My Really, Really Bad Judy Wood Experience

(With the recent publication of Jeremy Baker's essay, "Three Amigos: Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer’s assault on 9/11 Truth", I think it is important for people to know that Baker is not the only person to have serious reservations about this particular trio. Especially since Judy Wood's ideas have cropped up again, and have been circulated in a Draft Bill that does not have the unanimous support of 9/11 Truthers, but has already been presented to a few members of Congress. Specifically, this blog entry is about an on-air attack on Steven Jones that occurred in 2006, that reveals planning, and forethought on behalf of the "Three Amigos". -rep.)

"(How is a tower like a tree?)
Judy, Judy, Judy, Judy would
(Where was the hidden energy?)
La la la la la la la la la la la la
(Can we solve this mystery?)
Judy Wood"

- lyrics from "Judy Would" by Ace Baker.

In the beginning...

In 2005, Dr. Judy Wood joined the (DU) message board where I had already been a member for a couple of years. She used the handle "janedoe" and would engage in back and forth posting battles with the resident 9/11 trolls and debunkers, with varying degrees of success. Wood seemed a natural ally, and I engaged in some friendly correspondence with janedoe, via the DU message board, which later moved to email communications...

When Steven Jones publicly posted his paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" in late 2005, he attracted the attention of James Fetzer, and they co-founded the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth group. By the time that Jones did his first major public lecture in Utah, in February of 2006, Wood had established contact with Jones, looking to join the Scholars. Soon, Morgan Reynolds would also be a member. Wood's participation at DU dropped off considerably.

In the space of a few short months, the original Scholars group was building up a large membership, and by June of 2006, Jones had become popular enough within the 9/11 Truth community that he was delivering the Keynote address at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference, and it really seemed that the Scholars had some serious momentum.

By the beginning of August, 2006, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds had decided to put a halt to Steven Jones' momentum.

Seeds of Doubt

In mid-July of 2006, Wood began to insinuate to me via email that Jones' research was rife with omissions, distortions, and scientific errors, but did not cite what the specific problems were. Understanding that Jones was arguably the most high-profile 9/11 activist in the U.S. (and probably the world) in 2006, this did cause me some worry. After all, if, as Wood would later claim, Jones was "100% bogus", then this would result in a massive discrediting in the public eye of 9/11 activists in general.

Wood's insinuations continued through her denial of tenure from Clemson University, in early August, 2006. I offered her my work number in Dallas, so I could try and get a better handle on her problems with Jones' research. She did call, on August 7th, 2006, and we discussed her problems with Jones, her duties at Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and her future plans for Jones.

It turned out that there was more to Wood's problems with Jones than just allegations about his scientific method. Wood claimed that Jones showed no special sympathy toward her regarding the violent death of Michael Zebuhr. She said that instead of a long note of sympathy, Jones was more interested in adamantly defending his experiments which proved that aluminum melts long before it glows brightly in daylight conditions. She also said that Jones used this phrase in an email sent to her, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be".

Jones was no doubt speaking of the melting aluminum experiments, which he indeed "did again" in late August of 2006;

However, Wood repeated Jones' comments after a long diatribe about Zebuhr, and it's clear that Wood was consciously conflating the murder of Zebuhr with Jones' words, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be". The phrase is posted in a similar context on Wood's website, but the sender is not identified;


Following this bizarre non sequitur, Wood then revealed to me that she and Morgan Reynolds were working on a paper that would challenge Jones' work, and then she said in reference to Jones, "We're taking him out." I was asked if I would be a party to this process, and would I post the information on, where I had only been Team Member for a couple of months.

After being bombarded with Wood's various accusations about Jones, I have to admit to being a bit shocked. I was not willing to post this paper without a careful review first, at the very least. This led Wood to state, "So you are going to remain loyal to Steven Jones?"

This left me speechless. I have sworn no loyalty oath to Jones or any other 9/11 researcher. Research must stand on its own two legs, no matter who the author or scientist is who promotes it. It's true that I have been covering Jones' research for as long as anybody else, and I even traveled to Utah in February of 2006 to see his first major public lecture, which I covered at and, but this does not constitute a loyalty oath.

The "Three Amigos" v. Steven Jones

After Wood's attempt to recruit me for operations against Jones on August 7th, she contacted me again a couple of days later, and I was advised that Jones would be appearing on Jim Fetzer's radio program, "Non-Random Thoughts", on August 10th, which was being broadcast at the time on I was invited again to help to expose the "truth" about Steven Jones by calling in to the show. I did not reply to this invitation.

I did however, tune in to the broadcast, and downloaded the archived show for posterity. You can download it here for review purposes;

Hour 1 - 7MB mp3

Hour 2 - 7MB mp3

The shows are intact with commercials (and the first, unrelated guest) which you will have to fast forward past on your media player. The Jones interview begins at the 23:30 mark in the first hour. (I considered trimming out the non-essentials, but I did not want to stand accused of editing the source material.) In the first hour of the interview, Jim Fetzer is fairly eager to present three theories of Controlled Demolition with equal weight; CD by a Thermite derivative and other explosives, CD by fission/fusion devices (aka 'mini nukes'), and CD by unknown "exotic weaponry". Fetzer seems to be softening up Jones for the sandbagging that takes place in the second hour.

Jones relates a short refutation of the mini-nuke hypothesis, then Fetzer and Jones toss the ball around about other subjects dealing with 9/11. (I will be following this blog entry with a more specific blog on the mini-nuke hypothesis in the near future.)

It is in the second hour, at the 42:08 minute mark where Fetzer gives away the game. Over night,or perhaps early in the morning of August 10th, 2006, Wood and Fetzer posted a paper attributed to Judy Wood and the deceased Michael Zebuhr, called "Aluminum Glows", on the front page of the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. (Wood's methodology is strongly challenged in this piece by Brian Vasquez: Glowing Aluminum Disinformation - Feb 8, 2007)

You can see the archived version of the Scholars front page, in the "S9/11T FEATURED ARTICLES" section, (lower left-side), archived on August 11, 2006 here;

As you can see from the version cached on August 4, 2006, the article was not there;

Jones (co-founder of the Scholars!) was not advised that this article would be published on the Scholars website. Jones found out when Fetzer sandbagged him with the news, live on the air: "In fact a piece that he (Zebuhr) did with Judy Wood we put on the site just for those who want to look at it." So, Fetzer admits to being party to posting the article. (Wood had previously advised me that she had administrative access for editing the content of the Scholars site.)

