all means go do it, but don't try to insert that kind of unrelated crap into this movement. capice?

Show "Did you use the word" by Anonymous (not verified)


Evidence--Judy Wood and Morgan have no evidence. Only speculation, and other evidence that can be explained with thermite.

"old dead issue"

Please inform Fetzer that that's the case.

It was only a few weeks ago that he claimed it was the "cutting edge" of 9/11 research.

Just forget about it? I don't think so.


I'll never back him again if he's still talking about it....

I hope thats not true, can you link me to this story.

Thanks John


Go to 5:29 in the video that's at the top of this thread.

I thought that was old, where and when was that lecture.

Thanks John

Tucson, Arizona

November 2006

@ John Bursill: Been there done that

Uncle Fetzer has been given chance after chance after chance. Sorry, but the SPACEBEAM disinfo that he's been pimping and his disloyal treatment of the scholars group (and EVERYONE in the 9/11 truth movement) by going public with the SPACEBEAMS seals the deal. And no, we will NEVER FORGET. And stop making excuses for Fetzer. He did this to himself.

Ok if he does it again, I'll give up on him for good!!!!!

I am ready to see and judge.

Thanks for your strong point of view, but why does Jon put this up if Fetzer is so far gone; with out a comment?

Is it common knowledge that he is, crazzzzy or a plant in your opinion, stallion4(do you have a name) ?

Regards John

What the heck are you talking about "Jon"

Dz posted it and last time I checked, he's not "Jon", he's "dz".

"do you have a name"

Yeah, it's "stallion4", duh...lol


Sorry, why does dz post this without a comment.

Man I'm not a psychic

Dz does his thing. I do mine. You do yours. Etc..

In all seriousness, though, many here feel betrayed by what Fetzer did, because most of us trusted him in the beginning, but when he went all SPACEBEAM, that was the last straw.

I personally don't care if he or anyone else wants to theorize about such bizarre things like SPACEBEAMS being used on 9/11 (even though there's no proof of it whatsoever), but when that person self-appoints himself as one of our "leaders" and theorizes about SPACEBEAMS over the national airwaves, well that's a different story and I have a problem with that.

But I'm not telling you or anyone else how you should feel about Fetzer. Come to your own conclusions about whether or not he's credible or can be trusted. But I think he can't be so I vote NO!

Good talking, I'll keep an eye on this Press club gig.

Got to go to work, chow John


Thanks for being civil. And sorry if I came off a bit rude to you during this Fetzer debate. Thought you might have been one of his sock puppets at first. But you seem to be a decent and honest person and here for all the right reasons. Peace.


Who thinks Fetzer is still credible?

A show of hands, please?

I second the motion, let's see what we all think! Please post.

Good idea!

Regards John

We've already done that, mmmkay?

the majority of folks on this website think Fetzer has overstayed his welcome in the 9/11 truth community. I think you just need to accept that and "get over it"...lol

But go ahead and post a poll if you'd like, for posterity's sake.

Sorry, I don't trust Fetzer nor Judy Wood. That space beam shit

is 2nd only to cartoon planes @ the WTC disinfo.

I wonder...

... what are the credible scholars still doing in st911? I would have left the minute Reynolds and Fetzer began slandering Jones. The beams are really over the top.

Not Credible <hand>

Not Credible <hand>

Not Credible <hand>

I support the assertion that it is very likely that a plane hit the pentagon because of massive eye-witness testimony.

If you agree with the massive and corroborating eye-witness testimony of explosions in the WTC towers and building 7, then logically—you should be inclined to believe the massive and corroborating eye-witness testimony that a plane hit the light poles (corroborated by physical evidence that can't easily be explained) and then crashed into the pentagon. Lack of evidence does not disprove a theory—contradictory evidence does. Obviously, it was not flown by an inept hijacker.  This also supports the devastating smoking gun "the plane is 30 miles out--do the orders still stand" testimony.

I strongly disagree with the publishing of this article on the scholars for 9/11 truth website:

The "Scientific Method" applied to the "Thermite Hypothesis"

Steven Jones does not maintain a "thermite hypothesis". This is a stunning distortion of his actual theory and is deliberately misleading.

He maintains a controlled demolition hypothesis—thermite (with visual and physical evidence) is only a small portion of his entire theory. Why are Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds misinterpreting Steven Jones’ actual theory (i.e. Straw-man fallacy)? They are entitled to any valid criticism of Steven Jones—they are not entitled to personally attack him (i.e. call him “retarded”, “choir-boy”, or “clueless”) or distort his position and present deliberately deceptive arguments.

Question: If the purpose of scholars for 9/11 Truth is to determine truths and reveal falsehoods—why is the only revealed falsehood the official story about 9/11? What alternative theories have been shown to be untrue? If something is true, by definition--everything else can't be.

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

Not credible <hand>

Please see why I feel that Jim Fetzer is being deceptive.

Compare his photos of WTC car fires
with REGULAR car fires

There is no "extrodinary phenomena" happening.

laser beams and holograms

Fetzer exposed himself as a clown when he entertained this obvious disinformation. That is why Professor S. Jones quit his group. I'm hoping that David Ray Griffin follows suit, and this bogus "scholars" group stops being the focus of attention in the 9-11 skepticism movement. They have blown their mission. This asinine garbage does not deserve a comment. People who "question" whethere there were planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11 should be fitted for straight jackets. Laser beams, or "direct energy weapons" bringing down the towers? These people are undercover disinfo operatives.

In myy own personal exchange with Fetzer, he called me a "spook" for daring to question his bogus assertions about Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment.

The man is no scholar. And I don't think he's interested in the "truth" of anything.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog.

What exactly were Fetzer's

What exactly were Fetzer's bogus assertions about Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment?

P.S. I stopped supporting Fetzer many months ago when I noticed that he would avoid discussing Building 7 in most of his major media interviews, and that he mentioned a lot of weak evidence and unproven assumptions interspersed with other golden nuggets of truth. He has run hot and cold, hot and cold, and his website is a disoganized chaotic mess which newbies should not be directed to.

Show "Why so much rubbish on blogger?" by James H Fetzer (not verified)

Mr. Fetzer, you would

Mr. Fetzer, you would actually sound believable if you didn't trash "blogger" 3 times in your single post, including the title itself. This is a GREAT site for 9/11 truth. In fact if I were in your position (and an honest advocate for 9/11 truth), I wouldn't have even thought about trashing the entire site, perhaps this thread in particular, but not the site. I can see your seams. And yes, you are an incredulously wonderful performer. During last summer's LA conference, I thought you were a dynamic proponent and speaker for this cause.
And still the hole runs ever deeper than previously imagined. Shall we call you "deepest" cover?

Show "OK. On various blogger threads . . ." by James H Fetzer (not verified)

If you care about the truth,

If you care about the truth, not just about 9/11 but about those who are seeking it...


Now this is an interesting distinction.  Are you suggesting that you and Judy occupy some special level above those seeking the truth, that the rest are bunglers and bumpkins?

Many of us have read the transcript and find it flimsy. Get over it. That doesn't mean that everyone is closed to the possibility of additional technologies, but that no one wants a greater 9/11 thesis to rest on this point.  Promotion of your work depends on our willingness to give it credibility at the grassroots level; it doesn't work the other way around.

Who is keeping the Us vs.Them divide alive?  Who turns a deaf ear to requests to stop because it is hurting the overall movement?  Who has taken it from minor disagreement to outright belligerence?

You are not the victim here.  If you were willing to set your ego aside and apologize for the ugliness and division you have created, you might be given a second chance.  But if you continue to suggest that your "quest for the truth" is divorced from any other considerations, you have either become autistic or you are being an asshole.

trashing the work of Judy

trashing the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and me knows what I am saying is true. Where the onslaught of hatchet-job posts, of the kind illustrated by this thread, is the obvious target of my remarks and what gives blogger a bad name.

