Hey, Hot-Shot

If you're working for the government or one of its subcontractors to debunk the claim that the government had a hand in 9/11, you are probably young and a winner (If you're a gray-hair, you should read this also).

The "agency" doesn't hire losers. They look for promising young people with proven leadership, scholastic, interpersonal or technical skills. You don't just slouch your way into these kind of jobs. You've already proven yourself to be eager, talented, with alot of promise and potential.


If you're working to take the wind out of the "9/11 Truth Movement", you also must believe one of the following three things:

(1) That it is not true that the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11, and that that's a very dangerous myth

(2) That it might be true, but that "the ends justify the means", as described below


(3) That its all about money and excitement, so who cares?

Okay, you've got to admit that you fall into one of these 3 categories, right?

No Way

If you believe (1), then you believe there's no way these "dangerous '9/11 truth' whackos" are right. Our government would never do something like help in the 9/11 attacks or let them happen. Everyone knows it was the crazy fundamentalist Muslims. Only our enemies would spread these false rumors. Right?

Well, you might be sincerely patriotic and well-intentioned, but maybe you don't yet know everything about what patriotism and courage truly means. Please start by reading this.

And then read this to find out the actual truth.

Worth It

If you already are open to the idea that 9/11 was aided or orchestrated by elements of the U.S. government, then you may sincerely believe that it HAD to be done for very good reasons.

Do you think this is a crucial battle with Islam, and that 9/11 was necessary to provide the justification for the war on terror? Then read this.

More importantly, consider this: "the war on terror" -- that is the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan -- have already cost so much and so weakened the U.S. that we are now vulnerable to a much more real threat: China. The further down the road we go in the war on the Middle East, the more we will exhaust our treasury, our army, navy and air force warriors, and our ability to our defend ourselves against the rising Chinese giant.

Its too late to save the idea of American "credibility" in the world -- i.e. its ability to dominate militarily. The old men who sold you on the whole idea of war in the Middle East have misled you, and have already lost their foolish gamble.

If you thought the ends justified the means, you have greatly miscalculated. Unless the curtain is lifted and the truth of 9/11 is allowed to come out, the U.S. is going to dig itself into a hole so deep that it will never recover, and the Chinese military will be able to dominate us at will. Do you want that? If not, you better stop covering up the truth about 9/11 and start to contain the disaster which the old fools have unleashed.

Who Cares

If you just don't care, because you're making good money or getting a big ego and adrenaline-rush covering up 9/11 truth (you might be getting praise for being smart and important), I don't know if there is any way I can reach you. You probably don't think you'll ever get old and regret what you've done . . . you may think you're immortal and will live forever, or that you could die any day. But believe me, even you are going to get old and have to face it some day and even you are going to look back and realize that you really messed things up by working for the wrong team.

Or maybe you think you can protect your family and friends with enough money. Well, life itself might have to teach you -- you can never run away from what you've done. It will all catch up with you.

At the very least, if you're not going to change right now, admit that you are really helping to mess up the world in a very big way. Think about it ... you are hurting real people. Real people -- maybe like your mother, or father, or sister are dying because you're destroying truth, killing any chance to heal this country and save it from going down the toilet.

You hate me for saying that? Fine. But its the truth.

This essay is based on a series of uneducated guesses about 3 types of disinfo agents. If you have more understanding into government agents than I do, let me know how you think we can reach them. If you yourself are an agent, what would convince YOU to start working for the cause of 9/11 truth and justice?


is punishable by death.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Most of us are likely to assume that the 911 perps (and their lackies in the press) fall into the 3rd camp -- rogues and reprobates out for cash and nothing more. I think this is a mistake. Even if cash and power are the ACTUAL motivations for these individuals, they have still to justify their actions to themselves in order to sleep at night. Cognitive dissonance is very difficult to live with. Therefore human beings have an infinite capacity for justifying their immoral behavior. They do this via "higher ideals". It's a survival mechanism.

My opinion is that many, perhaps most or nearly all disinformation artists (as well as the perps themselves) justify their actions on the basis of "patriotism". The notion of "western civilzation" is also a constant theme in the speeches of Bush and Blair.

For this reason, an anarchist view of patriotism may be enlightening. It is the only form of patriotism that places mankind above the state.


Bakunin on Patriotism

Although Bakunin’s view of bourgeois patriotism was profoundly negative, he was not dismissive of all notions of patriotism. The state was not ’the fatherland’ - which he defined as ’the incontestable and sacred right of every man, of every human group, association, commune, region, and nation to live, to feel, to think, to want, and to act in its own way...’. [13] For Bakunin, despite the bourgeois patriotism and nationalism espoused by the state, the people retained ’a natural, real love’ for what they believed to be their ’fatherland’ and it was this which constituted the ’patriotism of the people’, as a social reality, not the ’false abstraction’ of ’political patriotism’ created by the bourgeois state. [14] The ’fatherland’ was whatever the individual person or any community of persons believed it to be: every person had an ’incontestable and sacred right’ to make a free choice.

Bakunin provided a clear illustration of these principles in this scenario which he described in relation to a hypothetical claim by the state of Italy for a canton of Switzerland:

We are told that such and such a region - the canton of Tessin [in Switzerland], for instance - evidently belongs to the Italian family: it has language, morals, and everything in common with the populace of Lombardy, and therefore it should become part of the Italian state. Our answer is that this is an utterly false conclusion. If there really exists a substantial identity between the Tessin canton and Lombardy, there is no doubt that Tessin will spontaneously join Lombardy. If it does not do it, if it does not feel the slightest desire for it, that will simply go to prove that real history - which continues from generation to generation in the real life of the people of the Tessin canton, the history which produced its reluctance to join Lombardy - is something altogether different from the history written in books. [15]

Bakunin’s reference to different kinds of history is interesting here. There is the history ’written in books’, which is contingent on who writes it and why it is written, and there is ’real history’ which is the story of the ’real life of the people’. The distinction was important for Bakunin, as it is or should be for social historians today.
Bakunin’s anarchist understandings of nations and nationality - distinct from the people’s patriotism which could be understood as affection for the ’fatherland’ - were expressed most clearly in his discussion of Slav nationalist aspirations. He asserted that

Nationality is not a universal human principle but an historical, local fact...Every nation, even a small one, has its own character, its own particular way of life and manner of speaking, feeling, thinking, and behaving. These distinctive features are the essence of nationality, the product of a nation’s entire history and conditions of existence. Every nation, like every individual, is of necessity what it is, and has an unquestionable right to be itself. So-called national rights consist precisely of this. [16]


Proudhon on Patriotism:

Perhaps the reason for Proudhon's relative neglect
in England and North America is the peculiarly Gallic
nature of his genius, which makes even his writing diffi-
cult to translate in such a way that more than a suggestion
of its strength and style are retained. For this convinced
internationalist, this hater of states and frontiers, was also
a passionate regionalist, a true patriot who loved his
land and its traditions and was never happy in exile even
among people who, like the Belgians, spoke his own
tongue. He could reject the French state, like all other
states, as a "fictitious being, without intelligence, without
passion, without morality," but with equal sincerity he
could apostrophize France itself in the most lyrical of

O my land, my French land, the land of those who
sing the eternal revolution! Land of liberty, for despite
your bondages, in no place on earth, either in Europe
or in America, is the mind, which is the entire man,
so free as on your soil! Land that I love with all that
accumulated love which a growing son has for his

Yet he could say also -- and here his sincerity is perhaps
deepest of all -- "if I were forced to choose between the
two I should be man enough to sacrifice my country to


The State vs. Geist

The state...exists for the people as a miserable replacement for Geist...and now the people are supposed to exist for the sake of the state, which pretends to be some sort of ideal structure and a purpose in itself, to be Geist...Earlier there were corporate groups, clans, gilds, fraternities, communities, and they all interrelated to form society. Today there is coercion, the letter of the law, the state. [27] Landauer

’The Volk or the nation is an older, more genuine illusion which must be liberated from its coupling with the lie...the state’. [34]
As Lunn noted, he sought
the development of a united humanity of diversified Völker. The way toward a united Europe lay through the prior "bottom-up" groupings of culturally similar nations...[in 1912 he called for] a potential "united Völker of humanity", a union of Swiss, Belgian, Alsation, and Dutch ’nations’ as a neutral Völkerbund based on geographical and historical-cultural unities. [35]

’If I want to transform patriotism then I do not proceed in the slightest against the fine fact of the nation...but against the mixing up of the nation and the state...’. [36]



I would remind my countrymen that they are to be men first, and Americans only at a late and convenient hour.



Patriotism is a devotion to a certain place, a certain way of living, which you think is the best in the world but which you do not want to force upon others. Patriotism is defensive, militarily as well as culturally - contrary to nationalism which is inseparable from lust for power.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Speaking of Treason...

I have just been listening to Jim Fetzer's show from 25-Jan-2007.

His special guest was Judy Wood.

I would normally ignore this, but as they laid into the 911Blogger website and piled on the disinfo HEAVILY, I wanted it posted for historical purposes.

I can only speak for myself, this show left me nauseated.

You can find the MP3 - [ HERE ]

Thanks to http://911underground.com/ for hosting...

My sincere apologies, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Good luck

Once again, well written.

Once again, well written. I hope you are able to reach at least a few of your intended audience with this. (And you presumably will, since some of them are assigned to come here.)

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


I was approached on three different occasions by spooks who wanted me to come and test with the FBI. Each time by a different and more manipulative fuckbag.

The first two times took place in Tucson, Arizona at a local restaraunt where I used to eat lunch on a regular basis.

I'm kind of a loner and it's pretty obvious. I was eating alone as usual. A guy came in and sat down at the 50 ft long bar right next to me. Which I thought was very unusual and made me very uncomfortable. I remember giving the bartender a look like "Who the F is this guy?"

I was actually kind of pissed about it. Which I think was this guys goal. He started a conversation with me and it escalated pretty quickly into a conversation about politics.
A conversation that got pretty heated after he insulted me. Now I'm twice as pissed.

But this guy wanted me angry so he could get to the heart of my belief system. He wanted things heated to see how I would react. He wanted to know what made me tick. This gut didn't back down he just kept pushing my buttons.

He ended up inviting me to come and test for the FBI..... I told him to go F himself and all his spook buddies.

A week later at the same bar another guy came in but this guy was more laid back. He was playing pool by himself. He waited for me to challenge him to a game.

This guy had the low down on me because he obviously knew this other guy. He was a pro. He tried to get into my head. He was sly. Trying to find that thing that the other guy couldn't hit on. He insulted me in ways the other guy couldn't. He asked me questions that were designed to be personal attacks.

Asking things like:
You probably don't have a girlfriend do you?
You do what? That probably doesn't pay well?
What made you want to do that?
Don't you want to make more money?
What kind of car do you drive?
Do you ever get girls in that car?
Why are you eating lunch alone?

I wasn't paying much attention.... I just thought this guy was some cocky asshole.

But in the end..... the guy gave me his card and said.... "You should reconsider testing with us."

Within a month I had been fired from my job for no reason..... I had been evicted from my house because my landlord wanted her son to live in my house..... I had gotten pulled over 5 times for pretty much no reason at all and given tickets. I had my car vandalized. My credit card was hacked and run up to it's limit.... I was F'd over!

I had to move home!.... on the move back I was in Illinois for less than 20 miles and I was pulled over and arrested for an outstanding warrant from 7 years prior.

One month later another guy came into my local bar and it happened again. This guy seemed pretty normal untill his girlfriend insulted me for no reason. Told this guy that I had hit on her while he was in the bathroom.
So he tried to get me to fight him... I wasn't playing this game.
I walked away after verbally bitch slapping both these fools.

Later the guy came over with a peace offering and appologized for his girlfriend. She meanwhile was starting another fight which poured out into the parking lot. So we went outside to watch. I wanted to make sure it didn't get out of hand.

This guy wanted me to jump in.... he then started insulting my masculinity and my sexuality... trying to get my goat any way he could.

This conversation ended when I figured out what the hell was going on... Right after he told me that I couldn't trust my mother.

I said. "You are here for me aren't you?"

He said. "Yup... We want you to test"

That's when I lost it. I still get strange looks at this bar from the people who witnessed the verbal tyraid I laid down on this guy.

Haven't had a problem since.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

JJJames, your scenario also seems like tactics that goverment

spooks could/would use against someone who is heavily involved in spreading 9/11 truth, as a form of intimidation & harassment. (And also to get you a criminal record, fingerprinted, etc., by instigating you into a physical altercation!)

Everyone should keep the above in mind.

time frame

This all took place after 9/11..... during 2002 and 2003.

I didn't discover this conspiracy untill 2004

I'm guessing that they do a majority of their recruiting in bars... looking for loners that they can manipulate
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Interesting and disturbing

Interesting and disturbing account, James. That's really fucked up. I remember a line from Joan Mellon's "A Farewell to Justice": Oswald, as a child in an orphanage, told a friend: "someday we'll find somebody to love us". Spooks surf for lonely, mentally ill and/or financially struggling individuals (otherwise known as "lone nuts") like sharks for minnows. Not to imply that you have any of these characteristics, only that an agent misintepreted your character.

It's really depressing, how this system makes people so predatory.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

None taken

They had me pretty much pegged

I was lonely.... It's kinda hard to find good people who have morals and values... people who actually give a shit.... and those are the people I choose to hang.

I wasn't tearing it up on the cash front..... but life really isn't about the $$$$

And I'm crazy for thinking that this world ...if allowed to prosper and evolve.....could reach it's full potential and the people who inhabit it could be more enlightened and happy.