At the 45:51 mark in the 2nd hour, we find out who Wood was able to get to call in to the show to "expose" Steven Jones. None other than Morgan Reynolds himself, with whom Wood was covertly writing her hit piece on Jones, a piece which remains posted on Reynolds' website (Arabesque writes about it here). Reynolds proceeds to attack Jones' credibility as a scientist live on the air, even though he, as an economist, would have no grounds to make an assessment of Jones' abilities as a scientist, certainly not in a professional capacity.

Fetzer doesn't seem to be all that "surprised" by Reynolds' call. He shouldn't be. He admits foreknowledge about posting the "Aluminum Glows" piece, which suggests very strongly that he should be expecting a call from "somebody" to challenge Jones, as Wood had planned for someone to call in as part of the attempted discrediting of Jones.

Why Drag This Out Now?

Because apparently, there are a number of people who take Judy Wood's idea that Directed Energy Weapons, or "Space Beams" demolished the WTC seriously. Indeed, seriously enough to include her prominently in a Draft Bill that has been circulated to a few members of Congress, and written about at

This, even after Wood and Reynolds were practically laughed out of the (Federal) Southern District Court of New York this past June. I strongly encourage anyone who has not read this memo detailing the decision on their case to do so;

(More here: )

These junk lawsuits filed by Wood and her cohorts seem designed to fail. Certainly, the consequences of the lawsuit filed in Judge Daniels' Southern District Court are plain: he rejected the claims "with prejudice", which puts and end to Wood's claim in his court, but there can be little doubt that Judge Daniels will forget this matter any time soon.

This means that any future cases about alternative explanations about the collapses of the towers, filed in the Southern District Court which "has jurisdiction over and summons jurors from the counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan" could be tainted by junk science and ideas that have no way of being tested, and thus, no way of being a viable hypothesis.

Apparently, repetition is the key here, so I will now provide the links to the letters and papers which strongly refute the Space Beams concept once again. They are available for download from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and it is a very good idea to read them all, if you have not already done so;


In Volume 8 - February 2007:

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

In Volume 16 - October 2007:

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins


Analysis by Dr. Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

“Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon” (January 9, 2007)
James Gourley

Why the damage to WTC Bldgs. 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it (Updated March 20, 2007)
Tony Szamboti

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Febuary 9, 2007)
Dr. Greg Jenkins

Finally, you should watch this interview with Dr. Greg Jenkins and Dr. Judy Wood, if you haven't yet:

So, what happened?

There was a preplanned, coordinated attack on the most prominent 9/11 activist at the apex of his popularity in August of 2006. Arguably, this was also the apex of the nascent Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The Scholars would ultimately split into two groups. (Divide and conquer, anyone?)

The Scholars' greatest threat came from within the group itself. Possibly the greatest problem was that there was no vetting of co-founder Jim Fetzer. Had some research been done on his conduct within the JFK research community, perhaps Jones would have come across information like this, "Jim Fetzer's Campaign of Disinformation" posted at Clint Bradford's website. (An early critique of the initial makeup of the Scholars was penned by Michael Green: The Company We Keep.)

Why did I not share this information earlier? Because I honestly thought that the papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the video by Greg Jenkins had reduced Wood's ideas about 9/11 into an inert gas. However, as we can see, the ideas live on.

In my opinion, the DEW concept was not born out of scientific need. It was born out of an intent to discredit the thermite-based hypothesis, to date, the only hypothesis to exhibit any hard evidence to back it up. Perhaps, in the future, a hypothesis accompanied by physical evidence, that does not rely on thermite derivatives will be in the vanguard of CD theories. But it hasn't happened yet.

See also: On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

People like...

Fetzer, Wood, and Reynolds (as well as others) have tacked on years to this cause. To me, that is unforgivable.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Reynolds, Fetzer and Wood

Reynolds, Fetzer and Wood are great in this to:

Number 5 and the Three Stooges

(No subject)

How unfortunate that this person gets any attention whatsoever.

The interview video is extremely telling. I recommend that everyone view it.

"This is Huge, Judy" and "We're Taking him Out"

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11.  I’m just blown away by your work.  This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?

Judy Wood: “Nope.  I don’t think so.

Fetzer: “Planes?

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.

Fetzer: “Oh Really??  Oh ho ho ho ho!  Oh Judy.  Oh my, oh my, oh my.  This is huge… this is huge Judy.

Reprehensor said: "Wood then revealed to me that she and Morgan Reynolds were working on a paper that would challenge Jones' work, and then she said in reference to Jones, "We're taking him out." I was asked if I would be a party to this process, and would I post the information on, where I had only been Team Member for a couple of months."

This is a pretty stunning admission. If you look at the history of attacks that were made in light of this it is very revealing. See this article for some background:

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

Here are some examples of them trying to "take out" Dr. Jones:

“We gasp at _______’s “analysis” of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?”
“______ attacks Dr. Wood’s Billiard Ball Example (BBE)—a clear explanation of why the government’s gravitational collapse WTC story is impossible—because people, even _____, can understand it.”
“______ gives experimentalists a bad name.”
“Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11.”
“Perhaps our critique will lead him to conduct psychological experiments at BYU.”
“_______ has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that seems to 'sell' his positions.”
“Given _________’s enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. ________ ‘evokes’ the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery… In effect… ‘Elect _______, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy.’”

Here's an article by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds that made a number of distortions about thermite.

‘Thermite Hypothesis’ versus ‘Controlled Demolition Hypothesis’: a response to ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’

If you look at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, the only "theory" that was ever criticized in any form was the thermite theory. There are no critical articles about TV fakery or directed energy weapons posted on the website. Jim Fetzer maintains that we have not "considered" this theory and completely ignores all critiques.