Please forgive me if I don't start playing the violin for the 'hatchet-job' you, Reynolds, and Woods have received. Tell me you are not seriously playing the victim card here? Take a second and look at the work of your new cohorts (Woods, Reynolds, and Rick Seigel) and tell me if you find any hatchet jobs there. Here is a quick example of your own cohorts hatchet jobs:
Free Image Hosting

Judy Wood has an evil obsession with Steven Jones. So much so that she tracks him down now to his events to harass him afterward in the Q&A segment. She even has her own cult which follows her around as well (CB_Brooklyn, Siegel, etc.) that does nothing but flame others for her and do her dirty work. These are the people you now pretend to be scientists, when in reality they are just provocateurs and do everything they can to attack anyone and everyone that they don't agree with.

Give me a f'n break, take your victim card elsewhere.

as for "knows what I am saying is true" don't make me barf. do we really need to point out your johny come lately errors of misinformation like the "16ft pentagon hole", or like "barbara olsen being alive"? you just spout anything you hear, you have absolutely no filter or ability to reason.

What was up with the

What was up with the pathetic little attack on George Washington from this site Mr Fetzer? Just because he helped set up the now shamed "St911.org" and controlled some of the domain names? What the f*ck was up with that you despicable charlatan?

Sorry Mr. Fetzer, Unfortunately You Are Not Trusted Anymore

Sorry Mr. Fetzer, unfortunately you are not trusted anymore by most in the truth movement. Neither is Morgan Reynolds or Judy Wood. All three of you are now associated with disinfo agents the likes of Nico Haupt (and even CB_Brooklyn!). Whether or not there is a shread of credibility to space beams, mini-nukes, or holographic / CGI planes is not the point. Focusing on exotic technology is missing the mark when trying to expose the the CRIME of 9/11 and the larger picture of false flag terrorism used as a means to create global hegemony and erosion of our democracy. The forensic evidence that could possibly substantiate space beams, mini-nukes, or holographic / CGI planes is GONE. Focusing on evidence that substantiates the means, motive, and opportunity of certain groups and individuals is, I believe, a much wiser path to expose this crime and bring about justice.

The rash...

Of unsubstantiated claims to be found on st911.org boggles the mind.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

how could you?

how could you?

Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer analysis


JW = Judy Wood JF = Jim Fetzer MR = Morgan Reynolds

My comments are in bold.

Well this is an extremely interesting issue to me, because my Ph.D is in the history & the philosophy of science. I’ve published many books, lots of articles, given plenty of talks, and in fact — you know — have focused on the nature of science in my professional work, for 35 years, teaching courses in Logic, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning.

This fact is mentioned several times by Fetzer. However, as a professor of logic he should no doubt be aware that appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. Granted, we should respect his educational background—but his arguments should be examined on their own merit in reference to all of the available evidence. Ad hominem fallacies (i.e. rubbish) against 9/11 Blogger are irrelevant.

JW: Actually, Jim, I beg to differ with you slightly. This is a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but there's some seriousness here. That just by watching what Steven Jones focuses on, or focuses away from, is a very big clue as to what to look at, or what not to look at.

JF & JW (together): The opposite!

It is fair that all evidence must be considered. However, it is not fair that straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks be used against Steven Jones. Ad hominem fallacies (i.e. “Steven has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that seems to 'sell' his positions”) as well as straw-man arguments are employed in this interview.

JF: Judy, do you see any possible way that a thermite/thermate hypothesis could BEGIN to explain these phenomena?

JW: Those 'toasted cars' are like ½ mile to a mile away. How can - how can you get cars with their tyres [sic] melting into the pavement - do that - ½ mile to a mile away - 'instantly'?

Answer: They were moved there. Question: How could a Directed Energy Weapon be accurate enough to hit the tower and then be inaccurate enough to miss ½ mile away without damaging anything else but the cars? Is that Wood's “scientific” theory? It appears that this theory is contradicted by its own ‘evidence’.

JW: And I wonder if folks realise that - while we're busy look - do you know what a 'Straw Man' is?

JF: Of course! An exaggerated version of a position, which you can more readily attack, and then claim to have despatched [sic] the readily-available, more defensible version.

JF explains the definition of a straw-man and then the interview references JW's  ‘thermite-hypothesis’ which exactly fits the given definition.  This Straw-man essay is referenced repeatedly in the interview.

Judy Wood’s Straw-man summarized: Steven Jones maintains a “thermite hypothesis”. Thermite is his only evidence and his entire theory. This is implied when there is a failure to discuss any other evidence.

Steven Jones’ Actual Hypothesis: Steven Jones maintains a Controlled Demolition Hypothesis. Different types of thermite and/or explosives in any combination may have been used. Not only thermite! All 11 features of controlled demolition are analyzed and counted as evidence to support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds ignore all of the other evidence presented in Steven Jones’ paper. His paper is divided into 13 sections considering the evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis.

JF: I think that's exactly right, it can be very subtle sorting out - you know - ad hominem attacks against a person, from serious criticism of the person's IDEAS.

I disagree. It is very easy to tell when someone is evading an argument—ad hominem fallacies are just one type of evasion. When an individual makes comments about the subject and ignores his ideas—we can tell that irrelevant issues are being presented (i.e. it does not matter if Jones has a “baby-face”—it matters that his theory has substantial evidence).

It is very easy to distinguish an idea from the person presenting the idea.

MR: Well I think that's where competition, and cross-criticism - done in a relatively civilised manner, of course there's going to be a few excesses on occasion but that's - it's cross-checking each other's work. It's 'Peer Review'. And here's the way I would characterise it, if you look at this piece you've referenced earlier "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" …

Peer review as straw-man fallacy? The review is a distortion of Steven Jones’ actual theory! A Straw-man argument is almost always used intentionally to win an argument illegitimately. Their list of 30 points does not call for the release of molten metal samples one single time to confirm/disprove Steven Jones’ acquired physical proof.

That is a very revealing fact.

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

Show "When did I call you a "spook"?" by James H. Fetzer (not verified)

Jim Fetzer is a shill..

...so is Judy Wood. Frankly I question EVERYONE who tries to take the lead too vigorously or squabbles about physical minutiae regarding the events of 9/11 without focusing on the bigger picture.

9/11 was orchestrated by CRIMINAL ELEMENTS within our government, miltary/ industrial complex, and intelligence agencies. I believe all who fall within the MIHOP category can agree with this, am I wrong?

I am VERY suspicious of people who yammer on and on about the WTC Buildings, Pentagon Hole, and Flight 93. These are physical anomalies which can only be examined using hypothesis or conjecture since the evidence is GONE and we only have video and eyewitness accounts to go by.


I agree it's important stay

I agree it's important stay focused on the big picture because we're trying to achieve long term results. But I also thing that using forensic evidence combined with the obvious and visible explosions at the twin towers and especially building 7 is of paramount importance. If this gets taken into court physical evidence will be vitally necessary.

my god the BS is thick on this thread

One the one hand we have Uncle Fetzer (or someone using the Uncle Fetzer brand) crawling back trying to undo the mess he made when he tried to sink the movement by talking about nonsense theories and Judy Jetson as if she was the second coming. On the other hand we have the BS artist above who keeps on keepin on with the same tired nonsense about how we should ignore real evidence.

Of course Uncle Fetzer is a shill. But so are you, ZERO. You think that all you have to do is trash Uncle Fetzer and then people will agree with you. The minute you all start yammering on (your words) about foreknwoledge, money transfers, bla bla bla, and dismissing the mounds of clear physical evidence (no, it is not "gone") you lose all credibility with people who know what the score is.

As people become aware and join the movement, you keep trying your best to mislead them into unproductive and frankly made up avenues of bogus "inquiry". Take your manufactured divisions, buth of you, and go stand under a space beam somewhere. PLEASE.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Just out of curiosity "Real Truther..."