He was wrong in a couple observations.... he was looking for a minnow and I'm definitely a shark

He was also mistaken as to which side I reside..... I know who the good guys are and I'm not going to change teams any time soon.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

You've forgotten...

The Ex-Truthers. People who were apart of the movement, but have been convinced by "Debunkers" that we don't know what we're talking about. Granted, they still fall into one of the three categories you suggested. Just pointing out another "flavor".

"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


The individuals I just described are so full of sh_t it's not even funny. Not ONE individual I have ever met that has taken the time to look at the information has suddenly flipped off the switch, and turned to the "dark side."

"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

but keep in mind

that many of the 'original' truthers were prepositioned in the movement from the very beginning - to disrupt. especially in NYC.

these are now the same people who have taken their disinformation campaigns national. this is no coincidence.


"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

I do not want to name names

...but we all know Nico - so i will use him as an example.

Nico was one of the very first members of NY911Truth. from the very beginning he was a disruptor - always at odds with the other members - insisting on bringing the most radical and tasteless banners and signs to ground zero - always making us look bad and threatening to the public - always losing his temper at 911 events, making scenes and screaming at people on stage - always fronting the most sketchy research, while actively attempting to debunk our most solid leads - always smearing other members and guests at our events.

finally - he was thrown out of the group as an obvious disruptor. he of course claims this was his own choice.

he now has taken his disinfomation and disruption to new levels - no longer effective on the local level.

but of course - Nico was not the only one who disrupted the NY movement. i could give you a laundry list of mind-boggling disruptions - but i am not interested in opening up that can of worms.

You going...

To AZ?

"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

probably not

but i will be in Columbus to confront Fetzer

C'mon man...

If I can manage to shell out the ridiculous amount of money for plane tickets, so can you.

"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


Dr Fatzer

Dr Fatzer –

Why is it that you find it necessary to drag Dr. Stephen Jones’ name into every discussion?

I find your particular brand of opportunism, at the expense of those who seek social justice in the face of the unimaginable human tragedy of 911, to be offensive.

Ostensibly I am a filmmaker, and I am interested in your work from a journalistic perspective. As you may or may not know I am currently working on a film entitled: Disinformation in the Information Age. It is my hope that your work will play a central and pivotal role in this film. And, so far, it appears that you will not be disappointing me.

As many of us already know, your reputation precedes you. Your involvement in the JFK assassination community, in which you found yourself at the center of massive conflicts in which you accused others of being agents and spies – while fronting absurdist theories (such as claiming that the Zapruder film is a hoax) – seems to almost exactly mimic your problematic behavior now in the 9/11 Truth movement.

Specifically, I am interested in your advocacy of certain lines of research – including:

1 – Your claims that the WTC towers and surrounding buildings were destroyed by exotic weaponry launched from Building 7 – including a star wars type energy beam.

2 – Your claims that a grand piano dropped from the top of the WTC could take 30 seconds to hit the ground if the lid of the piano acts as a parachute.

3 – Your claims that you possess information indicating that detention centers around the country have giant guillotines erected waiting to lop off people’s heads.

4 - Your collaboration with Judy Woods who has made claims that plane wreckage was ‘planted’ at ground zero – and the towers are similar to the Keebler Elves’ tree.

5 – Your collaboration with Morgan Reynolds who has made claims that no planes were involved in the attacks of 911, and who stated on National television that we all witnessed “cartoon planes”

6 – Your collaboration with Rick Siegel who has made claims about mini-nukes at ground zero- and black ops helicopters collapsing the towers.

It is my OPINION that this represents disinformation – whether intentional or unintentional in nature. As a journalist I am investigating this.

Frankly, Dr. Fatzer, I would never choose to accuse you of being a government agent. I simply do not have evidence to prove this.

But I would go as far as to say that your theories and research constitute PROFOUNDLY poor judgment, lacking even the fundamental common sense logic and empirical scientific evidence to constitute legitimacy.

As such, I unfortunately believe that you are doing great harm to the cause of social justice and 911 TRUTH, by presenting wildly speculative and, frankly speaking, SILLY NONSENSE, either intentionally or unintentionally, as a substitute for real research.

And while you list off your own accomplishments, public appearances and involvement in Scholars – I would ask you towards what ends these accomplishments serve if you use the public platform you are given to present theories that embarrass and discredit this movement, attack your fellow researchers and sew divisiveness?

Lets speak frankly sir. If you cannot differentiate between the legitimate quest for truth, and such theories as space beams and mini nukes and no-planes and pods, then you are certainly opening yourself up to public criticism.

And just as you have chosen to publicly air your dirty laundry regarding your conflicts with other scholars, the same standard of thorough and meticulous examination of your work is SURELY within the bounds of acceptable behavior.

I am not stalking you sir. I simply intend to document your work and offer my own editorial comments in the form of criticism, unvarnished speculation and a fair amount of humor at your expense.

Show "A childish mind on full display . . ." by Jim Fetzer

And using the word "Stalk" is not word-play?

Similar to your distorted telling of events surrounding your conflict with other members of Scholars - it appears that you lack even the basic integrity to engage in even a fundamental debate of the facts - no less history and science.

Your repeated use of the term "Stalking" is proof of that. It is an intentional distortion.

But i supose that as a public figure with highly controversial theories you are beyond reproach. You should simply be issued a 'free pass' with no critical analysis of your work?

Sir - i wear your insults like a badge of honor - and it appears that this movement is prepared to place you in the same dustbin of history as Nico Haupt. Congratulations on your fine work.

Show "Albanese doesn't even know the meaning of "disinformation"" by Jim Fetzer


I believe many of the the theories you promote is intentionally incorrect - thus disinformation - originating from parties unknown. At least that is how it appears.

Your involvement in spreading this disinformation may be the result of a profound lack of mental resources. This is called "giving you the benefit of the doubt." This would make you simply a useful idiot - akin to a village idiot - the intellectual equivalent of someone who makes a lot of noise - full of sound and fury - in the village square - but signifying nothing. Someone who embarasses themselves publicly. Someone who rubs a small piece of velvet on his cheek while passing incessant flatulence in public. a fool. a disgrace. a laughing stock. an embarassement to his community. an intellectual slob.

The other option is that you are intentionally spreading this disinformation. This would make you a disgusting human being - actively betraying the trust of those in the 9/11 Truth community who seek the facts behind the deaths of their loves ones. This would be the equivalent of the nazi propagandists who claimed the jews were emmigrating out of germany - while in fact they were being killed. this would constitute a crime against humanity.

It is my hope that you are simply a fool.