In one of the responses, Judy Wood says that, "I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter.”

This is an admission that she cannot answer the detailed critiques of her theory.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Why Does The 9/11 Truth Movement Prefer Hypothesis To Fact

What interests me isn't Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy beam hypothesis or Dr. Steven Jones' thermite/thermate hypothesis. What interests me is that we in the 9/11 Truth community place all our cards on hypotheses where one needs a civil engineering degree to begin to understand the divergent hypotheses. Yet when we have actual proof that 9/11 was an inside job thanks to The NORAD Papers articles (see:, those articles remain in the closet of 9/11 Truth. And one doesn't need a civil engineering degree to understand the contents of the NORAD articles. One simply needs to be able to read! Why does the 9/11 Truth Movement place so many resources on hypotheses when it is a historical fact that NORAD monitored American airspace on 9/11?

Debating how the towers fell can be fun, but listen guys, we are not in this fight to have fun. The 9/11 Truth Movement should use facts first to convince doubters or those hostile to 9/11 Truth. When doubters, etc. are convinced by the facts, then one can introduce them to hypotheses. It seems we in the 9/11 Truth Movement have the tail wagging the dog!

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

I Remember, I Remember

I remember listening to that interview between Fetzer and Jones. I remember Morgan Reynolds calling in at the end of it and he began questioning Steven Jones. Morgan said something to the effect, "your credibility is at stake here." I was surprised at the encounter because I assumed that they were all on good terms with each other. I used to visit Morgan Reynolds' website for updates fairly frequently. I enjoyed some of what he wrote. Then articles attacking Steven Jones started to appear. I kind of lost interest with Fetzer, Woods and Reynolds at that point.

However, the Judy Wood/Greg Jenkins interview is hilarious. I, to this day, wonder how in the world Judy ever came up with such a ridiculous idea. I could watch videos of the collapse of WTC1,2 for hundred years and still never think, "Hey, are those space beams destroying the building."

At the 17:02 mark on the video Greg shows a picture of the South Tower's collapse. Judy describes it as her favorite picture. She uses it to show that some of the debris is going upward. However, that is just smoke blowing over from the North Tower, not the South Tower vaporizing. I don't think Greg Jenkins pointed that out clearly enough.


I remember it all too well, and have many details that I could share. And to be ABSOLUTELY clear, I'm not accusing Judy Wood of any crime whatsoever (insert all standard legal disclaimers here)*. But what was her actual specialty again?

Composite Laminates
Multi layer thermoplastic elastomers
... for NASA?
(space dentures?)

Now those terms don't sound like DEW stuff, but they do sound vaguely familiar.

Hey, today is my anniversary!
* This comment does not reflect actual opinions or views of any kind, but if it did they would not be the opinions or views/policies policies of 911blogger or its subsidiaries....

Thanks for posting. A

Thanks for posting. A pathetic story but necessary to repeat over time to keep new people educated.

What's fascinating to me is that she still adorns Patriots Question 9/11, as though none of this ever happened, linking both directly to her own site and to Jim Fetzer's site --

It looks like the primary traffic to people like Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer probably continues to come via Patriotsquestion9/11. Given these glowing promotions of all three of them, it's not surprising that we still have people who think they are 'a-okay' to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Plan on re-posting this post every month to contribute to the efforts trying to offset the uncritical promotions of them.

And Happy Anniversary Kevin . . .

It hurts

Wood's interview with Dr Jenkins is like an expertly constructed credibility-demolishing bomb - on a par with Reynold's Fox News "cartoon planes" piece. More effective against us than 100 articulate "debunkers".

Interesting about Fetzer's reputation on the JFK front. Whether these people are on a deliberate disinfo mission or simply band together because nobody else will tolerate their nonsense is a moot point.

PatriotsQuestion911 don't appear to have a rigorous vetting procedure - which is a shame for an otherwise good resource.

He is going to be at the

He is going to be at the National Press Building (Washington, D.C.) on Wednesday. The Jenkins/Woods event happened in that building the last time they were there. I'll never forget his emotionalism (before and during his talk) and the fact that he interrupted his discussion of 911 at least 4 times to attack Steven Jones. geeeesh He also complained about his religion. I told him most religions are based on fantasy.

this came out:
MEMORANDUM November 14, 2008
From: Chairman ((McClendon Group)

The next presentation will be on Wednesday, November 19th, 6:30 p.m., at the National Press Club, 13th Floor, 14th and F Streets. Free parking with dinner validation at the PMI Garage on G Street near 13th.

What could be more timely than to have as our next speaker one of the best known experts on the Kennedy assassination in particular and conspiracy theories in general? He is James H. Fetzer, and when he appears before our group it will be after the national broadcast by the Discovery Channel on Sunday, November 16th, at 9 p.m., that will claim that the latest forensics show that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Fetzer maintains that JFK was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy x-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Zapruder film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. He has edited three collections of studies on the assassination, chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the subject, and made numerous talk show appearances on the topic. A frequent guest on TV and radio programs both here and abroad, Fetzer's articles on a variety of conspiracies have appeared in the major print media as well. But all of this media exposure will pale when he appears before us at what promises to be a startling rebuttal of the official account of the death of JFK. So plan to be with us...and, of course, the press are welcome. end quote

I think that as more and more professionals join 911 discovery, i.e., the Petition, there will be more and more "professional" disinfo. Sign that petition, please!

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

The Zapruder film problem for Jim Fetzer

Unfortunately, Dr. Fetzer seems to go overboard in his work on the Kennedy assassination also.

He subscribes to the notion that the Zapruder film is a complete hoax and has no validity. In the last ten years his attempts to promote this view have caused a great deal of controversy in the JFK assassination research community. He was soundly refuted on this by Professor Josiah Thompson, the author of the 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas which used the Zapruder film as one of the ways to show that a lone gunman could not have fired all of the shots which killed John Kennedy.

