Improbable Collapse will be showing on Public Access in Manhattan

I know it is late notice, but I am putting Improbable Collapse on public access in New York City (Manhattan, to be exact).

A 58 minute, edited version of Michael Berger's Improbable Collapse will be showing on Manhattan's Cable Public Access TV (Manhattan Neighborhood Network). Following are the times and dates, whicn can be confirmed 7 days before the date of airing on the Manhattan Neighborhood Network website. I found out my air times from the director of programming.

Day: January 18th, 2007
Time: 5:00 PM EST
Channel: Time Warner channel 56 / 17, RCN channel 84
Watch Online Live: (Click on ch. 56 link on bottom left corner)

Day: January 30th, 2007
Time: 7:00 PM EST
Channel: Time Warner channel 34 / 78, RCN channel 83
Watch Online Live: (Click on ch. 34 link on bottom left corner)


Narrowcasting is a great alternative

Since the mainstream media seem, presently, unwilling to respond to the public's overwhelming desire to see and hear more information regarding the truth about 9/11, airing the best documentaries such as Improbable Collapse and 9/11 Mysteries on public access stations (also known as "narrowcasting" in media terminology) is our best alternative.

Notorious 9-11 Gatekeeper Queen Janice Matthews

This was just brought to my attention. I guess some people believe that Janice Matthews does not hold up to the litmus test

Domain ID:D77180531-LROR
Created On:11-Sep-2001 15:35:46 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Oct-2006 00:43:32 UTC
Expiration Date:11-Sep-2007 15:35:46 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Registrant ID:DOT-0BH7UOBFS06L
Registrant Name:Janice Matthews

Why don't you ask Janice about this?

I agree with you, this is VERY odd. But we don't know what it means. Someone needs to find out, I have her email adress but she won't respond to me even after several email attempts.

Based on the Internet Archive...

The site only started to look like a 9/11 Truth website around the end of 2003 / early 2004.

The first pages stored in the archive are from May 2002 (link below) and until Nov 2003 (earliest) pushed to vistor to

The first page in the archive that references 9/11 Truth is 01-Jan-2004 (link below)

I cannot say for certain but my guess is that the domain was transferred near the end of 2003. Only Janice can answer for certain.

Full archive for :*hh_/

Good luck all was was only transferred to Janice Matthews when Emanuel Sferios left the country last year. Bill Douglas gave the 911Visibility.Org domain to Jan Hoyer in 2006.

Thanks for clearing that up...

It's a shame that any accusation was even made... Totally uncalled for in my opinion

Best wishes and good luck

I don't see

I don't see just promoting LIHOP, for example, they link to the video 911 - Mysteries which is definitely MIHOP.

Janice Matthews

doesn't sound like any "gatekeeper" to me.
She sounds pretty damn active to me, virtually a female Alex Jones.

However Amanda Reconwith does.

As a matter of fact this "Lisa Giuliani" whom wrote that hit piece on Janice Matthews is suspected by some to be a gatekeeper herself.

Personally I think we need to pretty much forget about all this "gatekeeper" bullshit and just FLOOD 9/11 information everywhere we possibly can.
That way whomever IF anyone is a so called gatekeeper they become irrelevant.

But this gatekeeper mantra in my opinion has become nothing but a means of making everyone suspect everyone and usually because of made up bullshit.

It is like the classic spy in a hole shooting left then right so both sides end up shooting each other.

I really don't give a shit whom is a gatekeeper anymore, makes no difference as long as we keep snowballing in size and presenting valid, documented & irrefutable evidence.
If we do that then gatekeepers become the little dutch boy with their finger in the dike.

"Lisa Giuliani" is actually

"Lisa Giuliani" is actually suspected to be a piece of Cointelpro dogsh*t, along with "WINGTV".

"Disinformation in the Information Age" - Come on John, don’t rush it man but it is eagerly awaited, do your best job on that thing and lets knock these f*ckers for ten!