Show "How about some PROOF instead of empty allegations?" by Jim Fetzer


some things are self evident.

look - we are all just doing our jobs here. you had to expect this was coming. we are all in unchartered territory here.

have you ever read "the Guns of August?" it is about the generals in World War 1 who miscalculated how to fight that war - because all their theories were based on the LAST war - and they failed to take into consideration the march of technology and mechanized warfare. the war therefore dragged on for years. ah.... the best laid plans of mice and men......

it remains to be seen if your work (and i do not mean your research) will WORK in the 21st century. it may just be that disinformation becomes counter-productive to your cause as a result of the information superhighway. you've taught classes on this - so surely you are interested in how all this plays out.

i guess we'll see - huh? who knows - perhaps the war with Iran will make both of our jobs unnecessary soon - and you will be reassigned to the antiwar movement - and embarassing antiwar activists.

but - in my humble opinion - your efforts are counter productive. instead of discrediting this movement - you are empowering it. you are becoming a poster child for truth - be demonstrating vividly the inherent dishonesty and transparency of your own motives. people may not be as easily manipulated as you think.

frankly - i do not think shadow boxing with the 911 truth community will keep the real truth from emerging any more than you can ever hope to hold back the ocean with a broom.

so - what do you accomplish? buying time? i suppose. distracting people. certainly.

but - i suggest to you that there is a real danger that all of this could FLIP on you in unexpected way. There is ALSO the very real possibility that your efforts could result in PROPELLING 911 TRuth forward by creating a contrast for people that is very easily understood - and self evident. if YOU are selling lies - then what exactly IS the truth?

i suggest too you that space beams may in fact be the best thing that every happened to the 911 truth movement. it may just get people angry enough to rise up and demand REAL answers.

best of luck.

OMG, Star wars beam weapons

OMG, Star wars beam weapons are attacking cars on the highway!!!!
(notice the finely waxed backend!!!)
(you see the circular beam hole over the door in this one!?!!? OMG!)

I can't believe you are still sticking up for Siegel. Who do you think just bought Nico Haupt his own domain?

Domain Name: 911BLOGLINES.COM
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com

Be sure to visit that site and see how many time Siegel complements Nico on his "research". And this is the guy whose website you now promote on your own website? You are getting in bed with the worst of the worst.

I registered just so I could respond to you and say that I don't think you are "disinfo" or that you are an "agent". Quite frankly I think you are just teetering on the edge of reality. Go much further and you will end up like Haupt, unable to write a coherent sentence, much less a paragraph.

yeah but, but, but...

There is a simple explanation for those cars...

it was a calibration error when they fired up the space beam flux capacitor... The aliens who were manning the space ship got sent back in time to 1933, and on their return accidentally pressed the fire button before it got into it's correct orbit....

Sorry about that...

Haupt bought the domain with his own money

He already had ny911truth.org stolen from him.

Um, Fetzer had to learn the hard way too.

Fetzer, your a

Fetzer, you're a disinformation advocating sell-out, no one worth mentioning respects you anymore, please get off this site, you're not wanted here!


Please watch this...

I wish I was Staking you.


I have been wondering about you for some time. You appear to be the perfect infiltrator into this movement.

What is it again that you taught at Minnesota?
Exactly please.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

a post so nice

you posted it twice

on a similar note - here is an email i received which is being widely distributed among the most respected members of this movement:

Punch and Judy come to Seattle
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood give
the Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project a black eye.

[Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Wayne Madsen — October 28th, Trinity United Methodist Church, Seattle, Washington] — I suppose it’s possible. Energy beams from space could have been what really brought the Twin Towers down. Video manipulation and cloaking devices could have made missiles (or whatever) just look like passenger jets as they slammed into the World Trade Center. But featuring this kind of stuff in a 9/11 “public educational forum”? What a mistake.
It all began innocently enough. Brainstorming led to e-mails and phone calls. Reynolds was happy to take a trip to the great Northwest and quickly confirmed, especially if his friend and colleague Judy Wood would be coming too. And Halleluia, both would speak for free. To a cash starved activist group it sounded like a plan.
But little by little the particulars of Reynolds’ research began to concern some of the event organizers. Theories about ‘no-plane’ hitting the Pentagon are common. But Reynolds isn’t referring to the Pentagon. No, Morgan Reynolds is saying that ‘no-planes’ may have hit the World Trade Center. Now that’s a horse of a different (and truly psychedelic) color.
No such worries with Judy Wood though. A mechanical engineer and former Clemson University professor, Wood is best known for her ‘billiard ball’ paradigm, a technical model she created to illustrate the implausibility of the much touted ‘pancake’ theory, a flimsy mainstream account of why the Twin Towers fell the way they did. She also compares the Twin Towers to tree trunks; solid structures unlikely to just disintegrate into clouds of dust under any circumstances. Makes sense.
But shortly after her arrival in Seattle, Wood unveiled her latest theory: energy beams from space, not conventional explosives, really destroyed the WTC. She also talks oft and openly about her suspicions that some of her colleagues in the 9/11 truth movement (especially those who attack her research) are embedded disinformation agents working to sabotage 9/11 activist’s efforts. Although such accusations are not uncommon within the movement, Wood tosses them about like Mardi Gras beads.
But some of her paranoia may not be entirely unfounded. Last spring, Wood’s protégé, a young male student with whom she’d been working closely, was gunned down in a parking lot—two shots in the head execution style. Thinking that she and her student may have been getting a little too close to the truth, Wood then set out on a frantic pilgrimage to the Arkansas home of Morgan Reynolds, a man she hoped would offer her support and intellectual understanding. And that he did.
The least controversial aspect of Morgan Reynolds is that he is a warm, likable man. An avid motorcycle enthusiast, self-proclaimed ‘right winger’ and all around character, the sixty-something Reynolds personifies heartland charm and magnanimity. Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the criminal justice center in Dallas, Reynolds was also chief economist for the Department of Labor during Bush’s first term making him the first Bush appointee to step forward with doubts about the official story of 9/11.
He’s also shown true brilliance in his work on 9/11 issues. His essay 9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy is an intriguing account of his falling out with the school where he’d been an active faculty member for 28 years. After Reynolds first went public with his views on 9/11, A&M’s sulfurous president, ex-CIA career bigwig Robert Gates, went after him personally, publicly branding anyone (even a fellow “Aggie”) who might suggest a government conspiracy in the events of 9/11 as being “beyond the pale.” Gates, you’ll recall, was almost indicted for his Iran-Contra connections, a fact that caused him little difficulty in his bid for confirmation as our brand new Secretary of Defense.
Reynolds and Wood defected from mainstream academia to become members of probably the most prestigious of all 9/11 activist groups, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This impressive movement of rebels have bravely risked their careers and endured the slander of their colleagues by voicing their strong belief that 9/11 may have been a fraud; a “psy-op” or “false-flag” covert operation specifically designed to provoke war. But even within this open-minded fraternity, Reynolds’ and Wood’s ideas were just too hot to handle and soon they took their leave of even this auspicious crew.
Reynolds began his presentation to a full house at Trinity United Methodist Church in Seattle with a fairly standard rundown of basic 9/11 facts and figures. Accompanied by a Powerpoint demonstration, he handled the material well—a good start to a somber evening. It wasn’t until the end of his half hour talk that he detailed his ‘no-planes’ theory, and then it was off to the races.
To be fair, many 9/11 researchers speculate that specially outfitted duplicate aircraft, possibly laced with explosives and high-tech homing devices, may have taken over the flight paths of Flights 11 and 175 before they struck the WTC. But what Reynolds is saying is that anything from duplicate planes to missiles to explosives to who-knows-what apparently did the job. He supports this view in much the same way that Pentagon researchers do: the holes in the Twin Towers just aren’t the right size and shape. He also doubts that aluminum airplanes could have sliced through the exterior steel columns of the Twin Towers (personally, I think that 100 tons of anything moving at 500 mph could slice through steel).
In addition, Reynolds talks frankly about his belief that all the network video we saw of planes smashing into buildings on 9/11 was likely doctored to hide from us what really hit the WTC. As if this weren’t enough, he also speculates that cloaking devices may have been used, presumably for the same purpose. Since its inception, the international 9/11 truth movement has tried hard to avoid hosting events that end up looking like Star Trek conventions. But this particular night in Seattle was coming awfully close.
Judy Wood was up next. She began with a photo of two life-size Disney characters that had apparently been stored in the sub-floors of the WTC. The fact that they were found intact is, for Wood, evidence that conventional explosives (i.e. micro-nukes, thermite, etc.) did not destroy the WTC’s basement as some researchers suggest. She also presented her ‘billiard ball’ model, a technical refutation of the most common mainstream excuse for the inexplicable and total collapses of the Twin Towers.
Wood also compares the Twin Towers to tree trunks in their strength and solidity, and it’s a fair point to make. Anyone who’s ever seen photos of the aftermath of the earthquake in Kobe, Japan knows that toppling buildings retain a tremendous amount of their shape and integrity, even as they lie on their sides. Naturally the question of what made the Twin Towers turn from solid structures into clouds of dust follows.
Wood uses pictures of burnt out cars to support her space-based energy weapons theory, in addition to photos of holes in the roofs of the low-rises, WTC 4, 5 and 6. These beams were apparently what destroyed the Twin Towers too, conventional explosives being, at most, a secondary part of the process. She then slaughtered a sacred cow of 9/11 research by speculating that the horizontal blasts seen shooting out of the sides of the towers as they fell (a phenomenon seen commonly in controlled demolitions) were, in reality, false evidence planted by the conspirators to throw the inevitable crop of post 9/11 conspiracy buffs off the trail and away from the real culprit, the aforementioned energy beams from above.
Batting cleanup was the third and strongest speaker of the night, Wayne Madsen, who just happened to be in the Northwest plugging his book, Jaded Tasks – Brass Plates, Black Ops and Big Oil. Offering a healthy dose of “Bush Family Crime Syndicate” facts and figures, Madsen did what he does best; connect the dots behind the scenes. But he also did much to ground an event that was really beginning to lose its footing.
After a brief intermission, the speakers returned to the stage to face three panelists who had been invited to ask questions. They included Doug Collins, a reporter from the Washington Free Press, Jerry Riley co-founder of Seattle Veterans for 9/11 Truth and the indomitable Dave Ross, a talk radio host based in Seattle. It was hoped that inviting Ross, a defender of the official story, would counter criticism that 9/11 events are often too one-sided. And after several years of building a strong case for insider complicity in the attacks, quality 9/11 researchers shouldn’t have trouble making their case to anyone. But this Halloween in Seattle was different and things were just not going according to plan.
The first round of questioning predictably targeted Reynolds’ and Wood’s more “esoteric” points. Dave Ross pounded away at Reynolds’ theories about the WTC and Reynolds shot back with a dose of “cowboy charm” that backfired badly. Belligerent and vague in his response to tough questioning, Reynolds just wasn’t able to defend his thesis when it mattered most. But the evenings’ most truly macabre moment came when talk radio pit-bull Ross (who was booed by some in the audience when he was introduced earlier) actually got a round of applause for his attack on Reynolds. When a die-hard defender of the official version of the attacks gets more approval from the 9/11 choir than one of the presenters—at a 9/11 skeptics event—it’s a pretty clear indication that your otherwise well-intentioned “forum” is beginning to spin out of control.
Wood—outwardly defiant, but also foundering in the face of tough but fair questions from a generally incredulous panel (and audience)—also ultimately failed to defend her ground. Her poor delivery and loose theorizing soon contributed to the collapse of an otherwise lovely, well attended and extremely well organized event.
Afterward, Reynolds was widely criticized for being, well, punchy; strong on bluster and weak on substance. He even elicited an angry response from the minister of the church—a co-sponsor of the event and avid 9/11 activist—who found Reynolds overbearing, irritating and, like Wood, unpersuasive. In a debriefing session later that night, Reynolds was tactfully but firmly confronted by the organizers of the event and advised to consider dropping the ‘no-planes’ hypothesis, reconsider his on-stage demeanor and concentrate his efforts on more central issues. In response, Reynolds was charming, polite but utterly impenetrable.
Curiously, at one point in his talk, Reynolds himself mentioned that his avant-garde ideas had actually caused some 9/11 truthers to suspect him of being a “cointelpro-style” disinformation agent working from within the movement to discredit it. A recently “disaffected” Bush administration insider, fresh from the Texas side of the beltway (and touting some fairly bizarre points of view), is naturally going to generate suspicion among 9/11 activists. But the problem for theorists like Morgan Reynolds is that even if he isn’t an agent provocateur, he may as well be. Irresponsible researchers or disinformation agents—the end result is identical.
Our Canadian friend, filmmaker and media critic Barrie Zwicker, advises 9/11 activists to carefully consider the important distinction between ‘primary, secondary and tertiary evidence’ when presenting this controversial material to the general public. Unfortunately Reynolds and Wood violate the number one rule for 9/11 public events; do no harm. Stick to priority evidence and leave the more esoteric stuff for brandy and cigars. Theories like those expounded by Reynolds and Wood, especially when they are not successfully defended, only serve to muddle the issue and can often alienate neophytes, fence-sitters, even adherents.
The irony is that even if, by some wild chance, these far out theories are proven to be true, they still aren’t a wise contribution to 9/11 presentations at this point in time and represent a monumental tactical error for 9/11 activists working hard to spread the word. Why bother with such potentially disorienting theories when 9/11 researchers have already amassed a mountain of what lawyers call “best evidence,” the most solid and unimpeachable points available?
It’s sad to think that this well-intentioned event may serve best as a cautionary tale, but if that’s the case then so be it. The Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project, once lauded by such 9/11 experts as David Ray Griffin, Micheal Ruppert, Webster Tarpley and Barrie Zwicker, cannot afford another misstep if it wants to keep working effectively and retain its reputation and dignity. But if this fine group can make a mistake, anyone can.