Almost everyone agrees that there are some serious problems with the Zapruder film, however much of what is seen in it correlates with other evidence in the case. So it would seem that a rationale approach would be to say that it was indeed altered, but to say that it is a complete hoax stretches credulity. The most resoundling correlation is the back and to the left motion of JFK after being hit in the head, in concert with the large back of the head wound (which is obviously an exit wound) as described by the Parkland hospital doctors. The film was suppressed for years and only saw the light of day due to a subpoena by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison which was fought by Life magazine, the owner of the film, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which had no grounds to stop it.

The film was obviously suppressed because the perpetrators did not want the American people seeing the back and to the left motion of JFK's head, which would be caused by a shot from the right front, when the official story was telling us that he was hit from the right rear where Lee Harvey Oswald was supposedly positioned in the Texas School Book depository. This feature in the film would be very hard to alter, hence the suppression. Additionally, why would a complete hoax film have this contradicting feature in it?

While Dr. Fetzer is undoubtedly a good speaker and could be an asset to the 911 Truth movement, his easy support of theories with little to no scientific basis and logic flaws have cost him his credibility within the movement and rightly so.

link for Fetzer Nov 19 at NPC? "Patriots"

i could find no mention of the Fetzer Nov 19 at NPC anywhere else on the web; got a link?

EDIT Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11 by Victoria Ashley

PatriotsQuestion911- I've corresponded with Alan Miller numerous times by email since he launched the site, and submitted several people who he has included; see this excerpt from a response from him Apr 20, 07, during a series of exchanges in which i asked the reason he was not going to include 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:

erik- "In that vein, if some who are questioning 9/11 are not patriots, but are exposed as agents of discord, disinformation and discredit, would you take them out?"

alan- "I actually created a citation for Kerrey based on that quote and was intending to add it to the site until the full meaning of it hit me. Maybe at some point in the future it will make it on the site.

The issue of removing people from the website who prove to be agents of disinformation, etc. is a contentious one. If it can be proven, yes, I'd remove them. However, it seems to me that proof is going to be hard to come by.

This issue comes up a lot and here's my general response.

I receive a lot of emails with suggestions for new additions to the website. A few times a week, I also receive requests to remove people from the website. Happily, the suggestions for additions greatly outweigh the requests for removals. Since launch 7 months ago, the number of people listed on the website has grown from 45 to currently 384. (And that doesn't include the 9/11 Commissioners and staffers.)

Those most commonly requested for removal are (not in order because I don't really know) Fred Burks, Steven Jones, James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Woods. I also receive occasional requests to remove others, but at a significantly lower rate."

I have submitted G. Edward Griffin (published author, filmmaker, speaker, organizer) to him at least twice in 2008 and gotten no response at all, and he's still not listed:

The Future is Calling- 4 part series, broad-ranging by G. Edward Griffin

But that may not mean what you think

FLIGHT 93: "LET'S ROLL!" by G. Edward Griffin

BURNING QUESTIONS: What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Analysis © by G. Edward Griffin

Kerrey and others interviewed by Zahn on CNN

KERREY: That's correct, because the president had a case, a very simple case to make: I am the commander in chief. I won the war in Afghanistan, even though John Kerry supported it, even though, by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.


ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.

But the report, I think, it's difficult for a challenger. If I had been the challenger, it's difficult to make that case when you are running against an incumbent. He can stand back and say, oh, you're just grousing.

ZAHN: Oh, we couldn't connect the dots is what we heard.

>>Those most commonly

>>Those most commonly requested for removal are (not in order because I don't really know) Fred Burks, Steven Jones, James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Woods. I also receive occasional requests to remove others, but at a significantly lower rate."

If he doesn't understand the difference between Steven Jones and the rest of these by now -- as hundreds of scholars did who left Fetzer's group, and as 90% of the readership on here does -- it's not likely he ever will.

Why would we not object to someone who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of research, evidence and simple common sense (i.e., it hurts our cause to omit "no planes" and DEW from glowing accounts of hoax advocates, not to mention promoting them at all) to represent the movement with this website?

Interestingly, Alan Miller also advocates Stubblebine in his posts almost constantly, but here's who he is --

"Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his interest in parapsychology and was a strong supporter of the Stargate Project."

Why would anyone promote a former military intelligence commander -- apparently into parapsychology -- who thinks a missile hit the Pentagon, as one of just a handful of people to represent us?

To me, this is a big problem.

McClendon News Service, Inc.

McClendon News Service, Inc. (Since 1946)
Founded by Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon (1911-2003)

It is the McClendon group, they use space at the National Press Club. They are sponsoring Fetzer and sponsored Fetzer and Wood when the Greg Jenkins video was shot (afterhours).

I'm on their email list. Sometimes they have really good speakers.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Jim Fetzer & Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Once upon a time I was one of the 50 original members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, when Jim Fetzer collaborated with Steve Jones following the attention his thermite hypothesis received in the media. When Fetzer, Reynolds, Woods and Co. veered off into implausible sci-fi 9/11 theories, while simultaneously attacking the very plausible work of Steve Jones I began to suspect that there was a coordinated effort underway to disrupt the movement.

Only until poster "Loose Nuke" recently urged me to request removal of my name from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth membership, did I finally overcome the laziness that prevented this from happening sooner.

My conversation with Fetzer regarding this matter recently developed as follows.

My references to sun-spot activity and alien invasions were made in sarcasm, in order to challenge Fetzer and his view that all theories should be entertained.

Re: Removal From ListWednesday, October 29, 2008 7:02 AM
From: "" Add sender to Contacts To: aj_monaghan1968@yahoo.comCc:
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

Quoting Aj Monaghan :

> What I have noticed is that at the same time DEWs and video-fakery theories materialized, so did criticism by you and others of more plausible theories like energetic materials (thermate) use against the WTC, for which there is abundant evidence.
The "evidence" for thermite/thermate includes faked photographs and
an odd claim for the origin of a dust sample. I have explained at
length--multiple times--why conventional explosives, even with the
use of thermite/thermate, does not appear to be able to explain the
depth and breadth of destruction at the World Trade Center. You can
find discussion and videos related to this at, under
the heading, "The Science of 9/11". (I guess you missed the memo!)