Anyone Nico Haupt does not like he accuses of being LIHOP or "limited hangout." It has been going on for the last 4 years.

He called my film LIHOP also - which it clearly is not.

the whole LIHOP - MIHOP debate is a false dichotomy designed to divide us - devised by people who claim "no planes" and "star wars beams" knocked down the towers.

Ad-hominem attacks

...are the tactics of trolls and disinformation agents. Anyone who attacks a person instead of their idea is not to be trusted.

There are many trolls on 9/11 blogger who suffer from a permanent mental condition where they have lost 30 IQ points and are unable to distinguish ideas from individuals.

Since when is 9/11 truth a popularity contest? It is an idea. Ideas are considered on their own merit in reference to the credible evidence.

If I read one more "Los Alamos...."

I'm really going to hammer these trolls with a "special comment" blog... just wait and see.

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

I don't disagree but...

I'm not disagreeing with you. However:

You seldom appear to support yourself with evidence. I notice once again you only offer your opinion about Fetzer. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion. But offering opinion is not enough... in an honest debate.

You've made your feelings clear (about this and other issues); but can you back them up with evidence/reasons (i.e. why you support the actions of Fetzer)? Please do so if you can. You wouldn’t want to give us the impression that you don’t honestly… mean what you say, would you? …if you don’t try to prove your argument it is not a very compelling position.

Not everyone is attacking Fetzer personally. It is very clear that the vast majority disagree with his ideas. It is also clear that support for him was strong before the recent incidents. Some also choose to dislike him personally for his actions.

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

I am driven to the

I am driven to the conclusion that these people are either exceptionally stupid or involved in the cover-up themselves.

Seems to me your treatment is based on your focus. If you are a one trick pony like "researchers" Nico Haupt and CB_Brooklyn and can do nothing but focus on no-planes and star wars beam weapons then you are by default not going to be viewed as anything but a provocateur because arguing is all you focus on. I've seen comments of yours get positive points instead of negative points when you contribute to something other than these never-ending arguments.

i don't know you personally

so i make no allusions to what motivates you. But - i agree this is a serious topic - and since you appear to be approaching this with some level of maturity i will address you accordingly. There are some key important points to make here:

1 - You must consider the SOURCE of this research. Regardless of what you may feel in your heart of hearts - the source of much of the disputed research in question seems to originate with activists who seem to have a long track record of disrupting this movement through large-scale email smear campaigns targeting many of the most respect researchers in this movement.

Indeed - the nexus of inter-related associations between Nico Haupt and WingTV and Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood - and now Dr Fetzer himself - is extremely disturbing.

so - my question is - do you need us to yet again outline for you the vicious and slanderous accusations that have originated from this nexus of researchers? You wonder why people are hostile that you are forwarding their work?

2 - Taking this fact in concert with the fact that these same disruptors SEEM to always be forwarding the most disputed and improbable and absurdist research APPEARS to further fuel speculation that they are engaging in intentional disruption.

No planes? Energy beams? Grand Pianos that take 30 seconds to hit the ground? Mini-nukes? Fetzer's claim that "giant gillotines" are being erected in detention camps around the country? Holograms? The Zapruder film was a hoax? Cartoon planes? The promotion of the magazine Criminal Politics? etc etc etc.

To many of us - the preponderance of evidence indicates that this particular GROUP of "researchers" are not credible - and actually serving to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement. The jury seems to be IN on this.

3 - Your contention that you are simply advocating an open system of debate where "energy beams" can be discussed in a non-censored manner is disingenuous since you appear to repeatedly ignore contrary evidence and logic which dictates that this "Theory" does not even APPROACH credibility.

Simply stating that Raytheon has conducted research on directed energy beams is simply NOT ENOUGH OF A JUSTIFICATION TO CLAIM THE TOWERS WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY SUCH WEAPONS.

there simply is NO EVIDENCE that the technology exists on this scale. period. Further - there is an utter vacuum of EVIDENCE that - even if the weapons DO exist - that they were used.