Are you taking shots at me specifically? I talk about the financing of 9/11, foreknowledge of the event, and several other aspects that are not physical evidence related. I've noticed you've been sending out a few "zingers", and I was just curious if I was the point of focus in your critiques.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

no Jon not you specifically

I am fine with people pursuing and talking about a lot of the issues you raise. I draw the line when poeple like the above say that physical evidence is somehow a dead end. To my knowledge you have never dismissed any reasonable anomaly regarding 9/11 as fruitless. I *have* noticed that some people you defend do that, and at times it has put us at odds on this board. But there is a difference between sticking up for someone and making claims yourself. I happen to think that the Pakistan angle is interesting but it is so in part because it seems to lend credence to something I don't believe, which is that Atta and Co. actually hijacked planes that day. I just have not seen any compelling evidence for that. I could be wrong, though, and you seem to think so, which is fine by me, though I will always be here to point out our disagreement so that people know that there are various positions to consider. Your contributions on this site are many and I appreciate them, even if we butt heads on certain issues. For all I know you may be disinfo, but for all anyone knows so might I be. Since you never discourage people from looking at anything that I consider valid, any disagreement I have with you is just that. When responding to people like ZERO with whome I have little patience, I might make comments that you may reasonably think could be aimed at you. To set the record straight, they are not. I've sad many times that we have to focus on facts not people. Only when people show clear abuse of facts should we dismiss them out of hand, like Uncle Fetz and the space beam and NPT crowd. I realize that there are many stripes of truther and I consider myself an ally of most of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding if there was one. And thanks for your efforts, in case anyone thinks I am ever too dismissive of people with whom I disagree on occasion.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



Because almost every thread having to do with 9/11: Press For Truth, you feel obligated to post why you think Pakistan is unimportant, and I just wanted to clarify your position. You think it's interesting, but doesn't support your theory that Mohammad Atta wasn't involved. To me, because of all of the problems identifying who was in control of those planes, it's best not to focus on that aspect.

You said, "To my knowledge you have never dismissed any reasonable anomaly regarding 9/11 as fruitless."

Nope. However, I have pointed out that the physical evidence arguments tend to lead people in circles. Back and forth, back and forth, etc... Mark Roberts, and Ronald Wieck are perfect examples of this.

I have also pointed out that the media uses the physical evidence arguments over anything else to put this movement in a bad light.

I'm not smart enough, or knowledgeable enough to know exactly what happened on 9/11.

I do know that this Administration wanted to go to war with both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11. I do know that neither war would have been possible without 9/11. I do know that this Administration initially refused to investigate the attacks, until they were forced to by the families. I do know that this Administration tried to "limit the scope" of other investigations taking place. I do know that this Administration created a "stacked deck" commission that never really investigated 9/11. I do know of several cover-ups pertaining to the events of 9/11 that if investigated, would most assuredly prove complicity on the part of our Government.. I do know that this Administration, and their corporate friends have benefitted the most from the 9/11 attacks.

That being said, if physical evidence is what you want to focus on, that is your prerogative. It does not have to be everyone elses.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Can't we all just get along?

"Nope. However, I have pointed out that the physical evidence arguments tend to lead people in circles. Back and forth, back and forth, etc... Mark Roberts, and Ronald Wieck are perfect examples of this.

I have also pointed out that the media uses the physical evidence arguments over anything else to put this movement in a bad light."

This is not a correct characterization of the role physical evidence can play in an argument that we do not know the truth about the events of 9/11. For intellectually honest people, this information does NOT lead in circles, but points directly to the fact that the huge amounts of money thrown at NIST very conspicuously failed to result in a credible explanation. This failure is just as certainly the basis to demand a new investigation as is evidence about ISI, Able Danger, and so forth. Roberts and Wieck are not experts, they are trolls, and using their reactions as a gauge of what a real person's reactions might be is pointless.

Grouping all the "physical evidence" together as the media's target for ridicule is being a little sloppy. it sounds like you aren't making any distinction between NPT, space beams, and the visual evidence that the destruction of the Towers was an explosive event. That's disingenuous. They make fun of what they can, but you have to put that tendency next to its counterpart, which is to run like hell from any video of 7's classical CD -- which is sorta the ne plus ultra of physical evidence, don't you think?

Also, I read RT's post as an attempt to be conciliatory and you responded with some statements that you know would be likely to reignite an ongoing conflict. That seems unwise and unfair.

cant we all just use ALL of the evidence?

very well put as usual casseia. i dont understand why we cant have room for all of the evidence. the physical evidence is important and has opened the eyes of literally millions around the world. to discount it based on some trolls is indeed ridiculous. lets not forget the huge impact the Pentagon flash had before Loose Change(which is heavy on physical evidence) even came out. thats not to knock the pakistan/ISI, money trail stuff, because i feel thats very important as well.

"foreknowledge and money trails"????

is bogus research?


funny stuff.

this is what i refer to as 'soft disinfo'

hard disinfo is when someone like Reynolds tells us that cartoon planes hit the towers.

soft disinfo is when someone very subtly attempts to misdirect people away from the evidence, while mixing it up with what appears to be sincere and logical debate.

it could be intentional or unintentional. doesn't matter. anyone who would call foreknowledge insignificant really has some explaining to do.

do please cite...

Anywhere that I have said that foreknowledge and money trails are bogus research. Or insignificant.

If you have solid leads that indicate either, please also cite. If, however, you are going to repeat the FBI's claim that someone using a pseudonym but who they claim was a member of Paksitan's ISI wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta (a story repeated in the MSM and in the Times of India) please provide the following:

1) What evidence other than the FBI's claim is there that this transfer occurred?

2) This transfer was allegedly processed by what financial institution, and where was it deposited?

3) What evidence exists of Atta's alleged use of this money? Bank account info? What bank?

4) What amounts did he withdraw and for what purposes?

5) How does the alleged wire transfer bear on the controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7, or the damage to the Pentagon? The alleged wire transfer even if real proves nothing in itself.

Money trails are important, but there needs to be real evidence. So where is it?

As for foreknowledge, we know plenty of people must have had it, and all of those people are complicit to one degree or another. Not everyone with foreknowledge would have actually been involved in the orchestration of the events. Can you prove that Bush knew what was going to happen? Citing presidential briefs that "Al Qaeda was determined to strike" does not prove that a) "Al Qaeda" orchestrated the controlled demolitions, attack on the Pentagon, or alleged hijackings or that b) Bush knew any of this was going to happen.

By their actions we know that Silvestein had foreknowledge, since otherwise we must believe he was incredibly lucky. The people who engaged in suspicious trading also had foreknowledge. Buzzy Krongard, and others. We should certainly demand a full acounting of all related financial transactions.

Who else can we say with certainty had foreknowledge not of a sketchy and dubious "al Qaeda" plot but of the events as they actually happened?

Your attempts to put words in my mouth are laughable Mr. Albanese, and that you are working on a movie about disinfo in the movement is nothing short of precious. I expect it will be a true "insider's guide" to disinfo. :)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


oh someone else had foreknowledge...

how COULD I forget Sivan Kurzberg and the rest of the Dancing Israelis. THEY clearly knew that something was going to happen that they would want to "document". Whoever pays them and tells them what to do must also have known what was going to happen. The fact that Larry Silverstein, who had foreknowledge, spoke (speaks?) weekly with ultra right-wing Israeli big shot Benjamin Netanyahu (whose first reaction to 9/11 was that "it's good. well, not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel") really does make one wonder....


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show ""Full Spectrum Dominance"" by James H. Fetzer (not verified)

"Zero Spectrum Tolerance"

I have never denied that such programs exist. Not just directed energy but things like "rods from gods", which I'm sure you must know about but never seem to mention. The problem is that while such weapons programs no doubt exist at varying stages of development, there is no evidence that they were used on 9/11.

My own research would seem not to be as limited as yours, actually. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 is not the crime itself but the coverup. The crime was relatively simple to understand. False flag attacks involving controlled demolition of three skyscrapers and a strike on the Pentagon, carried out by criminal elements embedded in both the US and Israeli government, military, and intelligence circles, operating on behalf of a specific faction of the global elite intended to manipulate the public in the US and elsewhere to support the neocon (aka global zionist, according to Israeli ex-pat Gilad Atzmon) agenda that includes continued funding and organizing of a false paradigm of conflict in the middle east that enables continuance of western and Israeli dominance in the region, for interests including seizure of oil resources by western oil companies, continued annexation of Palestinian territory and related ethnic cleansing in pursuit of "eratz Israel", control of the illegal drug trade, protection of dollar stability and international banking cartel dominance, and preservation of highly valued historical myths in the minds of new generations. That is the crime in a nutshell, and it reaches back through time, 9/11 is the tip of the iceberg that has emerged in our time, as JFK was a generation ago. Same iceberg, and the tips keep extending into the past.