> When was the alleged DEW platform launched into orbit by the DoD and NASA?
Directed energy weapons--of which there are whole families--can be
land-based, air borne (on derigibles or on aircraft), or space-based.
Certainly, we need some source of energy that is vastly greater than
conventional explosives with or without thermite/thermate. Have you
visited the site,, for a photographic record of the
devastation wreaked upon the WTC, from WTC-1 to WTC-6? 7 is another
matter. If we want to understand what happened here, we are going to
have to go beyond the narrow confines of mechanisms and devices that
can be purchased by anyone on eBay to others that clearly implicate
the US military and the US military/industrial/intelligence complex.

> Were all the witnesses to Boeing jets in NYC lying?

Andrew Johnson did a study of some 500 witness reports collated by
The New York Times and found there was very little consistency be-
tween them. Some saw a small plane, some saw a missile, some saw
no plane at all. The number who claimed to have seen a Boeing, as
you describe it, might have been one or two, if my recollection is
accurate. Which of them are we supposed to believe? The ones that
agree with your preconceptions? The witness reports are incoherent.
> Were all of the scores of images of Boeing jets recorded in NYC fakes?
How many do you think there are? We have been studying several of
the most important. You can find relevant research at killtown., for example, or I sent you a
link to an article I pubished in OpEdNews, which you can find via a
google search under "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". Why do you
think I would do that, if I were not convinced that we have proof of
video fakery on 9/11? It took me years to bring myself to study the
evidence of video fakery, which I was finally able to do when I came
to the realization that video fakery and no planes were separate in-
sofar as video fakery could have been used to conceal features of the
planes or of their interaction with the buildings. I have featured
a dozen or so students of video fakery on "The Dynamic Duo", but I
gather that you make it a point not to actually consider evidence in
relation to controversial issues because it might disturb your mind!

> The most remarkable aspect of the DEWs and video-fakery theories is that they are plausible enough for fools to ponder and for rational people to ridicule.
Maybe its because they have the potential to explain evidence that
alternative approaches cannot? Has that crossed your mind? Some
of us want to discover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth about 9/11, not some watered-down, incomplete version.

> Is this the reason why they figure so prominently in yours and Morgan Reynold's positions?
Why are you insulting me? I am a former Marine Corps officer and
I have served my country with pride. Morgan, Judy, and I, not to
mention Ace, killtown, and others, are doing what we can to figure
out what actually happened on 9/11 by actually studying the evidence.
You can find my curriculum vitae at
Why in the world would someone like me want to betray his country?

> Yourself, Woods, Reynolds and others have brought ridicule upon the cause and I do not wish to be associated with your group any longer.
That is fine. I only provoked this exchange because I wanted to
assess the quality of mind and state of information awareness that
motivated you. My inference is that you are infatuated with Alex
Jones, a college drop-out who has a very limited grasp of science.

It was always my intent to remove you as a member. It will be done!
Thanks for letting me know that my judgment about you was right-on.

> --- On Tue, 10/28/08, wrote:
> From:
> Subject: Re: Removal From List
> To:
> Cc:
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 7:27 AM
> Please share with me how you have arrived at the conclusion that DEW/
> video fakery theories are "unsustainable when weighed against all known
> information". As a professional philosopher of science, the principles
> of scientific reasoning are my area of specialization. Tell me exactly
> how the Twin Towers were turned into millions of cubic yards of fine
> dust or how you explain away the five arguments presented in my piece
> in OpEdNews, for example? And why are you being flippant? There are
> obvious causal connections between DEW and the effects observed, at
> least in principle, but not Sun-spots. For example, Sun spots would
> be less selective in their effects, damaging buildings world-wide and
> not just on 9/11 or at the World Trade Center. You write well, but I
> infer you have no scientific background and no real interest in the
> truth or falsity of various accounts of 9/11. Am I right? Tell me
> how you think all of these things were done, including the missing
> envelopes for the aircraft and their uniquely identifiable parts.
> Quoting Aj Monaghan :
>> I have examined the information and find that DEW/video fakery
>> theories are unsustainable when weighed against all known information.
>> You suggest supporting the investigation of DEWs and video fakery.
>> With this said, perhaps we could expand the scope of our
>> investigation in order to include the possible role that sun-spot
>> activity may have played in the destruction of the WTC towers.
>> Can we rule out this possibility?
>> Or the possibility that the 9/11 attacks themselves were the
>> ultimate false-flag operation ... carried out by extra-terrestrials
>> in such a way as to lure the U.S. into foreign wars that have left
>> the U.S. vulnerable to extra-terrestrial invasion.
>> The investigation of 9/11 should not become stalled in order to
>> focus only on DEW/video fakery theories when other compelling
>> possibilities exist.
>> --- On Mon, 10/27/08, wrote:
>> From:
>> Subject: Re: Removal From List
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 7:20 PM
>> Aidan,
>> Have you studied the evidence? Where do you find the society taking
>> the role of ENDORSING "directed energy weapons" as opposed to
> taking
>> the role of SUPPORTING THE INVESTIGATION of directed energy weapons?
>> Have you read "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", for example?
> Can
>> you tell me what I have wrong? I would like to know if you are right
>> and this subject is totally implausible. Here is a link to that one:
>> I am assuming you are a rational agent and want to believe that which
>> is supported by the evidence and disbelieve that which is refuted by
>> the evidence and leave in suspense that which is neither supported nor
>> refuted by the evidence. Let me know what I have wrong. Are the only
>> true results ones that agree with your preconceptions? Many thanks!
>> Jim
>> Quoting Aj Monaghan :
>>> I do not wish to be associated with an organization that endorses
>>> totally implausible "video fakery" and "directed energy
>> weapons"
>>> theories about 9/11.
>>> Aidan Monaghan
>>> --- On Sun, 10/26/08,
> wrote:
>>> From:
>>> Subject: Re: Removal From List
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008, 2:41 PM
>>> Aidan,
>>> After all these years, why now? I would appreciate knowing why.
> Thanks.
>>> Jim
>>> Quoting Aj Monaghan :
>>>> Please remove my name from the list of members of "Scholars
> for
>> 9/11
>>> Truth".
>>>> Aidan Monaghan
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail

This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail

Thanks, Reprehensor

I like Reprehensor's brick-layer approach to the truth. "Nope, this one's cracked"..."Hmmm, this one's missing a corner", etc..