J. Baker Copyright November, 2006, Darkprints

“The Punch and Judy document is ABSOLUTELY right on!!! It spins the event exactly as I saw it, as did my family and friends. By the time we left my stomach was in knots and my soul/ sixth sense was screaming…Thank you so much for saying PRECISELY what I felt. I honestly could have written the review myself.”
- Cheryl Falk, musician, teacher and contributor to the film 9/11 Mysteries

“I couldn’t agree more…I think Reynolds-Wood really did a number on the Seattle 9/11 movement. They disgraced us to the public and split us apart internally. That's a job done by a pro... Your article was, I think, tame and very tempered…Publish. It’s needed.”

- Reverend Rich Lang, Minister, Trinity United Methodist Church and co-sponsor of the event

“…I saw immediately [that Morgan Reynolds] was a plant not only discrediting others at the table, but discovering the interesting people in the crowd who might have some stuff that the GOV doesn't know about yet.”
- Robin Hordon, former Air Traffic Controller and event attendee

“Thank you SO much for this...I've been saying (and I'm not alone…) that the 9/11truth movement has to be the movement the CIA, FBI et al are most focused on right now… I think [your critique] hits the bull's eye.”

- Barrie Zwicker, media critic, filmmaker and author of Towers of Deception

“Excellent article. I agree that focusing on the possibility of exotic weaponry is not the best way to mainstream 9/11 truth. At the same time I support the right of folks like Morgan and Judy to speak their minds…Bottom line: Organizers should know what to expect when they arrange events like this.”

- Kevin Barrett, professor, University of Wisconsin – Madison, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and MUJCA
[Muslim/Jewish/Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth]

“It is hard not to see these two as potential infiltrators, because the effect of their involvement in 9/11 is so incredibly detrimental to the goals of the movement, IMO…This event was the clearest indication I've seen yet that the 9/11 truth movement is headed for self-destruction . ."

- Nora Lenz, event volunteer

Uh, NO.

"(personally, I think that 100 tons of anything moving at 500 mph could slice through steel)."

If two bodies collide the force effects both bodies equally. That's basic Newtonian Physics. I know it's difficult when the outcome you are demanding contradicts Natural Laws....

Ever heard of a bug splattering on a windshield?

The "airplane" is the bug. The Twin Tower is the automobile.

Fetzer, you're the ass clown of the 9-11 movement.

You have the gall to demand "proof" of your inanity while you're pushing space beams and holograms. And the hubris to call it "science."

Hey, scientific method: there's no evidence for any of this nonsense. Therefore it is disproved.

You're a disinfo agent. John Albaneese nailed you. You're in on the Kennedy disinformation. You're in on 9-11 disinformation, destroying the movement from the inside.

Fuck you Fetzer, you piece of shit. I hope your credibility plummets to zero, and people stop inviting you to conferences.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Very Good post

Thank you!

It is my belief that we are fighting a war on 2 fronts. One front to educate the public. And one front to neutralize the disinformation campaign being aimed at this movement.

We can't do one without the other.

Show ""let me know how you think we can reach them"" by JohnGault

(3) That its all about money and excitement, so who cares?

That one made me laugh because, unfortunately, I've known many shallow punks in my life that had this sick type of attitude.

Show "Option 4" by JamesB

Drop in the Hat

$$ should be your last defense to our movement.

Wake up and smell the $$$$$ being lynched from our country by these criminals because of 9/11.

please don't make me vomit
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

I have no doubt that Category 4 exists

The honest debunker, or the self-deluded one in my own view.

I get bored of a description of the world where everyone's motive is some kind of dark secret. On all sides of any question there are a majority of people who honestly believe exactly what they are saying, no matter how ridiculous it seems to others. No doubt there are dishonest agents (using that word in the most general sense: people who act out of a hidden agenda or on behalf of a concealed interest) but these are the fewest.

Please cut the crap about 9/11 skepticism as some kind of road to riches. Nowadays $129 is an average night at a hotel, do you expect the organizers to provide the rooms for free and if so out of what purse? Do you expect the authors of books not to sell them at a profit, if they can, in the US? Pimping the official story (whether you believe in it or not) is obviously the superior road to riches. The ratio of official story to skeptical books is something like 10:1. The score in feature films and financed documentaries to date is something like 120:1 (I mean genuine financing by a production entity, not all the homemade films). Oliver Stone's WTC, United 93, The Hamburg Cell, more fictionalized shit like Sleeper Cell...

Leaving aside the entertainment industry, what about all the flag-laden souvenir & exploitation products pretending to memorialize the attacks?

Of course, it's government contracters especially in the war, security and spooking industries who have made the ultra-trillions out of the attacks. Whether they were involved or not, they exploited it with every tentacle. So please, maintain a sense of logic here.

And now check out this comparison from a related area. This excellent article looks at four journalists who pimped the Iraq war/WMD/get Saddam lies, as opposed to four who clearly rejected these lies from the start. Where are they today? Who benefited? Sadly the answer is not surprising. All those who got it wrong on behalf of power were rewarded. Those who preferred the truth have been punished, though today they are considered to have been right.

Adopting skeptical views of the official story is generally a good way to lose money, to be excluded and fired, to be ostracized from economic rewards.

oops forgot the link...

The Iraq Gamble
At the pundits' table, the losing bet still takes the pot
By Jebediah Reed



Surely those who warned us not to invade Iraq have been recognized and rewarded, and those who pushed for this disaster face tattered credibility and waning career prospects. Could it be any other way in America?

Noticing our nation is stuck in an unwinnable war, 'Radar' wondered: Is something amiss in the world of punditry?
So we selected the four pundits who were in our judgment the most influentially and disturbingly misguided in their pro-war arguments and the four who were most prescient and forceful in their opposition. (...)

Then we did a career check ... and found that something is rotten in the fourth estate.


Excellent post.

Excellent post. Although again I would disagree with you that the "majority" of (self-described) debunkers are on the level. There is so much circumstantial evidence of foul play that no "debunker" could possibly take on the task without some serious self-deceit.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

i emphatically agree

i am getting a little short on patience with those who feel we should be apologists for those who actively seek to intentionally obscure the truth.

i can't tell you how many times i've heard the excuses:

"oh he means well - but he's just a little stupid - or - its so sad how mentally ill she is - or he's just showing poor judgement - etc etc etc"

this rationalizing may have made sense 2 or 3 years ago - but the modus operandi is now clear - and the evidence is now evoerwhelming.

this movement is being devoured whole by every two-bit snake oil salesman working for "interests" diametrically opposed to the truth. its organized and its fierce. wake up already.

depends who we're talking about...

The majority of OCT believers are on the level. Including the ones who aren't stupid, aren't forefronting an ideology or religion, and present intellectual arguments on the OCT's behalf. No matter how ridiculous.