Now the coverup is ongoing, and even more complex because it is not represented by static, measurable events but by evolving tactics of misdirection, deception, and the more direct forms of coercive thought. That's where it pays to identify those with agendas and motives far afield of the truth and not let them, once exposed for what they are, to regain any credibility or sway within the movement. There are no second chances in this. Once you cross a certain line, you are out of the game.

Just my opinions of course, and I could be wrong about anything I say, but that is up to those reading to determine, and share if they wish.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Hmmm" by Anonymous (not verified)

Your obssession with the CD

Your obssession with the CD hypothesis and need to attack anyone who wants to zero in on the established facts about 9/11 is very telling, Mr. Truther.

Now, go ahead and call me a shill for wanting to focus on the established facts. Or better yet explain why the documented evidence that establishes foreknowlege should be put aside so we can debate whether or not there were hijackers on the planes and just exactly how a 100 story building responds to fire and damage.

could you be more obvious?

Why don't you just bring up some of these established facts and we can discuss? Why don't you specify what evidence of whose foreknowledge you're talking about?

As for the question of whether or not there were hijackers on the planes, given that it is the essence of the official claims I find it highly suspect that there is no evidence of it being true. Is pointing that out somehow against established facts? And the question is not how a building responds to fire and damage, it is what was the nature of the fire and damage--again the evry essence of the official story.

Now, I'm not sure who exactly you think you're convincing of what every time you attack me, but if you want to debate anything, just bring it up. You can start by telling me what evidence of foreknowledge you find compelling and what it means to you.

But these sloppy little hit and run shots you and others like to engage in don't really accomplish anything other than to demonstrate the fact that you don't like me. Big surprise! Anyway, go ahead, cite some evidence of foreknowledge, and tell the world why they should care. Go ahead--just write it below:


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I'm talking about the dozen

I'm talking about the dozen warnings from intelligence agencies, the August 6th memo, the wargames, reports that Tenet briefed Rumsfeld and Rice on the likely attacks.

Pointing out that the story of hijackers on the planes is part of the "official story" and thereby you disbelieve it demonstrates only your propensity to disbelieve the official story but provides absolutely no evidence. In fact claiming that there were no hijackers on the planes is to go against established facts. That is facts based on evidence.

I'm talking about the dozen

I'm talking about the dozen warnings from intelligence agencies, the August 6th memo, the wargames, reports that Tenet briefed Rumsfeld and Rice on the likely attacks.

Pointing out that the story of hijackers on the planes is part of the "official story" and thereby you disbelieve it demonstrates only your propensity to disbelieve the official story but provides absolutely no evidence. In fact claiming that there were no hijackers on the planes is to go against established facts. That is facts based on evidence.

You are missing the point

I was not saying the physical anomalies of 9/11 should be disregarded. I think they are an important pieces to the puzzle. I just think they should not be the entire focus or what forms the root of division between the movement. I was simply stating that I am suspicious of anyone who focuses on one element and not the bigger picture. 9/11 was a crime. It's invesitgation should be treated like one. In the case of 9/11, the crime scene has been either altered or destroyed. As a result, I believe it is suicide to base the foundations of the investigation on something that has been extremely compromised.

ok zero, but...

there were countless eyewitnesses. the events were videotaped from multiple angles. and even FEMA has evidence that was collected and deemed suspicious and worthy of further study. The problem is not with the evidence and never was--it's been staring us in the face. the problem is political and the problem is lack of awareness. we create awareness of the clear case of fraud, that increases political pressure to do the right thing, and we win. I think this is the predominant view, and all indications are that this is working, how else do you explain 9/11 mysteries' popularity? i think a lot of people are "protesting too much" and what that means is that their protests bely a certain odd resistance to success.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I believed much of the

I believed much of the "official" account of 9/11 until 2004. At first I focused on the physical anomalies of 9/11. Which I agree are massive and very important to the overall picture. I do not need to be a CD expert in order to know that WTC-7 was was a CD! I am just very suspicious of individuals who obsess on the physical anomalies. I am even more suspicious of indiduals who both obsess on physical anomalies and work very hard to create division within the movement based upon disagreements about the physical anomalies. There appears to be individuals who seem to go out of their way to do this.


Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit.


Space beams,, mini nukes, and cgi/holographic planes.

Which one is stronger?

That goes both ways.

There's the match-up you suggest (and the implicit disruptive motivations behind it) but then there's one like this:

Visual evidence plus eyewitness testimony that the WTC complex was blown up and did not fall down, directly contradicting both the GCT and any LIHOP theory in which the "agents" of the observed events were the 19 hijackers


Evidence that other entities were involved, including foreign intelligence and/or a state, which may or may not implicate anyone outside the "Islamofascist" world.

Do you see that there is possibly a disruptive motive in favoring the second item in that pair as well?

O.K. is this

O.K. is this better?

Mysterious September 11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

by Michel Chossudovsky



Space beams, mini nukes, and cgi/holographic planes

you missed her point. you

you missed her point. you are pitting pakistan/ISI(the fall guy and last refuge in my opinion) against space beams and mini nukes, as opposed to say WTC7. and by the way, whos creating divisions now? whats with the vs shit antyway? see my post from page 1. ALL evidence.

No, I did not miss the point.

No, I did not miss the point. I agree, ALL the evidence needs to be used. What I was trying to show via the Pakistani ISI connection is basically the following equation: CIA, MI6, + Pakistani ISI = "Al CIA-duh" and the mountains of evidence that backs this up as apposed to Fetzer, Woods, and Reynolds obsessions. I believe this (money trails, intelligence agency connections, foreknowledge etc. ) is stronger information that space beams, mini-nukes, and cgi/ holographic planes. Fetzer, Wood, and Reynolds seem obsessed with this exotic technology. They are going out of there way to slander Jones and promote this their hypothesis above all. There appears to be an obvious agenda to what they are doing. A three-year old can see this.

Again, I want to use ALL of the evidence. I just know for fact, focusing on exotic technology, that could or could not be true will doom the movement.

i agree wtih your last

i agree wtih your last poiont, i NEVER bring up mini nukes, CGI or anything else like that. WTC7 and the controlled demolition of the towers(and even the pentagon questions) is not in that category. casseias point was that you were being unfair in pitting mini nukes against money trail/foreknowledge stuff instead of the controlled demolition of the 3 towers. again, i totally agree that leading with mini nukes or CGI is a major tactical mistake, even if there is solid evidence to show that they were used(i have yet to see any). leading with WTC7 is not a tactical mistake in any way in my personal experience. WTC7 and the destruction of the towers have been one of our biggest recruiting tools. that simply cant be denied.

still have no tact i see huh

still have no tact i see huh Andrew? not covering up, not at all. i have enough tact and rationality to know that leading with mini nukes or CGI in the media is a tactical mistake. please, dont play dumb. lets look at my qoute again, "i totally agree THAT LEADING with mini nukes or CGI is a MAJOR TACTICAL MISTAKE,even if there is solid evidence to show they were used(I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY)

nice touch leaving the rest of my comment out by the way. who does that remind me of? hmmm...........

it doesnt cancel it out, its

it doesnt cancel it out, its called being rational, you should try it. and try qouting my full comment in its full context next time you want to sling accusations. the Pentagon is a real controversy, but many people have been swayed by it. i have yet to run into 1 single person who has said they have been converted to questioning the official story of 9/11 based on the CGI/mini nuke/direct energy theories. on the other hand, i have run into scores of people who have been converted by the Pentagon inconsistencies(remember how many people the Pentagon flash woke up? i just dont see a CGI/direct energy theory flash film doing that). so whos playing dumb here Andrew? you dont see the potential harm in leading with mini nukes and CGI? i cant help you.

Since when is the FBI a reliable source of information?

The above is like asking:

Steaming pile of dog shit


Cold bucket of yak vomit

Which one is more delicious?

Let's recap here--the frame-up job that was designed to lead us to accept without question that a) the planes that hit the towers were commercial airliners hijacked by Atta and his merry band of magical muslims and that b) all that muslim mirth minimized the manhattan skyline (i.e. mad the towers collapse) should not be taken at face value in the absence of hard evidence that has never been produced.

Plus, ignored warnings of something that never happened are pretty pointless to bring up. Why don't we sort out what did and did not happen, and then decide who knew or did not know what and when?

So much smoke! So many mirrors! Get a fan and a hammer and go to town. The truth is staring us in the face and the only chance the perps have is to confuse the issues, muddy the waters, and promote a paradigm of false dichotomies of avenues of inquiry.

Fighting for the truth means fighting these efforts as we raise awareness of the larger issues.

There's the crime, and there's the cover-up. Fight both.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Norman Minetta Scenario Exposed On FOX

Let's remember that not too long ago, he talked about what happened with Minetta and Cheney on TV and the next day Minetta was announced to be out... For what it's worth.

Show "Fetzer at NPC" by Michael Morrissey

Is anyone available

in the area to show up and protest this event? i think we need to make the media aware that we are onto their game and publicly protest the continual disinformation being put out in our name.

I love the false dichotomy employed by Fetzer and his ilk. They argue that they are simply open to discussing POSSIBLE theories - and claim that we are censoring research.

Well, this is simply a false dichotomy designed to divide us.

The premise itself is without merit. Obviously all research is not created equally. Obviously not every theory is credible. It is absurd to even suggest that we should treat - with equal respect - theories that lack any empirical scientific evidence. We should not embrace every quack theory that comes along - simply out of a sense of 'fair play.' If Fetzer tomorrow seaks to "simply discuss" the POSSIBILITY of little green men from mars - should we respect that? of course not.

Killtown uses a similar approach. He sets up a 9/11 website with tons of material on holograms - and then he screams bloody murder when we criticize him - claiming that his website has a disclaimer stating that he does not necessarily advocate these theories.

nooooo..... he doesn't advocate holograms..... he just sets up websites on 9/11 dedicated to holograms.

yeah - that makes sense.

Fetzer does not advocate space beams and mini-nukes, he just talks about them extensively in his speeches.

gee - how can we be so dumb?

it could just be that Fetzer is a career opportunist - leaching onto human tragedy like JFK and 911 to sell his books. he may just be playing the role of the wacky professor at a Star Trek convention - and purposely talks about silly sci-fi theories to appeal to silly sci-fi adolescent personalities who will put money in his pocket.

by advocating his nonsense theories he is no threat to the government. in fact - they probably appreciate his efforts. or - as some suspect - he is indeed representing their interests intentionally.

unfortunately, Dr. Fetzer has chosen the wrong movement to leach off of. The murder of JFK was 44 years ago. 911 is a different ball of wax - and i hope he realizes the moral implications of what he is doing.

A Scientific theory can be disproved with experiments

"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable."

A simple question: How can the directed energy weapon hypothesis be tested?  How can it be proven to be false?

By definition if it can't do these things it is not a scientific theory.

Given the observable fact that debris from the Twin Towers shot out in all directions as far as 500 feet, how can the directed energy weapon hypothesis explain this behavior?  In other words why is there perfectly symmetrical collapse (at free fall speed) as well as a symmetrical pattern of debris shooting away from the towers in all directions?

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


can you prove martians DIDN'T attack us on 9/11? every theory must be "Falsifiable"

Slightly off topic, but this

Slightly off topic, but this reminds me of Cheney and Rummy back in the 70's using now-familiar scare tactics to keep the Soviet threat alive and balloon the military budget. They claimed that the Soviets had a super secret, radar-fooling, undetectable submarine that patrolled the coast of the U.S. When the various intelligence agencies said they could find no evidence that any such thing existed, they said "See! That proves it!"

Maybe they'd spent too much time watching "Get Smart."

I'm going to guess from this statement

that you really haven't been following Arabesque's work on this board, John. That's fine -- we all know the physical evidence isn't your thing -- but please don't make careless assumptions.


i would not lump "space beams" in with "physical evidence" debate.

- and i made no careless assumptions. i just reject the basis of his hypothesis - which is essentially asking me to prove a negative. he is challenging me to prove space beams false. that would be a fool's errand.

i would rather stick to what can be proven - than wasting my time proving what is NOT possible - because using this logic i could be baited into disproving one absurdist theory after another.

the space beams advocates should prove their case - instead of putting the onus on us to disprove it.

John, just stick to what you do best.

You clearly have not followed Arabesque's work as the leading voice (along with posters like SeveB) of reason and scientific method against the illogic of the space beam cabal. Get it? S/he's on our side, dude.

S/he was NOT "putting the onus on you" to disprove the spacebeam "theory." What s/he said was a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The space beamers have not shown how their theory could be falsified, therefore it does not qualify as a scientific theory. S/he is removing the onus from you to consider every absurd theory that comes down the pike by providing a criterion based in the scientific method for making a judgment.

Show "hmmm" by John Albanese

I too thought Arabesque's

I too thought Arabesque's post was rather clear. He was just showing that the space beam hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis by definition. In fact, the same is true for your martian hypothesis. It isn't a scientific hypothesis because it can't be falsified.

Relax, John.

Arabesque has done a killer

Arabesque has done a killer job arguing against the space beam theory and spammers for weeks now, but you totally misread what he is saying (that the theory is not falsifiable therefor it can never be considered a valid theory) and essentially call him a hermaphrodite.

I like you john, but sometimes you totally misread people and come off as a jerk. If your going to attack someone make sure you even understand what they are saying so you can avoid putting your foot in your mouth.

Hey Arabesque, a new paper debunking the space beams was posted yesterday. Looks like some arguments similar to yours are made in it :D


Thanks for the kind words.

It was not my intention to attack to John. In fact I'm not even sure if it was his intention to attack me. After all, his reply appeared to be in agreement with my previous statement! Sometimes it's hard to tell (;

My position is that I don't think that the space beam theory is falsifiable. Steven Jones has argued the same.

I look forward to reading the new 9/11 studies article. In the beginning I thought that the DEW theory was suspicious.

Then I thought about it carefully and started testing to see if anyone could answer my objections/ideas. Most couldn't. I was even tempted to write a blog entry, but this article should do the trick instead.

This should be on the front page of 9/11 blogger.


For the record I am not both sexes--just one. A guy (;

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

Phew... thanks

I hate doing that "s/he" thing.

I wrote a blog entry about

I wrote a blog entry about the Journal of 9/11 Studies paper here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/5505

Of course i wasn't attacking you

although i do admit i misunderstood your original post. it seemed like you were challenging people to prove space beams is false - which is something i would not encourage people to waste their time doing.

this offshoot to the main discussion was the product of someone with a bone to pick with me.

I would ask you though....

do you think it makes sense to even try to approach this obvious disinformation campaign from a scientific standpoint? it seems like it would serve to validate the subject as a legitimate avenue of debate - which is of course the goal of any disinformation campaign. it would appear that they want to tie us up in knots debating and debunking one absurdist theory after another.

its a real Catch 22

A cancer should be removed—even if it is painful.

"do you think it makes sense to even try to approach this obvious disinformation campaign from a scientific standpoint?"


Exposing the fact that DEW is not a scientific theory is very important. We are not a 9/11 “anything goes” movement. We are a 9/11 truth movement. The scientific method is the best way to get to the truth. Other methods are not as reliable.

A cancer should be removed—even if it is painful. Disinformation can and has hurt the 9/11 truth movement. Ignoring it is not enough. Ignoring disinfo gives it some power of credibility—tacit approval. Everyone in the 9/11 truth movement has their own role. There are different things we can do:

You can spread the truth with DVDs and ignore the disinformation. You can prefer to have a researcher role in discovering the finer details of 9/11. You can combat 9/11 disinformation. You can make films. And so on.

Everyone has their own strengths, and we should all use them. The thing is that we are all in this together. Obviously some are not—but they are only few in number.

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


I haven't read anything that makes me think s/he is male or female (maybe you have) and I don't make assumptions, especially in areas where someone's technical or scientific expertise is prominent, because it's sexist. Is that a simple enough explanation for you?

Thank you for addressing the substance of my post. I appreciate it. Actually, that post was as polite and dispassionate as I could make it, because I don't harbor any grudges against you based on previous behavior and thought I would be *nicer* to you than to any other bloggerite displaying the same level of ignorance just to make that clear. *This* post, by contrast, is in fact edgy, because playing the "Oh no, casseia and RT are out to get me and it's so unfair" card AGAIN is just utter bullshit. So I'm done.

I do recommend you look at Arabesque's blogs sometime because you might learn something.

Stick to what you are good at


I rest my case.....

"*This* post, by contrast, is in fact edgy, because playing the "Oh no, casseia and RT are out to get me and it's so unfair" card AGAIN is just utter bullshit."

what utter nonsense is this?

this is absolutely why i avoid talking to Casseia at all costs. she tends to conflate things unnecessarily.

she is correct that i misread arabesque's post - but, she is now turning mean spirited and turning this into an opera.

fool me once - shame on you
fool me twice - shame on me

Peace, guys and gals

Sometimes we interpret each other correctly, sometimes not. Sometimes we draw the right conclusions, sometimes not. We are all just humans.

The best way to start solving a quarrel is hugging. Alas, that is not available on this forum.

Show "So let me get this straight," by Roger Smith (not verified)


i am suggesting truthers protest disinformation

Protesting disinformation

So if I were to take up your suggestion and protest disinformation wouldn't it be better to hold my protest outside of
say Fox News, a disinformation factory, than at the National Press Club where some retired professor who doesn't
believe the governments account of 9/11 is speaking? just a thought.


because everyone knows what FoxNews is.

Fetzer is different in that he poses as a 9/11 Truther while presenting disinformation.

Here's a question for YOU>

i the 1960s the FBI passed out coloring books claiming they were produced by the Black Panthers. The coloring books depicted cops getting shot.

Would you oppose confronting this? If members of the Black Panthers were actually on the FBI payroll and passing out disinformation - would you suggest the Black Panthers go protest outside FoxNews?

space beams? mini nukes? keebler elves? cartoon planes? holograms? pods?

the jig is UP my friend. time to clean house.

Show "nukes ends the whole" by RANDKILLER2007 (not verified)

I Have to say this is one of

I Have to say this is one of the most interesting "battle grounds" for information warfare I've ever seen.
The 9/11 truth movement is winning. The key to gov't infiltration now is SUBTLEY. This is relatively new ground for them as we pose (I imagine) the most ominous challenge to them yet. As their infiltrating techniques progress, expect them to appear more and more (and more) as genuine truthers. Look at Fetzer. I was utterly and totally fooled by him when I watched the LA conference on C-SPAN. He's the absolute last "truther" I would have suspected, and I'm pretty good at spotting infiltrators and provocateurs.
My basic thesis here is, expect the dis-info operatives to become more and more clever...by wearing our clothes and becoming more subtle. In other words, they HAVE to do it because we are winning. Even though they'd never ever admit it, I assume their pretty scared of us.
(just my opinion)


Everyone doesn't know what Fox News (or CNN for that matter) is...Sean Hannity doesn't know and he works there.
That aside, in your opinion, what exactly qualifies a person to be a 9/11 truther and how do you know Dr. Fetzer
is only posing as one to present disinformation? How do you know he's not a real truther? What disinformation is he presenting?

As far as your Black Panther question goes ...the coloring books sound like the same ones the CIA passed out to the little muslim boys and girls in the eighties depicting evil commies killing muslims. But if a guy posing as a Panther was passing out coloring books depicting cops getting shot (by Panthers I presume) I would think his cover would pretty much be blown as far as being a REAL Panther goes so there really wouldn't be much to confront...i.e. a rat in the mob.
Would I suggest the Panthers protest outside Fox News? If Fox News was the one advertising the dirty little coloring books day and night, why the hell not...you could at least deny your involvement.

Anyways, if what you're trying to say is that Dr. Fetzer is a fake Panther passsing out coloring books, I ask again, how do you know this? What evidence do you have? You can't just wack a guy on a hunch or maybe you can, I don't know.
Finally, Keebler elves? huh? What jig is UP? and whose house are you cleaning? Thanks for the discourse, my wife thinks I'm crazy.

my evidence

is the preponderance of misinformation originating from a certain nexus of researchers who all seem to be working in concert to advance the most absurdist theories imaginable.

it is my opinion. and if you scan this board you will see that it appears to be the one thing that the majority of us here agree on.

The Keebler Elves reference comes from a radio show Fetzer did with Judy Wood in which she talks about the Keebler elves hollowing out their tree - as a scientific analogy to the WTC.


Fetzer heaps praise on her for this analogy - like she just invented penicillin. Eureka!!! The Keebler Elves hypothesis!!! Alert the press!!!

IN fact - if you look at Judy's paper on space beams you will see photos of Looney Tunes cartoon characters recovered at ground zero. she remarks on how the Roadrunner suffered so little damage.

and of course the last of this trio - Morgan (cartoon planes) Reynolds has a website the superimposes a photo of the road runner on the WTC tower - where people died - as a way of winning the hearts and minds of serious scholars everywhere.

yes - better science through cartoons.

and you have the GALL To ask me how i know the circus is in town?

Please stop

This is just sad. An entire thread of more fighting between people who share the same common goal.
Why does everyone feel the need to tell others what to talk about when exposing 9/11 Truth?
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were coming together despite their differences because the shared the same common goal.
I'm willing to bet any amount of money that Fetzer wants to expose 9/11 for what it is: a government op. After his extensive, five year investigation can he not start looking into other possibilities in the attack?
I agree that we can't all get caught up in so much speculation about the attacks, but who am I to tell someone else how to expose the truth?
We are all working together to expose truth. If you don't believe in someone's method, just don't support them. We don't have to bicker like first-graders about whose theories are more effective.
I am by no means sticking up for Fetzer, I don't know the man personally I've simply heard him speak many times and I consider him an asset to the truth movement even if he speaks on issues we may think are absurd (4 years ago I thought the Truth Movement was absurd, as do many of us).
I am, however, very upset about the bickering going on between the two professors and I feel they should make up immediately and come to terms with their common goals. However, that is not my fight and I don't know about all the inner workings of their relationship.
Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? We all want the same thing!
The Neo-Cons are sitting back and laughing as we fight each other for what evidence is most important.

I'm learning from this debate, their words reveal them!

A bit childish sometimes yes, but it's helping me decide on Fetzer and others.

He should make a stand against Wood and Reynolds if he wants’s to stay in the argument.

He also needs to differentiate between provable science and fringe theories of his, which have little support by the members.

A movement by definition has to have a center and leaders need to dominate that ground or they become benign distractions!

Regards John

Your evidence

So what you're saying then John is that your evidence that Fetzer is only posing as a 9/11 truther is....your OPINION...right? I wasn't asking for your opinion, I've got plenty of those...I asked if you had any evidence to
support this claim. I guess not.

I haven't heard the Fetzer/Wood radio show so I can't really comment, however I will say your tone sounds a lot
like the people who used to attack controlled demolition theorists as the most absurdist thing imaginable.
In fact, I can't see much difference in the way you view this group of researchers and the way Alexander Cockburn
views the whole 9/11 truth movement. A big embarrassing annoyance getting in the way of real truth and justice.
Should space beams and cartoon planes be the focus of any national debate or airtime? At this point, of course not
but I don't really see anyone doing that. Furthermore, the towers were fucking shredded in a matter of seconds,
it doesn't really matter how...space beams, thermate, dynamite...we're all kooks in the eyes of the Bill O' Reillys of the
world. The idea that one theory or the other is fucking up the movement is what's truely absurd. And honestly bubba
I find the plausibility of highly-classified weaponry far more entertaining than Steven Jones' drip, drip drip, dripping
thermate and I'd take Fetzer's anger over Jones giggling thru presentations any day.

As far as your GALL comment goes, there was nothing impudent in the questions I asked, in fact you're showing
me very little respect in even using such a word. Get over yourself rube.

John Albanese is spot onto

John Albanese is spot onto this situation.

If a theory is not scientific, why on earth is the journal getting on its knees to refute it? Even if it IS only a letters section???? Seriously. He has a very powerful point here. By the journal mixing it up with space beams, and HIGHLIGHTING that letters section link at the top of the FRONT page, real scientists will probably think it's a disinfo-infighting-space beams journal . . .

I hope someone will keep track of the emails that come in about these arguments. Watch to see what real scientists say, or if they just start to disappear altogether. Because I wouldn't be surprised if they do start to dry up and not want to touch the journal with a 10 foot pole.

I think the letters responses are spot on themselves. But they'd be better off to be located someplace else rather than on the ONE place on the internet has for a thin ray of hope of credibility as far as 9 - 1 - 1 truth.

Zapruder Film / Wellstone Crash / Spacebeams

unfortunately, Dr. Fetzer has chosen the wrong movement to leach off of. The murder of JFK was 44 years ago. 911 is a different ball of wax - and i hope he realizes the moral implications of what he is doing.

all the obvious infighting aside, some in the JFK research community believed Fetzer's assertions that the CIA altered the Zapruder film as exactly this kind of "spacebeam-type" distraction from the facts around the assassination.

i didn't believe them at first, because i liked what Fetzer had to say and found it hard to believe that he could be disingenuous, and much like the 9-11 movement, there is A LOT of infighting. but, it seems like he's going at this spacebeam thing in a similar manner as the distracting Zapruder film assertion.

now, if this and what all the others who have soured on him on this site have to say is true, and Fetzer has the track record of distortion and exaggeration to advance some sort of divide and conquer method . . . how do we frame the Wellstone research he did? was that a distraction of a different kind??

To Jim Fetzer: The solution

To Jim Fetzer:

The solution is very simple.

Why not create a Q & A thread and address your critics?

Better yet make a video or audio clip discussing the points of contention people have with your positions.
In this clip, address what many now see as your flight from reality. Address what caused you to make and support unscientific statements that have harmed your credibility.

Address what you did to Steven Jones. Address why you have gone from credible to not credible in the eyes of many in less than 1 year.
Was this your goal? Have you not done this to yourself?

If your goals are genuine, why won't you will address your critics and admit your mistakes? I just don't get it.



This is your choice.

If you are who you say you are, you have an OBLIGATION to SPEAK UP and address your critics.

I once had a great deal of respect for you and found you credible. What the hell happened?

YOU allowed the oversimplification. You blew it. Now why not try to fix it?

Clarify your positions. Address your critics. And last but not least STICK TO THE FACTS. PLEASE.

Ok. I didn’t read the

Ok. I didn’t read the entire thread so please don’t leap down my throat…

I think Chris posted a sensible response to the argument developing here:

BOTH physical evidence and so-called circumstantial evidence should be taken into account. BOTH WTC7 and the (remarkable) War Games should be considered essential evidence. BOTH Hani’s flying skills (or lack thereof) and Atta’s coke-sniffing antics on Abromoff’s yacht are vitally important. Willie Brown and Cipro and Black Boxes are just as important as squibs and pentagon debris (again, lack thereof) and “Let’s Roll” mythology.

I hope we haven’t reached the point where we have to divide ourselves into yet another set of exclusionary camps. In fact, the circumstantial evidence is entirely consistent with the physical evidence. Theory: the “hijackers” were Oswald-style patsies. Atta was running smack for the US gov and possibly other intell agencies. The Mossad was subcontracted out for role of “overseer” (first rule of CIA is plausible deniability); they “handled” the patsies. Israeli gov and US gov are equally culpable.

911 was a false flag.

Now, I’ve often said that Ruppert was right that the “physical evidence” can and will be argued ad nauseum by contrarian shills; therefore such evidence should perhaps be placed on the backburner while on television. That’s only because EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS about the Pentagon controversy, and the bombs, and so forth.

When I talk to people in my acquaintance, virtually no one has heard of the war games or the put options or the Minetta testimony, but everyone has heard of the Pentagon. It makes sense that certain entities are pissed off that certain evidence is getting short shrift.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY that the physical evidence should be ignored. Allow me to quote Howard Zinn on revolutionary tactics. Unlikes most “leftists”, Zinn gave the thumbs up to David Ray Griffin’s book on 911:

“With a population of diversified interests, tactics must be adapted and focused specially for each group, and for the group most inimical to reform, it is doubtful that moderation is effective. With the intrasigeants, it may be only the most powerful action that impels change.”

As for “space beams” and “no planes”, should I even bother? 911blogger folks have shown themselves remarkably impervious to disinformation. They/we have done exactly the right thing in opposing said disinformation from the outset. Disinfo doesn’t magically disappear if you ignore it, any less cancer. It has to be nipped in the bud. Fetzer can suck an egg.

I gave Fetzer feedback by

I gave Fetzer feedback by email about the substance of his radio and media appearances. He did not seem to respond to my comments in any meaningful way. He was very defensive and asked me who the "he**"" did I think I was. I was disappointed by several conjectures he had made on his appearance:

Some comments I had made to him regarding some notes I had taken on a radio show he had done on Alan Colmes June 2006:

F: Everything the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false.

Analysis: Overstatement. I think you should reframe that and change it to “much” or “most” or “a lot of crucial things” that the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false. The statement that EVERYTHING the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false is simply NOT a true statement.

F: Steel certified to 2000 degrees

Analysis: Fetzer did not mention what the steel was certified for – whether weakness or melting – specify and be clear what they were certified for.

F: Colmes finds it difficult to believe our elected leaders would do it. Fetzer says the election was stolen –

Analysis: not the best answer. Better bring up history of false flag operations and their motives for pulling off 9/11. You instead went the topic off of 9/11 and pulled yourself into a tangential topic the stolen elections. Moving off the 9/11 topic is not good for the 9/11 truth movement.

F: Was Dick Cheney involved? I have no doubt of that. It’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense.

Analysis: – not a good answer – explain what the specific evidence is instead of giving your hypothesis without mentioning the supporting evidence.

F: Who was in the planes? – “My opinion is that they were substituted”.

Analysis: That is speculation without sufficient evidence presented to back it up. Instead say you don’t know for sure, discuss what pertinent evidence is being withheld from us, and move on to another topic.

F: Brought up question or statement regarding if some passengers were paid –

Analsysis: that is pure speculation on your part.

F: “Cell phones would have been physically impossible” – that is proven to be improbable, but not impossible.

Analysis: It can be rebutted by saying someone pressed redial a thousand times. Cell phone issue is weak evidence and is not worthy of air time. Say it’s improbable (not impossible) and then quickly change topic and move on to stronger evidence.

F: Reports that I haven’t been verified that Barbara Olsen was arrested in Europe and Ted Olsen has moved to Europe. “My guess is that they live together in Europe – that is my guess”.

Analysis: That is speculation on your part. This movement cannot afford spokespeople to speculate on things on major media appearances. Stick to facts. When you don’t know, say you don’t know, and say the American people don’t know either what happened to Barbara Olsen.

F: Bringing up Mineta resigned because of my appearance on the TV show “Absolutely” –

Analysis: that is overreaching. You do not know that for sure and could not prove that in a court of law. Right now Fetzer is saying at least a couple of things that seem to be wild conjectures. He is saying that he is certain that the reason Mineta resigned the other day was because Fetzer had mentioned Mineta’s testimony the night before on Hannity and Colmes TV. How could Fetzer be certain of that? I also cringe when I hear him go into depth on unrelated issues like JFK’s assassination. He's spending time on some weak bits of evidence, and not focusing enough on the core issues. Poised to steal elections – you took the bait and talked about this – this is not 9-11 related. Don’t allow hosts to divert the discussion to non-9/11 issues.

F: Fetzer changing the topic to NAFTA superhighways.

Analysis: This is not 9-11 related. This is not helping the 9-11 truth cause when you change the topic away from 9-11 issues.

F: Questioner: Pentagon, jet fuel - . Fetzer laughs in his face.

Analysis: Try not laughing in people’s face. Answer their questions calmly and respectfully. People will give you more credence if you treat others with respect.

F: What hit the Pentagon? Instead Fetzer is speculating an A-3 came into the Pentagon.

Analysis: Say you don’t know!!!

Skimmed it but that seems a

Skimmed it but that seems a good analysis anon.

Fetzer is in no position to be "leading" anything. In fact, the moment a "leader" steps onto the scene and promises to guide us to the land of milk and honey is the moment I become supremely skeptical.

What was it Zapata said?

"A strong people needs no leader".

Sho nuff.

Show "Announcing the formation of "Los Alamos 9/11 Truth"" by Anonymous (not verified)

Ignore those who tell us what to think--about Steven Jones

"So stop thinking for yourselves .... It's easier to let others do our thinking for us."

You appeared to have a sarcastic intent, but it ended up blowing up in your face.

You mean to tell us to ignore those who tell us what to think about Steven Jones?

Agreed. Examine an argument with its evidence. The rest is irrelevant.

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

Show "Call in Fetzer's show" by gcnlive.com Tue-Thurs 3pm CT (not verified)

Steve Jones has made public

Steve Jones has made public appearances where he might be challenged. I saw him at the Lifting the Fog Conference in Berkeley, CA 2 months ago, open to the public, and he took questions from the audience at the end. It is absurd to call Steven Jones a "coward" when he has challenged the criminals in the military/industrial complex, been pressured into early retirement, appeared on difficult mainstream media venues like MSNBC where they refused to show his tape of WTC7 falling, and has received some indirect or direct threats. If you are more courageous than that, please identify yourself with yiou name, email address, mailing address, and phone number and I am sure that people will be happy to discuss with you how much more courage Steven Jones has displayed than you have.

Steven Jones has had enough with the ad hominem attacks against him from disinformation artists Judy Wood and M. Reynolds, as well as Fetzer. He I am sure wants nothing to do with these people who have exposed themselves as disinformation hacks with an agenda to attempt to bring down the 9/11 truth movement through infiltration and guilt by association.


he has challenged the criminals in the military/industrial complex, been pressured into early retirement,

This should read, "Steve Jones took a generous early retirment check after 30 years of faithful service to the military-industrial complex and bought a nice big house."

Hope this helps.

I'll let the comments speak for themself

Jim Fetzer in defense of Judy Woods calculations:

"The calculation about a grand piano taking as much as 30 seconds to hit the ground was correct, given specific variables of weight and configuration in which the open lid functioned like a parachute (would you also deny that a piano with a parachute could take even longer to hit the ground?), while the values advanced by Jones were not even physically possible."

I would surmise that either Jim is either not qualified to scrutinize simple physic/physical evidence, or a disinfo agent. Either way, I vote that he should not be a front man for the movement and will simply to more damage than good, even if not a disinfo agent. sorry Jim, but your argument above is ludicrous.

Central Mass 911 Truth Alliance

Show "Wow, you made a strong case!" by Anonymous (not verified)

a message from centralmass911truth.org

on the centralmass911truth.org frontpage, right below the link to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org, the following message from the webmaster is shown:

Message from the webmaster, "All presented evidence is valid until those who would refute it, take the time to successfully do so. If you fail or refuse to pursue it, then you fail in your qualification to refute it. To refute it without validation, is simply passive ignorance and treasonous to the American people and its true way of life."

keep that in mind while reading the post above the Larry of centralmass911truth.org


He said this????!!!!!


30 seconds for a Grand Piano to hit the ground? The lid would act as a parachute?


Thank you. I will use this.

(wipes away tear)

your issue with this is....?

a parachute works by increasing the surface area of the falling body, thus increasing resistance to air and slowing the falling body down. increased surface area will increase resistance-- you can see this sticking your hand out the window of a moving car and doing the 'airplane' like every kid has done. keep the palm of your hand parallel to the ground and you slice thru the air (much like how the aluminum wings of UA175 sliced thru the perimeter columns of WTC2) but if you rotate your wrist so your palm is perpendicular to the ground, you'll encounter more resistance and your hand will be pushed backwards. this is called drag.

if the lid of a grand piano is approx. the size of the surface area of the top of the piano, and the lid is opened, effectively doubling the surface area of the piano, how is it that this increased surface area will not slow down the piano as it falls?

note, i am not disputing the 30 seconds to fall claim because i haven't performed the relevant calculations myself, citing model, mass, and dimensions of the piano used, but i am questioning your issue with the lid acting as a parachute.

albanese, are you disputing the fact that increased surface area will increase air resistance, analogous to a parachute? i look forward to hearing you elaborate on your specific issues with this analogy.

Hmmm... Just walked into

Hmmm... Just walked into the living room to look at my grand piano. The lid of a piano is hinged on one side, which means that when dropped it would either stay closed or fly up at a right angle to the body of the piano. It can't hover over the entire surface when the lid is open. Perhaps she actually meant a piano wearing a parachute?



simple math and logic too much?

Why does simple math ad logic ut you to slepp?

From the video evidence...

I'm going to have to side against Mega-Super-nano thermite nodules and
go with the Exotic Weapons. Not to sure 'bout them planes either.
In any case, I certainly am against anyone dictating what can and cannot
be researched, and where I am told not to look will be the place I start.


May The Disinfo Shills Get What They Deserve

When justuce is served. Beware shills!

Truth, I had James Fetzer as

I had James Fetzer as a professor in college. He is a good guy and I am sure that he means well. He is sincere about exposing the truth. The fundamental thing that you have to understand about Fetzer is that for him it is important to treat “everyone with respect”. He might entertain some theories that others would not have time for, I guess.

For me the infighting is very disappointing because of the chilling effect that it has on the truth movement in MINNESOTA ! Minnesota is a politically important state. This is partly because of famous liberals such as Paul Wellstone. This is also a place much like Vermont or New Hampshire where there is an independent and plain speaking tradition. Therefore, this would be a good place for the NWO to try and create a schism. The schism would divide the Minnesota liberals from the 911 truth movement.

What would happen to the anti-democratic/NWO forces if every Minnesota liberal was willing to talk openly about the 911 attack? We are dangerous to them here because of our independent spirit. Governor Jesse Ventura is one example of Minnesota independents that ‘shake the world’

Dr. Fetzer, could that be what all this is about?

Please spend some time working on this issue in Minnesota. Yeah, I suppose it might take more courage than I have. But you were a Marine! The 911 truth movement seems weak here.

What would Wellstone do?


Not ready for space beams

Look, it's this simple.

The public isn't ready for space beams. Even if they ARE true. We don't need 9/11 truth virgins stumbling onto space beams. If they see it, I assure you it will be the last time they take us seriously.

Stick to what we can prove for now.

If we can prove, through electron microprobe, that there was Thermate in the building, that is enough to prove a veifiable murder weapon.

It's the same with the New World Order. You don't want to start people there. Ground Zero is literally that. Ground Zero for truth. 9/11 if fought correctly, has the capacity to change things for the better forever. Stick to the Crux arguments. Norad standard procedure violations, building 7, then when the investigation comes, may we entertain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Not easy.... but not Hard either

Harnessing the energy of the sun??? and what energy would that be exactly?..... I think that if energy was coming from space we would have noticed....

Thermite was used along with explosives.... and if you did your research you'd find that there was plenty of opportunity to plant explosives..... entire offices were moved to allow for "renovations"

Security guards working at night could have very easily been working on things other than securing.

There were several computer rooms which were updated and equipped with an odd bank of batteries...... BOOM!

It wouldn't be that hard if you had all the people in place.....

I have spelled this out on several occasions.

Did these "Space Beams"

Did these "Space Beams" cause the molten metal?



you don't want these guys to start making comments about microwaves... (melting the WTC towers).

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