Honestly, I couldn't watch hardly 5 minutes of the above video. Did Dr. Jenkins demolish Wood or does she demolish herself? 'Nuff said.


I am no fan of Judy's work or theories, but just wanted to pass along a little story.

So I was one of Judy Wood's student's at Clemson and took her statics class. She would issue extra credit to students who examined thermal expansion as a cause for collapse of the WTC towers. Fairly tame stuff compared to what she is proposing there. Yet she was a very eccentric person and had been involved in some horrible car accident/prolonged coma, so most students assumed she was nuts. Her lectures were rather disorganized and erratic, but she did know her stuff and I actually enjoyed the subject that she taught, though most students thought otherwise.

Years later after I started researching 9/11 I found her website and thought, hmm , oh...., uh.....,wow, same ole crazy Judy.

Well Done Rep!!!!!

Jeeze... is there anything we can do regarding the fraudulent "bill" being circulated before Congress?!?
I am embarrassed and feel bad about my own association with Jim Fetzer... he was an old family friend who I first met in the mid 80's or so. When I was in trouble, I reached out to him because I knew him, and he came through. He got Steven Jones, Nila Sagadevan, Phil Berg, George Nelson & Kevin Ryan to testify at a hearing that never happened, as a result of the witness list. This was before any weirdness surfaced.

You will know a tree by its fruit.

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Ellis tarbaby bill

not to worry; anyone googling "Barbara Ellis" and "9/11" gets top hits on the STJ911 press release, the numerous reposts of it and the numerous commentaries supporting STJ911

In addition, the STJ911 press release was faxed to all 8 members of congress listed in the bill, and followed up by phone calls to confirm receipt.

Not that any member of Congress would discredit themselves by having anything to do with it; it's so transparently garbage.

nice job Rep

documenting the history of the 9/11 truth movement, imho, may be as important as documenting 9/11.

The longer the disruptive efforts persist, the clearer the patterns become.

Thanks Rep

Thanks Rep for keeping this upfront and visible. I encourage all people who are newly discovering the Truth Movement to do their homework on disinformation in the movement. A good place to start is here:

V for Visibility!

Happy Anniversary Kevin Ryan!

And many happy returns of the day...


I second that.

Yes, I would also like to second that

Be well, enjoy your family and keep up the fantastic work!

It's people like you, Dr. Jones, Richard Gage and countless others who make me proud to be an American.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

American Assassination


I've always had my doubts about Fetzer and Co., especially after hearing Jim at the Chicago conference and Judy at Cooper Union in New York. This compendium of (dis)information certainly puts to rest any doubts I've had.

But.... Does this totally negate his (and Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs') work--The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone? How do others feel?

Show "The official story cannot be true" by M71


>>I don't see why it's such a big deal.

It's a big deal to just about everyone else who, over time, understands that promotions of nonsense work against our work, not for it. That's what it all boils down to -- nonsense to discredit. Discrediting by association works, and that's why it's done all the time. Assuming it doesn't matter doesn't make the problem go away, it just makes your work to expose real truths twice as hard.

Show "He probably just overreaches" by Tony Szamboti

Well . . .

That's kind of you Tony, but it can't be our job to assume that anyone is or isn't an agent, only to expose the behaviors and evidences that are destructive to our work. Rep does that nicely above.

Claiming we know that anyone is merely over-zealous or well-intentioned is just as speculative as claiming that we know they are an agent, so in the end, neither of those works.

All disinformation has some real and true information mixed in, otherwise average people would reject it out of hand. There needs to be a compelling reason to get people to embrace the disinformation, that's why it is often couched in ways that average people would find very hard to reject, like it comes from a person with a lofty title such as, "former Bush Admin Labor person," or, "former intelligence agent," or the person has seemed to formerly do good research so must be "okay", or a webmaster has contributed so much by making a massive and glamorous website listing every known 'who's who' saying no to the official story so he must be "okay", etc.

Disinformation probably moves the farthest and the easiest through people who don't even know they are spreading it. Intentionality is almost meaningless when it comes down to this stuff.

We only have to recognize it for what it is, create a dialog around that, and call it out whenever we see it, no matter how packed in it is with gems to try to disguise it.

I have said he has no credibility on 911 issues

Victoria, if you have noticed I have repeatedly said that Jim Fetzer was espousing scientifically unsupportable notions in relation to the events of 911, which could damage the credibility of the 911 truth movement, and that he should be ignored on these issues.

My answer above was only in response to whether everything he says everywhere should be negated and that was concerning what he has done on the Wellstone case.

I think anyone promoting nonsensical theories is dangerous to a movement based on a search for scientific truth about a large heinous crime and bringing about public awareness to gain accountability for those responsible for the crimes. Unfortunately, Jim Fetzer has been completely irresponsible in this regard and it doesn't matter whether his musing about space beams etc. is conscious disinformation or not, he should be shunned, especially after attempts to explain to him that this is erroneous and dangerous conjecture have been rebuffed by him.

The only way for him to regain any credibility is to publicly admit his haste, explain that he has reconsidered the facts, promise not to go into the nonsensical again, and prove it over time. Even then he shouldn't be a first stringer as he was earlier in the movement. One can't make the mistakes he made, if that is all they were, and regain that position.

I think Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been rightly sidelined in the movement due to what at a minimum can be considered irresponsibility, whether or not there was any intent at conscious disinformation.

I do fully understand that anyone intent on generating disinformation has to slip it in with credible information, with the intended result of creating confusion in the minds of the less informed and thus negating consensus and precluding action. I am just not sure that that is Fetzer's actual intent but behavior like his, even if not intended as disinformation, can have the same net result and should be treated in exactly the same way as you say.