I might wonder with you about whether the majority of professional debunkers are on the level. People who devote so much of their daily lives to arguing against 9/11 skepticism, ostensibly motivated entirely by their desire to have this minority position be debunked because they think it's untrue. They make me wonder, especially insofar as they constantly recycle the same strawman arguments (talking points) and pretend they haven't been refuted in some other context.

But this whole find-the-agent game bores me beyond description. People have so many different and genuine (and bizarre! and whacked!) motivations in their actions that it's pointless to speculate which are agents if you can't lay out an evidentiary case based on genuine primary associations and interests, or at least on direct evidence of outrageous self-contradiction, lying, etc.

For example, I don't need to call Nico Haupt (who has called me a war criminal) or Fetzer or WingTV or von Kleist agents to point out the multiplicity of ways in which these people objectively damage and discredit the cause they ostensibly support. In these cases, most people involved in this movement have now, finally, seen clearly. It's sad that the learning curve is so slow. Sorry people if that sounds arrogant. It's also sad that all these new people come in naively, get roped in and mind-raped by the likes of Nico before they realize what's up, and often dismiss any further involvement.

Because such behaviors (also by OCTs) can be attributed to religion, delusion, fanaticism, mental illness, idiocy, stubborness, ego, etc. it's ridiculous to pretend to know that a disrupter (in the objective sense) is therefore on someone's payroll as an agent. These particular names are so systematic (and effective) in their behavior that the betting man in me would, if forced, figure they did have conscious, hidden agendas. But only hypothetically.

a rose by any other name

disruption is disruption. disinformation is disinformation. truth is truth and lies are lies.

intentionality lies at the center of this debate - and it is here that we frequently differ.

i see intentionality. i do not give two sh*ts what their reasons are. you will never hear me overtly refer to someone has a government agent.

but you will hear me refer to disinformation as disinformation. i see no reason to shy away from the obvious conclusion that several high-profile activists and debunkers alike are clearly engaging in intentional disruption and disinformation. in fact - it is an insult to my intelliegence to suggest otherwise.

i see no reason to be discrete. our opposition has no such hesitancy in straining the fabric of decency and defying common sense logic and violating the social integrity of this moevement.

we need not be deaf dumb and blind to the criminal politics of others.

in fact - at this point - given the progress they have made, i feel that we have no choice but to shine as much light as possible on our detractors. they want attention? i say lets give it to them - and good.

So why are you stalking me?

I gather you are planning on coming to Columbus to "confront" me and disrupt a presentation I am making at the invitation of the 9/11 group there. Why in the world are you doing this? Are you resentful or outraged because (of):

1) I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

2) I manage the Scholars web site?

3) the lecture I gave in Chicago 4-5 June?

4) the lecture I gave in Los Angeles 24-25 June?

5) my appearances on "Hannity & Colmes"?

6) my appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor"?

7) the hundreds of interviews I have given?

8) my many interviews on my talk shows?

9) my 3 1/2 hour program on Greek television?

10) my letter to the editor of THE NATION?

11) my divergence with Steve Jones?

12) my skepticism about thermite/thermate?

13) my encouragement of investigating other hypotheses?

What have I done that would warrant this "confrontation"? And if, as I suspect, it has to do with 11), 12), and 13), how do you know that Steve is right and I am wrong? I have not taken a stand, by the way, but only observed that the massive destruction of the World Trade Center, the non-functional damage to the bathtub, and the 1,400 "toasted" cars are most unlikely to be explainable on the basis of his thermite/thermate hypothesis. Indeed, the "evidence'" for his position appears to be growing weaker and weaker. (See, for example, today's interview with Judy Wood on "The Dynamic Duo", gcnlive.com.) Are you remotely qualified to evaluate the scientific issues? And what give you the standing to "confront" me? My impression, from visiting the Louisville Truth site, is that its members appear to be poorly informed. They post an attack on me by Steven Jones, but not my response, which even appears on 911blogger.com, because I put it up on a blog of my own. Have you read it? What do you know about the history of the society and the reasons why he and I have gone our separate ways? Have you read about the history of the society in the multiple posts I have in "Founder's Corner" on 911scholars.org? Are you aware that a rogue clique, which supports Steve, commandeered the society's web site to conduct a phony "vote"? has refused to turn over control of the domain names for st911.org and scholarsfor911truth.org to me, even thought they were obtained at my direction and on behalf of the society? has frozen the web site (twice) and has now turned it into a "neutral" site in order to promote another group's existenve and objectives? What is there about this kind of corrupt conduct that appeals to you? And why are you planning to engage in more corrupt actions by this confrontation? Tell me. I am sure we would all like to know what John Albanese thinks he is doing for 9/11 truth.
What entitles you to come to a public lecture I am giving and confront me? I want to know. Not in generalities. I want to know exactly what I have done that has pissed you off to the extent that you want to engage in destructive behavior? Didn't your parents teach you any manners or self-control? And don't shovel some "disinfo" or "betraying the cause" crap. I want EVIDENCE. I want to know EXACTLY what lies behind this outrageous conduct. Tell me.

Weren't you invited by World Can't Wait?

That's how I heard it from a few people in the area - WCW invited you and THEN the local truth group got involved.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "Yes, the World Can't Wait invited me . . ." by Jim Fetzer

If you talk about space

If you talk about space beams during your lecture, Jim, Mr. Albanese would be justified in doing much more than just confronting you. You should be physically removed from the stage if necessary. This isn't a game, Jim. You either have the data to support the space beam hypothesis or you don't. Do you? Please kindly respond to my post below regarding functional damage to the bathtub. If you do, we can take up other legetimate arguments against the space beam hypothesis one by one. Otherwise, you have NOTHING and are clearly an intentional disruptor, as Mr. Albanese has suggested.

You're a thug

That's how you like to discourse?


Even the flag-waver types don't stoop so low. They at least respect a person's right to speak.

The voting down arrows

are a bit like volume controls.

Non-Functional Damage?

Jim, Please explain how you can claim that there was non-functional damage to the bathtub in light of the following:

For example, a news article titled “Half of WTC ‘Bathtub’ Basement Damaged By Twin Towers’ Fall” (available here) dated October 8, 2001 states:


Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers. Outside the tower footprints, the section of greatest concern within the so-called 1,000 x 500-ft bathtub is along its south side. There, a 200 x 30-ft hole from 40 to 70 ft deep sits between the tub's perimeter slurry wall and the remains of Two WTC.  “A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything,” says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.  Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.  Roughly 40% of the bathtub's reinforced concrete diaphragm slabs and steel columns are in “pretty good shape,” says George J. Tamaro, the Mueser Rutledge engineer leading the foundation repair team.


This report is supported by an article available here about the WTC cleanup effort.  It states:


Additionally, the ground zero crew had to address the underground bathtub's stability. The force of the collapse destroyed much of the underground support structure that held the bathtub walls in place, risking a massive underground collapse. To maintain the basement's relative stability, the clean-up engineers had to reconfigure the tieback system that originally held the walls in place until they could construct a permanent support structure. This involved drilling into the ground and running new tieback cables between the walls and surrounding bedrock.


Another article from NY1 News titled “Workers Rush To Repair Huge Hole In WTC ‘Bathtub’” (available here) adds, “Crews at the World Trade Center site are rushing to fix a 90-foot-wide hole in the retaining wall that keeps out ground water.  Still another article here about the reconstruction effort for the train system notes “The 16-ft, 6-in.-dia tunnels were flooded for 40 days.”  An article by the American Society of Safety Engineers available here observes that, during the cleanup effort at Ground Zero, “cracks were discovered in the [bathtub] slurry wall that indicated potential wall failure and a subsequent flooding event under Ground Zero. A massive crack that appeared along Liberty Street indicated a pending failure of the slurry wall.”  Finally, an article available here quotes a lead engineer on the bathtub repair project as saying “The World Trade Center ‘bathtub,’ which keeps out the Hudson River, suffered so much damage on Sept. 11 that a new wall will have to be added before permanent rebuilding can occur.”

Show "Non-functional damage . . ." by Jim Fetzer

and from this

you theorize that star wars beams caused the towers to collapse?


i want to thank you for your work. it is my hope that i can help get you - and your "SCIENCE" - all the attention you seek and deserve.

you should be thanking me. since your science is clearly so SOLID you should appreciate the fact that i will be working towards spreading the word on your theories.

but - what did you teach again?

also - can you educate me? you claimed that Judy Woods' calculation were correct regarding the grand piano taking 30 seconds to hit the ground - since the lid would act as a parachute.

could you please show us the math? can you show us these calculations?

Thanks in advance.


I have several questions for you Jim as do many people here at 9/11 Blogger. Would you be interested in doing a blog style interview?
I'd like to get your thoughts down on record for all to view.

I'd appreciate your time if you could do a Q & A sometime that would be great.

You have a fascinating background and We'd love to know more about you and what you believe.... where you see this movement going..... Etc.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

This is not an explanation

This is not an explanation IN LIGHT OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED ABOVE, namely:

Still another article here about the reconstruction effort for the train system notes “The 16-ft, 6-in.-dia tunnels were flooded for 40 days.” 

Ok, now we know that the Hudson River was not kept out by the bathtub.  What are your other criteria for non-functional damage?


Probably more importantly

an article available here quotes a lead engineer on the bathtub repair project as saying “The World Trade Center ‘bathtub,’ which keeps out the Hudson River, suffered so much damage on Sept. 11 that a new wall will have to be added before permanent rebuilding can occur.”

We also know that a new bathtub wall will have to be built before permanent rebuilding on the site can occur.  Does this not also qualify as "functional" damage?


that water was from fire hoses

That water was from fire hoses which sprayed Ground Zero ("the bathtub") for days. If the Hudson River had broken thru the tub into the train tunnels, the entire PATH and Manahattan subway tunnels would have been flooded


You don't think the water could have come from here:

Another article from NY1 News titled “Workers Rush To Repair Huge Hole In WTC ‘Bathtub’” (available here) adds, “Crews at the World Trade Center site are rushing to fix a 90-foot-wide hole in the retaining wall that keeps out ground water.   

 Nah... The water couldn't have been coming through a 90 foot wide hole, could it?

Plus, do you really think fire hoses could provide enough water to "flood" a 16.5 foot diameter tunnel?

Please stop trying to stick up for poor Mr. Fetzer.  The space beam hoax has been revealed:




Correct Seve B - Some Transit Pics from 12-Sep-2001...

Well before hoses were being used !!!!

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Good luck

This is untrue

You obviously don't live in NYC and know what it would've actually meant had the slurry walls failed.

The slurry walls did not fail.

You contend they did and you are wrong.

you are a publuc figure making public appearances

i am a documentary film maker who holds people accountable for their actions

do the math.

You're a phoney

Do the math.

That camera will be turned on you too.

You claim to defend the "movement" while you foment needless hatred.

What do you get out of that?

"STARWARS: SpaceBeams" featuring “Fetzer the Hutt”

Jaja Judy

And the Dark Lord of disinfo - Sith Reynolds




I know you mean well but custard pies rarely win debates!

True, but it's in reply to

True, but it's in reply to this type of bullshit;

So it’s fighting gone off shit custard pies with better fresh ones.

instead of

instead of focusing on what brought the building down, thermite or space beams, just bring up that it had to be some type of explosives.

just focus on the fall times, symetry, exposions, pulverization, horizontal ejections etc.

Some type of exlposive event occured whether thermite or space beams.

ironically Webster tarpley's book suggests that these space weapons might have been used.

Who knows what they used, but it clearly wasnt fire and damage.


Drop the "ironically."

Can you quote the passage directly?

I have not given Tarpley any money, obviously.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Show "You don't trust Jim Fetzer?" by JamesB


i didn't know this stuff. i will add this to my list.

Fetzer, most of the people


most of the people in this movement have lost all respect for you.
you have to come to terms with this

everything you touch in relation to 9/11 turns to shit. Scholars for 9/11 truth imploded because you are an asshole. It was doomed from the start mainly because of your involvement

are you noticing now certain people just don't want to talk to you anymore? Can you understand why yet? your supporters are vanishing around you. Kevin Barret is probably the only one still on your side who is credible, and even he has his doubts about you

Mr. Fetzer, The thing is,

Mr. Fetzer,

The thing is, although the claims you make are simply insane, unscientific, and disingenuous...what REALLY gives you away is how *unreasonable* and stubborn you are. You also remind me of a teacher I had in grammar school...needless to say, he wasn't one of my favorite teachers. In short, Mr. Fetzer, you are an asshole.

Yes, an asshole.

John Albanese...take a break. You don't need this bullshit. Stop wasting your time. You think winning debates on an online blogger is the most important part of our movement? Hell no.

its research

for my current project.

You live in a bubble

You live in a bubble
Of mutually reinforced delusion.

Just like the people who believe the government's little fairy tale.......

Except most of them possess more humanity, kindness, dignity and natural style.

Just because you think you possess the "truth" and others do not, that gives you the right to be hateful? Don't you think displays of righteous hate are unbecoming? And indicative of a lack of proper moral education?

What benefit will it be to you
if you gain the whole world
but lose your own soul?
(Mark 8:36)

It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.....

It's a tough, nasty job.

Advancing "9/11 truth" while protecting national security, classified weapons programs
AND complying with the secrecy oath contracts mandated by those classified research programs.

It's one hell of a tough and thankless task.

But Alex Floum is up to it, and we just wanted to make sure he get's the credit he's due, for his unique talents and his central role in this painstakingly dangerous work