- Ø®£Z -: "I didn't use the term 'fake 911 truther' anywhere in this Blog."

My fault to put it into quotes. Apologies for that. This phrase described (for me) the spirit of your post.... Do you disagree with that?

- Ø®£Z -: "Mmmm, and you know how much time I spend 'denouncing' other 'activists' how?"

I don't know, and I didn't say I know. I said you seem to fall into that category for me. I may add now: "based on what little I read (from a character using the nickname "- Ø®£Z -") on this website." -- It was an entirely subjective, personal statement, see?

- Ø®£Z -: "Your figure of 20% was calculated based upon?"

Just my gut feeling. Again: subjective, personal. See?

(And I'm not going to extend this exchange much longer now either. Otherwise I'm myself trapped in my own 20% guideline, ya know? :-) Back to campaigning... )

This guy doesn't even understand the concept of lying, In order to lie, you must be (a) making an assertion (that something is true) when (b) it is false, (c) you know it is false, (d) you are deliberately assert it anyway, and (e) you are doing so with the intention of misleading your audience. I am not infallible, but I most certainly have never deliberately asserted something to be true that I knew to be false regarding any aspect of 9/11. And that includes what I take to be the earliest photograph of the Pentagon impact point. The buidling was being subjected to alteration by secondary explosives, the upper floors only fell 20 mintues later, and there is plenty of room for civil discussion without all these verbal assaults. This guy, obseves, takes for granted that he is right and I am wrong! Well, has it crossed his mind that it might be my opinion that I am right and he is wrong? This kind of attack is extremely juvenile and immature. (When I said, "What [meaning "Where'] do these sewer rats come from?", for example, I of course knew what I was saying was false and said so anyway to make a point about their character and standing that no one would mistake, including the targets of my remark, which had provoked me to make it. So I find it just the least bit disingenuous for him to assert--falsely, as he must know--that it was my characterization that set him off! It was his comments about me that let to my remark, which means that he can't keep his facts straight even about a case of this degree of triviality. After all, why would he have been pissed if I wasn't even talking about him?) Frankly, I have more pressing matters than dealing with cheap attacks, including dealing with massive disinfo attacks like that of J.R. Dunn. Anyone who knows the evidence, much of which I cite in my replies, knows better than to be taken in. But others, who may include this curious fellow, might know no better. I don't know and I don't care about him, but the public needs to be forewarned about Dunn and others of his ilk, who are going out of their way to mislead his readers about matters of the greatest concern. I am doing what I can to inform the public of our findings, but we are not being well-served by the media. The misquotations, sentences taken out of context, and other forms of abuse are manifold! I spend hours explaining how we know that the towers came down by a novel kind of controlled demolition, that WTC-7 was a classic case of controlled demolition, that no Boeing 757 appears to have hit the Pentagon, and that the official account of Shankesville cannot be sustained. I have a lot of opportunities to speak out for many reasons: I hold a distingushed title; I am a former Marine Corps officer; I have published 27 books; I have extensive research and publications on the death of JFK and the crash that took the life of Paul Wellstone; i have made hundreds and hundreds of talk show appearances discussing JFK; and so on. This means that I am a known commodity when it comes to conspiracy research and my credibility tends to carry over to 9/11. As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I also have opportunities to discuss the organization and its findings, many of which represent confirmations of previous findings by earlier students of 9/11. I wish that I always had the chance to preface my every remark by saying, "Building on the work of those who have gone before, . . .", but that is only rarely the case. Typically, especaially in the context of television interviews, I am being attacked from the start and hardly have time to take a deep breath! Just in case anyone is in doubt, however, let me make one point perfectly clear. Except in special contexts, such as issuing press releases for Scholars, which are widely distributed and archived on our web site, I only speak for myself. I discuss the membership and the society for all the obvious reasons, but what I have to say are my conclusions based upon extensive research, most of which has been conducted by physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and aeronautical engineers, whose studies are archived on st911.org. Some of this work, like the recent, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", appears to me to be conclusive proof that the official account is false. But then I have explained, over and over again, why that is the case. If you want to critique what I have written on the Pengaton, for example, then go to my article, "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", and find out what I think and my reasons for having come to those conclusions. Bear in mind, however, that "conclusions" in science are always tentative and fallible, which means that, with the acquisition of new evidence, it may be necesssary to revised your previous conclusions, rejecting some as false and adopting others as true. If Dunn were right that I had confounded an A-3 Sky Warrior with an A-4 Sky Hawk, that's fine with me! The hypothesis that provides the best explanation of the available relevant evidence--not just in part but in its totality--is the hypothesis that science recommends. Having spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I know that we can anticipate being wrong at least some of the time. Karl R. Popper, the great British philosopher of science, suggested that our only problem in acquiring scientific knowledge was to "make our mistakes as fast as we can". That's a paraphrase, so acute critics like Jon Gold can claim I misrepresented him, as he claims I have misrrepresented Cheney when I paraphrase him as having said, "Have you heard anything different?", vice "Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Anyone who wants to make a federal case of trivialities like this should find better things to do with their copious free time. (I can just imagine Sean Hannity saying, "Fetzer's all wrong. He said that Cheney said, 'Have you heard anything different?', when what he actualy said is, 'Have you heard anything to the contrary?' What a liar and a cheat!" But that is exactly the attitude I find here on 911Blogger.com, of all places. So spare me the nickle-and-dime attacks. I am doing what I can do with what have to promote the cause of 9/11 truth. I am hardly surprised that I am not everyone's cup of tea. So what? Who cares? Change the channel. Get a life! Because, frankly, I could care less. I can't believe anyone takes this crap seriously.

"Each piece of 9/11 Truth that is confirmed in the minds of the people chips away at the layers of OCT and denial many folks naturally have towards alternative perspectives. In other threads, peacefulwarrior has gone off about how the truth about other subjects like JFK, or the Gulf of Tonkin coming out hasn't changed anything. I and many others disagree. On the contrary, getting to the depth of the truths and exposing them raises the bar for how people look at our leaders. "

Where is that really getting us? Where's the proof that this will pay off? So you raise the bar and then what? The walls come tumbling down, sorry but without masses of people the british would never have left India.

But if Jesse Ventura leads a million people to the white house you're not onboard right? Cause he made a mistake about the pentagon in your opinion. Give me a break.