>>My answer above was only

>>My answer above was only in response to whether everything he says everywhere should be negated and that was concerning what he has done on the Wellstone case.

No problem, just wanted to be sure the bases were covered and to clarify a little.

Fetzer is an expert in disinformation

and his papers on the subject have been published in peer-reviewed journals

Disinformation: The Use of False Information 2004

Information: Does it Have To Be True? 2004

imho, it's implausible he doesn't know that by attacking good science and serious researchers, and encouraging endless debate over bogus and debunked theories, he's causing discredit by association, sowing discord and creating confusion.

Of course, it's my opinion and speculation that it's "implausible" he doesn't know he's damaged the 9/11 Truth Movement and delayed truth and justice; but it's a fact that his papers on disinformation and false information have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in established mainstream scientific journals.

Thx Kevin and happy anniversary

American Assassination

While the book definitely needs to be re-edited and perhaps expanded a bit, I think it has some valuable and credible information that adds to our understanding of the time we live in and the sociopaths who are in control.

That said, I don't trust Fetzer at all, not after what I witnessed in Chandler in early 2007. At best he is an unstable person driven by character flaws he is not interested in becoming aware of and dealing with, at worst he works for the deep state.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

In the "This is huge, Judy" sound clip,

What the friggin heck is Judy going on about when she says "They tried it out in 1991"? Sounds to me like she's just pulling that one out of her hiney.

TV Fakery

Here's another good sound clip:

Jim Fetzer: When I discovered a scientist of the caliber of Judy Wood... [long pause--gets emotional] that I've spent so much time seeking to open minds. To broaden the imagination, to consider alternatives that one might prefer were not the case... [voice hoarse] And I'll say today... when it comes to the study of this video fakery, you've seen a brilliant, scientific objective analysis from this man... Ace Baker. ...I say that between the breath of study provided by September Clues and... Ace Baker, that there's a prima facie case that has to be overwhelmed by superior evidence if it can be produced--not only of the existence of video fakery, but the overwhelming probability to manage events... the whole thing through the media without planes--I'm telling you the evidence is growing... you have to take this seriously... we're down the rabbit hole. This whole thing has been a massive deception... it's objective and provable! ...we had Morgan Reynolds whose been pilloried like practically no one else has been pilloried for even advancing the idea that there's no planes... by God... we could listen to a patient explanation of what really happened in terms of methodical analysis of actual footage... and the point was proven! And it was brilliant! And you were here! You were here!

[source: Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker Presentation, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not, August 3-5, 2007.]

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Based on...

Fetzer's previous experience in spreading disinformation regarding the validity of the Zapruder film, I knew it was only a matter of time before he jumped on the Haupt bandwagon.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks, Rep for your clarity and patience

I got a strange feeling when I came across Judy Wood's site some time was bizarre, and felt "off", though I knew nothing about her or her history at that time. Great story, Rep! How sinister were her remarks and accusations as she shifted to her new perspective! How chilling a realization for you to experience!

..and Victronix, how true:

>Disinformation probably moves the farthest and the easiest through people
>who don't even know they are spreading it. Intentionality is almost meaningless
>when it comes down to this stuff.

>We only have to recognize it for what it is, create a dialog around that, and call it out
>whenever we see it, no matter how packed in it is with gems to try to disguise it.

Rep. recently saved me from posting something stupid (I got my source confused and I got lazy and didn't confirm who I thought it was), so he did not allow my post (thankfully) -saving me embarrassment as well. Many of us are well-meaning, but not able to keep up with the abundant flow of 911Truth-related information. I am fine with taking a back seat to those of you who carefully inform and refute, as necessary. I come to this site not to post, but first and foremost, to educate myself, and to find articles to re-post or forward to others. Your repetitions and reminders of the facts are pertinent and valuable (to many), as is the moderator's discretion regarding what is allowed to be posted. I agree that when disinformation is noticed, it is important to "call it out" for exposure, to bring the situation to Light.

Though blessed with intelligence, I am not a scholar, an engineer, a scientist or a physicist; I am a healer. I do my best work in nature and behind closed doors, in the quiet spaces sought out by the stressed among us. I also pray, and I invoke protection for the whistle-blowers among us. More than ever, the world needs whistle-blowers to step up. More than ever, you are Divinely protected. The Truths will be brought to Light; it is just a matter of time.

Thank you all for your dedication.

Thank you for your prayers

PhoenixFireNectar, and everyone else.

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Short video
10 minutes on Controlled Demolition and information about the bathtub.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

My very first...

Experience with Jim Fetzer happened while I was still on the steering committee for After Jim latched on to Dr. Jones, and they started the original Scholars group, their website had links to WingTV. For those of you that don't know, WingTV (comprised of Lisa Guliani, and Victor Thorne), ruthlessly attacked members of this movement. People like Janice Matthews, Kyle Hence, Mike Ruppert, myself, and many others. They basically did the job of debunkers before debunkers existed. I contacted Jim Fetzer, and suggested that he remove their link, and why. I CC'd Steven Jones in the email. Fetzer argued with me, and basically refused to remove those links. Dr. Jones tried to tell him that was comprised of people that have been doing this a long time and that maybe he should listen to what I have to say. Jim refused, and left WingTV up there for a couple of months. I wish I had the emails, but I don't.

The one thing that always bothered me about Fetzer (aside from the bullshit he pulled with the Scholars group, causing them to split, aside from his history of disruptons, and the promotion of disinformation in the JFK Movement) is that even when he is shown that a "hypothesis" is wrong (countless times), he continues to promote it. No matter how crazy it sounds. Why would anyone trust someone like that? If I make a mistake, you can rest assured it will be acknowledged, and corrected. Fetzer never makes a mistake.

To give you an example of the "time bomb" (someone that comes into the movement looking good, only to do some ridiculous shenanigans to make us all look bad) that Morgan Reynolds was...