4 - Its fun to speculate. If indeed you simply are of a mind that enjoys speculating - fine. enjoy. But - YOU must understand that - to those of us who are FIGHTING to bring the truth of 911 to the public - where there is a TON of CONFIRMED evidence of government complicity - speculating about hypothetical exotic weaponry is NOT productive at this time.

Surely - given your intellect and the mature nature of your post you can understand that we are attempting to reopen investigations into the murder of 3,000 people. and to those of us, like myself, who stood in the streets of NYC and WATCHED while people died in the most horrendous ways possible - we have LITTLE or NO patience for people who want to drive this movement into diversions and speculation and theorizing about science fiction.

You do not seem to grasp the solemn nature of the work we are engaged in. It appears to many of us that your insistance that we discuss "energy beams" is undignified and immature - if it is sincere.

Unfortunately, the undignified nature of your insistence that we discuss exotic and hypothetical weaponry has ALSO lead many of us to believe that you are part of an intentional cointelpro disruption campaign.

sure - given your love for speculation - you can appreciate an open and free debate on this subject as well.

personally - i am of the OPINION that you are indeed part of some silly attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the american public's RIGHT to petition its government for ACCOUNTABILITY and ANSWERS. by injecting trojan horse subjects into the debate you are attempting to derail and obfuscate the REAL questions.

That is my opinion.

So - the question is - if you are so disturbed by your treatment here - why do you persist in participating? why not start your own blog elsewhere where you can speculate to your heart's content about Keeber elves and star wars beams and little green men? If your research has any credibility at all you should be very successful.


if you are indeed sincere you should probably simply accept the fact that DEW theories have not been too popular around here - and focus your sincerity and energy and skills and passion towards more constructive subjects - for the good of this movement.

this is not censorship. it is reality. it appears that DEW theories have failed to convince people here.

i myself have had to abandon certain stubborn convictions for the good of the movement as well. i just choose to not talk about certain subjects that i know upsets people.

so if you are so sincere about your passion for justice associated with 911 - why must DEW be the centerpiece of your activism? surely there are MANY different avenues of activism you could employ to support this movement. you could organize. you could compose letter writing campaigns.

accept the fact that DEW have NOT been accepted by the vast majority of 9/11 activists as credible research. maybe one day you will have the last laugh - and prove us all wrong. but if you persist in FORCING this subject on this forum you will continue to be perceived as a disruptor.

why must you stick to the ONE subject that just isn't selling?


It has a funny way of hunting you down and holding you accountable.

Best of luck.

A-man-da Reconwith, you've been posting cryptic bullshit here

for over a year! What do you hope to accomplish with all this besides wasting everyone's time?

Well Well Well...

I did some research on Janice mathews, and came across this article:

Here's an excerpt:
The mothers circling the stacks ignore Matthews. She says she's positive that she's being watched.

"I don't have some sense that they are out to persecute truth seekers," Matthews says of the phantom G-men she thinks she's seen around town. "I think they are just doing their jobs."

Matthews wasn't always this way. She earned a psychology degree from the University of Kansas in the '80s and trained as a midwife. A conservative Christian, she voted for Bush in 2000. On 9/11, Matthews was raising her children in the small central Kansas town of Lindsborg. "I had a gradual reawakening," she says.

In November 2001, she moved to Kansas City to work as a secretary. Then she read The 9/11 Commission Report. She says the congressional document found that a large number of stock shares in United Airlines had changed hands before the attack, which shows that certain segments of big business knew to expect the attacks.

Two years later, Matthews helped found the national 9/11 Visibility Project, a group that encourages people to protest government cover-ups. It's now active in 35 cities. She organized rallies on the Plaza but realized that most people wanted to avoid the stigma that came with protest marches. A year later, she founded, which serves as a networking forum, a research hub and an independent news source.

One fact wrong here. The 9/11 commission report did not discuss the insider trading.

According to this article, she had a "gradual reawakening", so she could not have been savvy enough to register on 9/11/01! Unless, this whole story is a lie.

According to this article, she founded the 9/11 Visibility Project around November 2003, and 9/ around November 2004.

What are the facts here? Did she register these sites on 9/11/01 or is Amanda somehow lying and making all this up? This deserves some investigation.

Did MORE research

something is fishy about Amanda's claims.

If you do a "who is" search, they don't give out names of people that registered domains. AND, they don't give you the info about the original registrant if the registered domain has switched owners. I know this because I used to own this domain, but it was taken over by someone else. If you look it up, my name and contact info are mentioned nowhere!

Amanda, the site could have been registered by someone within hours of the 9/11 tragedy, that is not impossible to imagine. Janice Matthews may have taken over ownership of the site a couple years later from the squatter who was smart enough to register the site on that date.

This isn't rocket science. This is an easy explaination.

Again, if you are really curious and not just trying to spread disinfo, why don't you contact Janice herself and ask her?

I was interested in how such sites came into existance on

or right after 9/11. But as someone pointed out yesterday, professional domain-name sellers may have registered sites like "" or "" in hopes of selling them for $$$ later. (Mark Bingham's site is still rather suspicious because it was registered on 9/11 or (9/12, I forget now), and why would a pro or even one of his friends rush to set up a site for 1 guy withing a day of 9/11?

Unfortunately, Amanda Reconwith continues to post curious info like this, but she/he does so in a half-assed, guessing-game fashion.

mark bingham's site was registered by his friend

after hearing that mark died that day
///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I just talked to Janice...

It's all bullshit. Emanuel Stefarios owned the domain until sometime in the last year.

"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

Don't feed the trolls


Get off this site "Amanda

Get off this site "Amanda Reconwith" you f*cking disgusting shill! Go take your "no planes" "Jew's do everything" disinfo bullshit someplace else. All the real activists don't want you here! Go clear your desk at Disinfo Central!

it's not jews...

it's zionists that pull the strings. there is quite a difference.

what a retard

zionists pull all the strings? sure. this theory enjoys the same credibility as the illuminati and knight templar running the world in a secret organization that meets once a month over bagels.

zionism is a geopolitical movement - as is neoconservatism - or evangelicals - or the oil industry - or the NRA - or the anti-castro groups - or any other political party or movement you care to wag your finger at.

your position is anti-semitism - however you care to phrase it - because you are simply too obsessed with blaming EVERYTHING on the 'zionists.' the zionists are pulling the strings? what strings? the media? the oil industry? the evangelicals? the conservatives? ever see a jew at a conservative country club or golf course?

get a life. you are too stupid for words.

Hey John Albanese!

refute these links and the embedded videos by telling me that zionism is only a geopolitical movement and you will have exposed yourself. funny how you skipped over the majority of this fact-checked information in your film. makes me wonder...

i find myself laughing at this site more and more everyday.

oh yeah

although name calling is for the weak, i still resent your calling me an anti-semite. i have many jewish friends and family (through marriage) and find your remark to be ill-informed and bigoted. best of luck with the new film.

i guess

that's why you post anonymously.

911 and the current political turmoil in the world is a product of MANY diverging interests - including the military industrial complex - money - resources - fanatical christian groups - zionism - sectarian hatred - the OIL industry - american empire and dreams of hegemony - the environment - etc etc.

sorry - but posting a single post anonymously that "zionists are pulling the strings" sounds paranoid and antisemitic to my ear.

i could be wrong - but - it does indeed sound like a simplification based on racial bias. and teh fact that you do this anonymously adds NO credibility to your argument.

I suggest you know nothing

I suggest you know nothing at all about Zionism....go and read Ralph Schoenma's book at -- he's Jewish so presumably not an anti-semite -- and educate yourself a bit.


Like i don't know who Ralph Schoenman is.

he claims zionists helped Hitler with the holocaust.

its funny how people like you can only see things in black and white. I do not need lectures on zionism. i am not defending zionism. i just think many people seize on zionism as an excuse - and attempt to blame 9/11 on jews - by proxy - by dragging zionism into it.

Zionists did help the Nazis

Zionists did help the Nazis - its a documented fact.

It's you that conflates Jews

It's you that conflates Jews with Zionists, John...not me. Anyway i'm not the same anonymous who you were addressing earlier.


and they "pull all the strings" also - like you said.

no i didn't say - that was

no i didn't say - that was the other anonymous.

the real anonymous

no hard feelings, john. points well taken. do us all proud and don't forget that info i posted in your movie.


You are now spamming this site with this same nonsense.

I do not see why anyone should respond to your innuendo and accusations.

People register URLs all the time in response to real-time world events. gee - ya think maybe 9/11 was a significant day?

The content of Janice's website is some of the most credible research available.

But - interestingly enough - the term "911 gatekeepers" was coined by one of the most notorious disinformation shills in this movement - guilty of smearing and attacking any and all legitimate researchers.

Using this language makes you highly suspect.

Now - if there is any information on Janice's website that you believe is intentionally incorrect or misleading - please illuminate us.

Public Broadcasting.

Mr. E Guy. I couldn't agree with you more. We need someone to post a "how to" article on how to get our local public broadcasting stations to air these documentaries.

"The Truth is an Offense, but not a Sin" ~ Bob Marley

Great Idea!!!!

I love it.

Public Access TV

You can all have 9/11 films played on Public Acess TV..... it costs about $10 per hour....... you just have to have the videos on VHS and cut to one hour lengths.... go to your local cable provider and seen what you can do

we have the films playing here every week on public access


where do you live, bedrock?

Sometimes I wish I did live

Sometimes I wish I did live somewhere other than here.... in this place and time

Even Dino could figure out WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition... only leading one to conclude that based on that.... the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 should be questioned as well

Sone constructive criticism for Kevin Barrett;

Unlike that shill "Amanda Reconwith" I've actually got some constructive criticism to make about Kevin Barrett. Now I think he's done some excellent work, he's got a great sense of humour and he's been a positive force for 9/11 Truth. But I think despite his obvious intelligence he’s been a bit naive about a couple of people. First of all this seems to be him perhaps trying to promote a bit of unity between Dr Jones and Reynolds by adverting Reynolds’ "DVD" directly under one of Dr Jones’;

Personally I think this is a stupid move, Reynolds is a complete clown and it damages the credibility of Mujca, and us by association, to have him on there.

The second thing that I think needs emphasising is that it seems David Icke is cited in his new book "Truth Jihad";

Dr. Barrett has done his homework. He cites Griffin, Tarpley, Meyssan, Icke, Ahmed, Clarke, Zwicker, Vidal, Ruppert, Marrs, Hopsicker, Honegger, Hicks and many others.

That's a giant mistake, and if "Truth Jihad" is critiqued by anyone looking to write a hit-piece the easiest point that could be made is - "David Icke thinks Lizard men run the planet, Kevin Barrett and the Truth Movement by association endorse David Icke".

These are glaring errors of judgment by Barrett I feel and I seriously hope he reads this and takes these honest objections into account.

didn't he also.....

write an editorial asking people to not summarily dismiss the space beams theory? many people atempted to excuse this by mentioning that he lives near Dr. Fatzer and the two are friends and he is attempting to unite.

but - asking us to not summarily dismiss "space beams" is - in my opinion - not acceptable.

Why do Fetzer/Woods speculate wildly about space beams when

our Gov'y won't/can't explain how a huge Boeing makes a 16' initial impact hole through the Pentagon??? A Boeing 757 can NOT disappear into a 16' hole!!! Also, they refuse to release any clear video of said Boeing!!!

Jones' Wild Speculation of space beams

You are right. Jones is the one who presents the wild speculation about "space beams." Why does Jones talk about "space beams"?


I found Morgan Reynolds essay in "Intellectuals Speak Out" to be quite good. Read for yourself. There's not a word about "space beams" or "holograms". In fact, the first part regarding (then head of Texas A&M, now Secretary of Defence) Robert Gates really stands out. It was because of Morgan Reynolds that Gates gave the now infamous quote...

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001.
To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."
-Robert M. Gates

"The American people know

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001.
To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."
-Robert M. Gates

do you know in what context and when exactly Gates made this statement? what prompted it and who asked him about it?

Gates quote...

According to the essay by Morgan Reynolds entitled "9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy"
that appears as chapter 7 in the book "9/11 and American Empire Vol.1 - Intellectuals speak out"
in June of 2005 Dr.Reynolds wrote an article "Why did the Trade Center Sky Scrapers Collapse"
that garnered near mainstream press ( UPI, Washington Post, Drudge Report) primarily due to the fact
that he had served as the Chief ecomomist at the Dept. of Labor for 16 months in 2001-02.
The first official from the Bush Administration to declare the official 9/11 account bogus. Dr. Reynolds
also held the title of Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M after 28 years as a faculty member and because
of this the University felt the need to weigh in with a statement regarding his article. The statement was
basically that though he held the title of PE, he was retired and his views were those of a private citizen
and did not speak for the university, bla bla bla...Robert Gates as president of Texas A&M then
issued a follow up statement which was the quote in question. "The American people etc etc...."


I have no idea why the text broke up like that.

good for you david

good for you david chen-----

way to go!!

Hello, friends! Thanks to the 20 or so of you who sent me this silly post yesterday, bringing it to my attention, and to those of you pointing out the reasons this sort of distraction and implied accusation is so harmful to the work we're trying to accomplish.

Great work with the research citing the Pitch story, too. It was not an entirely factual accurate article, as pointed out previously--and I don't think there was a particular need to point out my grey hair :), and "I" didn't personally found the 9/11 Visibility Project or, as it says--I helped, but credit goes to a lot of people for the formation of those groups and the great work that's been done through them ... nonetheless, the article certainly got a lot of (interesting) attention in Kansas City, and two new groups are starting to meet now, partially because of that not-perfect article. Yes, I do now feel somewhat embarrassed that I didn't "get it" immediately on 9/11, but that's the way it goes. I was involved with trying to legalize homebirth with help of direct-entry midwives, which I had studied to become, and which was then a felony in several states, and my attention was focused there and on mothering six kids. We're (mostly) all fighting the good fight, no matter which front we're addressing at any particular time, I think.

We all have much better things to be working on than responding to silly, divisive insinuations. So, I would simply point out that Mr. Potter never contacted me to ask whether I purchased on 9/11, even though my name, phone number and email addresses have been posted at that site and for years. 'Nuff said on the motivation behind his accusations. (And to whomever said they sent me three emails and I didn't respond, sorry--I respond to perhaps 50 emails a day, so yours must be in spam or something???)

Emanuel Sferios, one of the founders of the 9/11 Visibility Project, purchased several 9/11 domains on September 11th, 2001, including That date is his birthday, making it even more significant to him, and he was savvy enough to recognize that the effects of the day's events would be massive, and life-altering. I became involved with 9/11 truth issues when I heard a speech given by Bill Douglas in Kansas City, and learning about the put options was the issue that really confirmed for me that this was all NOT what we were told. So we formed the 9/11 Visibility Project, which then began using the URL Emanuel had long before reserved. I took over the domain registration late 2006.

Now... back to work. Personally, I believe we're facing an imminent global emergency at this moment and need to be focusing every ounce of our energy on doing every constructive thing we can to redirect the world toward sanity. We each choose to work on the things about which we feel most passionate, and the vehicles we believe can do the most good. It would be good to give each other credit for that. Just look around, see what needs to be done, and do it!!! Now! We can talk about it forever, or we can just get it done...

Ya basta!


What you're trying to say is that there is absolutely no credibility behind what Nico said. Imagine that.

What's the count up to? 1000 unsubstantiated claims?

"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