I am a concerned 9/11 truther and I must preface everything I say here with this statement.

I am not here to put anyone down, or belittle anyone's efforts. I seek merely to give some constructive criticism of this event in order to focus and hone the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement.

When the 9/11 movement questioned the "Pod" section of Loose Change, it was removed from the movie in order to present the best evidence. This is the difference between the gentlemen of Loose Change, and Mr. Fetzer. Mr. Fetzer chooses to discuss the more outlandish theories in the public domain, in my opinion to the detrement of the movement. I believe that we are still in the court of public opinion, and that we must stick to our best evidence in the public eye.

Several things about Mr. Fetzer's presentation upset me.

1) Use of video footage:
The only video footage Mr. Fetzer used was of what he calls "dustification" of the pillar remaining after a tower has collapse. This is certainly a strange occurence, but I suggest that it may not have dustified, but there may have been a lot of dust on it from the buidling collapse, and when it was blown from the bottom, the dust fell slower than the beams because of air resistance. (Imagine pulling a tablecloth off of a table quickly that had confetti on it.)

He omitted video of the towers collapses. No building 7 no towers 1 and 2. He showed this only with slides.

The downsides to this:
1) Sense of "time" is lost
2) Does not mention the "squibs"
3) Slides cannot fully validate the near free fall speed claims.
4) Lose view of the horizontal forces pushing material outward, which if that were to be done with "star-wars beam weapons" (actual title of Judy Wood's web paper) I fail to see how.

One thing I found unsettling, was that this was NOT an open discussion. We were given a purple index card on which we could write 1 question. The question would be collected and then given to Mr. Fetzer, at which point he preceded to paraphrase the questions given instead of reading them as they were written.

The effects of this:
1) Your question is limited to what you can fit onto the index card.
2) You can't ask follow-up questions.
3) Mr. Fetzer was allowed to paraphrase the question and while I can't speak for others, he certainly softballed my question quite significantly.
4) What kind of model for how we want things to be when we are limiting the debate so that dissent is reduced!? Isn't this what the 9/11 truth movement is all about? Was I mistaken that this reason is precisely why we need to have honest, complete, and rigorous questioning? If we purport to be immune to questioning are we no better than those who would say "With us or against us?"

Original question:
In Judy Wood and Morgan Reynold's paper (website) entitled "The Star-Wars Beam Weapons" they have pictures that seem to suggest that car fires at the WTC were unusually selective. Would you not agree that this is a misleading question, given that pictures of regular car fires are of little or no significant diffrence?

Fetzer Fires
http://www.freewebs.com/springfield911truth/fetzerfires.JPG

Regular Fires
http://www.freewebs.com/springfield911truth/regularfires

Paraphrased question:
This person seems to think that these fires were somewhat like regular fires and asks me what I think about that. (I'll have to watch the video again, but this was definately the vibe of how he paraphrased what was a much more cutting question.)

Lastly. The focus of his speech seemed to bear directly upon discrediting the Thermate hypothesis. He put up a chart that had a few characteristics of the collapse along the top. On the left were two theories, one of his, and one of Dr. Jones. I found this very disturbing.

It is very important to understand that Dr. Jones theory does not pretend to know EXACTLY what happened to the top floors of the building, and what caused them to be pulverized. Dr. Fetzer seemed to be saying that his theory explained more of the characteristics, and the crowd most likely percieves that as. "Oh, Dr. Fetzer is right, and Thermate is wrong." DONT BE FOOLED.

What characteristics did he use?
Pyroclastic Flows / Molten Steel / Bathtub Damage

What characteristics didn't he use?
Sulfidation of the steel, traces of Manganese, traces of Borium, H-Beams with an obvious diagonal cut.

Isn't it interesting that he neglected ALL of the categories that might suggest thermate cutter charges? This seems less scientific, and more like some of the old tricks of Fox News.

Finally it was asked "Who will you vote for in 2008?"

He liked "Al Gore." - Does this seem strange to anyone else? Why would such a die-hard Truther push for a non 9/11 truth democrat when Ron Paul, a 9/11 truth candidate is in the running?

Also, I notice that Fetzer is always quick to bash Republicans. It's obvious that this is more than Republicans and Democrats. They aren't going to save us. We have to do it ourself. The democrats have the majority now, and I still see a patriot act. I still see no reduction in troops. I still see no new investigation into 9/11. It is up to us to be smart enough to see when Democrats are going to save us, and it is also up to us to be smart enough to see when some things within the movement, are out to see that the "divide and rule" m.o. keeps us from servin justice, and not give them the validity they so desire.

Thank you, and good luck.
Jesse Calhoun
Springfield 911 Truth