Here's what I wrote about him after the 2005 Emergency Truth Convergence:

"The big surprise of the day was to see former Bush Official, Morgan Reynolds, attend with A LOT on his mind, and a voice to boot. If you haven't listened to what he had to say, it comes HIGHLY recommended."

Oy. The only interaction I had with Judy Wood was when she signed up on my site.

Edit: I have been informed that apparently in Ventura's book, "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me" he speaks well of Fetzer. I, however, do not.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks, Rep

Add my voice to the chorus of appreciation for shedding some light in a honorable and diligent manner. Just one more example of how your work here serves us all so well.

I think that we can expect some more shenanigans quite soon, perhaps from some new faces.

Thanks again and be well.

Jim Fetzer

I figured I would weigh in on this subject as someone who was previously close with Jim Fetzer. I agree with Jon Gold when he says that people like Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have tacked on years to this cause.

I can tell you all that I have had a real dilemma when faced with controversies surrounding Fetzer. I was never close with Judy Wood (I only met her once in NYC in 2006 and found her to be kind of weird) and have never had any contact with the fraud that is Morgan Reynolds. I was not completely aware as to how outlandish the theories were that Fetzer was promoting at the time that we launched Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth with Scholars for 9/11 Truth as it's parent organization.

I received all kinds of emails from people telling me to stay away from Fetzer and was told that I was not trusted in the movement because of my associations with him. I had a really tough time because he was my friend. I met him also in NYC in 2006 before all the controversy. He was likable, friendly, and I really liked the things I had to say. I was also moved by his willingness to help me when I proposed the idea of starting the student group.

While designing the website for Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I became aware of the controversies. In what was a naive decision, I decided not to get involved. I figured that the issues being debated were being debated by individuals more qualified than myself, and that I would stick to what I was good at (confrontations, etc).

When other prominent members of my organization began to voice their concerns and tell me that they would no longer participate in my organization if we were still affiliated with Fetzer's version of scholars I decided that I would officially cut ties with Fetzer's organization. He has a reputation of being ill-tempered and combative (perhaps an understatement), but he was very understanding of my concerns and said in a very Jim Fetzer way, "Well, I respect your decision, and if there's anything I can still do to help you, by god, I will."

Despite the official split, I remained friends with Fetzer. He never tried to impose the theories he supported on me, and never once attempted to get me to promote them through my organization, and was still always incredibly nice. I didn't bother him when he was promoting the idea that Directed Energy Weapons destroyed the towers. I said, "well he's being stubborn and as long as he doesn't make me feel like I have to promote it, then I'm not going to bother him."

When he started promoting TV Fakery and No Planes on his website and radio show I finally decided to say something to him. I asked him to remember all the great work that was initially done by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and to please reconsider the positions he had taken. He would not. Instead, he invited me to appear on his show to discuss my problems with TV Fakery. I told him that I did not want to legitimize the issue by talking about it, and that I wouldn't appear on his show again until he stopped promoting it.

So what do you do when a friend of yours is doing something you know is wrong? This is what I struggled with. I stood by and watched him abuse his position as chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth by choosing sides in the debate between Wood and Jones. I did not support any of the theories or things that were taking place, but did not want to attack a friend. I honestly thought that he might see the light and back down from his positions. It appears as though that is not and will never be the case.

As far as Fetzer being a disinfo agent, it's difficult to imagine that someone you think you know well could be like that, but making it so that people would not catch on would be part of the job description. Also, he does exhibit the same kind of disruptive behavior and tactics employed by those who are. He did it with the JFK movement and he did it in this movement.

Whether a paid agent or not, the information he promotes is disinformation, poison, junk science, detrimental to our cause, and disrespectful to those who lost their lives. As Jon Gold has said, (I'm paraphrasing) these people can no longer speak for themselves, we speak for them, and that's why it's so important to advance the best information available. The information Fetzer and Co. promote does not fall under the category of "best available information (another understatement)," and I know that they will never change. Like Rep said, I wish I had done research into Fetzer's history before aligning myself with him.

I don't really know how to wrap this up, but it sucks being a sucker to suckers.

Also, one of the several reasons I closed down Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth was because it continued to be associated to Fetzer's Scholars because of the name.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

You do good work, brother,

everyone is entitled to make mistakes (we're all human after all) and life is learning from those mistakes, not being afraid to admit them and moving on.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to meeting you sometime soon.

As for my Fetzer experience, I witnessed his behavior at the conference in Chandler, AZ in February of 2007 and he crossed a line then that clearly showed he could not be trusted (there is video somewhere).


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Anyone can be fooled by misinfo/disinfo

You make some interesting points and the reality is that “anyone” can be fooled by misinformation/disinformation. As an example, the 9/11 official story is an example of disinformation. Many are fooled by the official story by techniques such as omission.

A misunderstood dimension to disinformation and misinformation is the social aspect of relationships. When you have someone who is respected suddenly start calling members of the truth movement “terrorists”, “Cointelpro”, “frauds”, and other attacks, it’s generally the people who are friends with these people that have less objectivity. It is human nature to defend your friends even when their perceived faults are called into question.

If you look at the history of ST911, can anyone reasonably suggest that if Fetzer had acted as he does currently all along, that he would have ever been in a leadership position for this group? What clearly happened was a progressively divisive approach and attacks against members of the group.
Let me point out that “intentionality” is a distracting debate. We do not need to understand “intent” to understand the consequences of actions. Intent is almost impossible to prove. However, it is interesting to note that we have an example of Judy Wood trying to recruit Reprehensor to “take out” Steven Jones. This is a pretty clear example of intentionality.

It is unfortunate that student scholars was affected by these conflicts, but the good news is that we can all learn from history and learn from what has happened in the past. I have certainly learned from events such as these, and I was as confused as anyone when the ST911 break-up happened.

Part of learning from history is demanding accountability for past actions. We can have accountability in the 9/11 truth movement by not supporting 9/11 activists who consistently advocate attacks, weak research, and who irresponsibly ignore critiques. It is one thing to “disagree”, but it is another thing to completely ignore a peer review or critique. Which is exactly what supporters of DEW and TV fakery have done.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog