Yea totally, what the f*ck is this Fetzer promotion bullsh!t on the front page for?! The guys a complete and utter shameless sell-out!

Interestingly, Fetzer's move away from sciencific reasoning accelerated sometime after the O'Reilly interview on or about July 12, 2006. His relationship with a Mr. Mattingly appears to have flourished at that time. Mr. Mattingly's posts can be found on this blog. He (Mattingly) is a proponent of the energy beam theory (amongst other things). His affiliations with other entities are quite interesting.

I agree with you. I think Fetzer has been a leader of the opposition all the time. He started the organization 9-11 Scholars then after Prof Jones draws attention, Fetzer pulls the switcheroo with the whack job theory of space beams. And then HE gets the invitiation to the National Press Club.

It was a setup.

I believe that the goal of this film is to expose and discredit those inside the 9/11 Truth Movement who may be infiltraitors... people who are spreading these contraversial and unprovable theories....... people who are speaking of things that only divide the supporters and scare off those seeking answers.

am I right???

a film to show them in a light which seperates their beliefs from ours

I believe that if Fetzer was a smart man these theories would be the furthest from the frontlines of this movement... he is supposed to ber moving us forward but instead he leads us in circles which have no ends..... He started the site which was there to give this movement credibility...... yet he discredits us further.

YOu know that the easiest way to destroy a movement is to let it gain credibility.... then just as it's nearing a point where momentum is gained..... someone does something to completely discredit the movement...... this will strike a deep blow... which will criple if not destroy it all together....

You think these people are not thinking one step ahead of us on this? This has all been done before. These people may not be all that smart... but they surround themselves with those who are..... like Kissenger..... He's playing them as they're playing us.

What did Fetzer teach? Mind Control / Propoganda / Etc.... I forget the exact description...... to be able to teach these subjects... you need to know them inside and out.... both sides of the coin.... I'm guessing that the people who took his course..... did not take it to learn how to epose how these techniques are being used.... they took it to learn how to use these techniques.

Where did he get his beginnings? Recieves honors and leadership awards in college then goes into the Marines? Becomes captain...Then teaches at the University of Virginia.

Wasn't he the first to get into the MSM?... Doesn't he always get the best opportunities to influence investigation and thought on the subject? Why?

Di I think Jim Fetzer is a plant? ... I do.... the man has no sense of restraint or common sense... latching onto theories which he can only speculate.....regurgitating it before she had even written a paper......leaving him on my questionable list...... not somone I trust to carry the name of Truth.

Infiltration was a task that would require more than one plant.... a theory can not truely destroy a movement without a second and a third at the very least...... every suggestion needs a "Here...Here"..... Renolds #1..... Fetzer #2..... Wood #3..... they all gain credibility then all latch onto a theory that has some evidence that some advanced technology does exist... or is made to look like it exists..... a theory that is out there just enough to make people question the validity of those theories.... then question the people.... then question the movement that those people represent.

The people sticking their noses into the blogs and propogating these theories are merely icing on the cake... trying to further divide us... as well as being here just in case someone researching decides to browse this site for information... because there are new people every day discovering the truth. We are having an effect... and it is noticable....they thought this would break us.... but it was merely a speedbump in the path of out juggernaut...and now they are trying their damndest to suppress our momentum

If this film is not exposing these people for who they are..... then there needs to be a film which does

as well as the treatment that our movement recieves when we do get MSM coverage... showing the footage they refuse to show

Please inform Fetzer that that's the case.

It was only a few weeks ago that he claimed it was the "cutting edge" of 9/11 research.

Just forget about it? I don't think so.

Uncle Fetzer has been given chance after chance after chance. Sorry, but the SPACEBEAM disinfo that he's been pimping and his disloyal treatment of the scholars group (and EVERYONE in the 9/11 truth movement) by going public with the SPACEBEAMS seals the deal. And no, we will NEVER FORGET. And stop making excuses for Fetzer. He did this to himself.

I support the assertion that it is very likely that a plane hit the pentagon because of massive eye-witness testimony.

If you agree with the massive and corroborating eye-witness testimony of explosions in the WTC towers and building 7, then logically—you should be inclined to believe the massive and corroborating eye-witness testimony that a plane hit the light poles (corroborated by physical evidence that can't easily be explained) and then crashed into the pentagon. Lack of evidence does not disprove a theory—contradictory evidence does. Obviously, it was not flown by an inept hijacker.  This also supports the devastating smoking gun "the plane is 30 miles out--do the orders still stand" testimony.

I strongly disagree with the publishing of this article on the scholars for 9/11 truth website:

The "Scientific Method" applied to the "Thermite Hypothesis"

Steven Jones does not maintain a "thermite hypothesis". This is a stunning distortion of his actual theory and is deliberately misleading.

He maintains a controlled demolition hypothesis—thermite (with visual and physical evidence) is only a small portion of his entire theory. Why are Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds misinterpreting Steven Jones’ actual theory (i.e. Straw-man fallacy)? They are entitled to any valid criticism of Steven Jones—they are not entitled to personally attack him (i.e. call him “retarded”, “choir-boy”, or “clueless”) or distort his position and present deliberately deceptive arguments.

Question: If the purpose of scholars for 9/11 Truth is to determine truths and reveal falsehoods—why is the only revealed falsehood the official story about 9/11? What alternative theories have been shown to be untrue? If something is true, by definition--everything else can't be.

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

I agree it's important stay focused on the big picture because we're trying to achieve long term results. But I also thing that using forensic evidence combined with the obvious and visible explosions at the twin towers and especially building 7 is of paramount importance. If this gets taken into court physical evidence will be vitally necessary.

One the one hand we have Uncle Fetzer (or someone using the Uncle Fetzer brand) crawling back trying to undo the mess he made when he tried to sink the movement by talking about nonsense theories and Judy Jetson as if she was the second coming. On the other hand we have the BS artist above who keeps on keepin on with the same tired nonsense about how we should ignore real evidence.

Of course Uncle Fetzer is a shill. But so are you, ZERO. You think that all you have to do is trash Uncle Fetzer and then people will agree with you. The minute you all start yammering on (your words) about foreknwoledge, money transfers, bla bla bla, and dismissing the mounds of clear physical evidence (no, it is not "gone") you lose all credibility with people who know what the score is.

As people become aware and join the movement, you keep trying your best to mislead them into unproductive and frankly made up avenues of bogus "inquiry". Take your manufactured divisions, buth of you, and go stand under a space beam somewhere. PLEASE.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Ok. I didn’t read the entire thread so please don’t leap down my throat…

I think Chris posted a sensible response to the argument developing here:

BOTH physical evidence and so-called circumstantial evidence should be taken into account. BOTH WTC7 and the (remarkable) War Games should be considered essential evidence. BOTH Hani’s flying skills (or lack thereof) and Atta’s coke-sniffing antics on Abromoff’s yacht are vitally important. Willie Brown and Cipro and Black Boxes are just as important as squibs and pentagon debris (again, lack thereof) and “Let’s Roll” mythology.

I hope we haven’t reached the point where we have to divide ourselves into yet another set of exclusionary camps. In fact, the circumstantial evidence is entirely consistent with the physical evidence. Theory: the “hijackers” were Oswald-style patsies. Atta was running smack for the US gov and possibly other intell agencies. The Mossad was subcontracted out for role of “overseer” (first rule of CIA is plausible deniability); they “handled” the patsies. Israeli gov and US gov are equally culpable.

911 was a false flag.

Now, I’ve often said that Ruppert was right that the “physical evidence” can and will be argued ad nauseum by contrarian shills; therefore such evidence should perhaps be placed on the backburner while on television. That’s only because EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS about the Pentagon controversy, and the bombs, and so forth.

When I talk to people in my acquaintance, virtually no one has heard of the war games or the put options or the Minetta testimony, but everyone has heard of the Pentagon. It makes sense that certain entities are pissed off that certain evidence is getting short shrift.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY that the physical evidence should be ignored. Allow me to quote Howard Zinn on revolutionary tactics. Unlikes most “leftists”, Zinn gave the thumbs up to David Ray Griffin’s book on 911:

“With a population of diversified interests, tactics must be adapted and focused specially for each group, and for the group most inimical to reform, it is doubtful that moderation is effective. With the intrasigeants, it may be only the most powerful action that impels change.”

As for “space beams” and “no planes”, should I even bother? 911blogger folks have shown themselves remarkably impervious to disinformation. They/we have done exactly the right thing in opposing said disinformation from the outset. Disinfo doesn’t magically disappear if you ignore it, any less cancer. It has to be nipped in the bud. Fetzer can suck an egg.

I gave Fetzer feedback by email about the substance of his radio and media appearances. He did not seem to respond to my comments in any meaningful way. He was very defensive and asked me who the "he**"" did I think I was. I was disappointed by several conjectures he had made on his appearance:

Some comments I had made to him regarding some notes I had taken on a radio show he had done on Alan Colmes June 2006:

F: Everything the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false.

Analysis: Overstatement. I think you should reframe that and change it to “much” or “most” or “a lot of crucial things” that the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false. The statement that EVERYTHING the gov’t has told us about 9/11 has been shown to be provably false is simply NOT a true statement.

F: Steel certified to 2000 degrees

Analysis: Fetzer did not mention what the steel was certified for – whether weakness or melting – specify and be clear what they were certified for.

F: Colmes finds it difficult to believe our elected leaders would do it. Fetzer says the election was stolen –

Analysis: not the best answer. Better bring up history of false flag operations and their motives for pulling off 9/11. You instead went the topic off of 9/11 and pulled yourself into a tangential topic the stolen elections. Moving off the 9/11 topic is not good for the 9/11 truth movement.

F: Was Dick Cheney involved? I have no doubt of that. It’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense.

Analysis: – not a good answer – explain what the specific evidence is instead of giving your hypothesis without mentioning the supporting evidence.

F: Who was in the planes? – “My opinion is that they were substituted”.

Analysis: That is speculation without sufficient evidence presented to back it up. Instead say you don’t know for sure, discuss what pertinent evidence is being withheld from us, and move on to another topic.

F: Brought up question or statement regarding if some passengers were paid –

Analsysis: that is pure speculation on your part.

F: “Cell phones would have been physically impossible” – that is proven to be improbable, but not impossible.

Analysis: It can be rebutted by saying someone pressed redial a thousand times. Cell phone issue is weak evidence and is not worthy of air time. Say it’s improbable (not impossible) and then quickly change topic and move on to stronger evidence.

F: Reports that I haven’t been verified that Barbara Olsen was arrested in Europe and Ted Olsen has moved to Europe. “My guess is that they live together in Europe – that is my guess”.

Analysis: That is speculation on your part. This movement cannot afford spokespeople to speculate on things on major media appearances. Stick to facts. When you don’t know, say you don’t know, and say the American people don’t know either what happened to Barbara Olsen.

F: Bringing up Mineta resigned because of my appearance on the TV show “Absolutely” –

Analysis: that is overreaching. You do not know that for sure and could not prove that in a court of law. Right now Fetzer is saying at least a couple of things that seem to be wild conjectures. He is saying that he is certain that the reason Mineta resigned the other day was because Fetzer had mentioned Mineta’s testimony the night before on Hannity and Colmes TV. How could Fetzer be certain of that? I also cringe when I hear him go into depth on unrelated issues like JFK’s assassination. He's spending time on some weak bits of evidence, and not focusing enough on the core issues. Poised to steal elections – you took the bait and talked about this – this is not 9-11 related. Don’t allow hosts to divert the discussion to non-9/11 issues.

F: Fetzer changing the topic to NAFTA superhighways.

Analysis: This is not 9-11 related. This is not helping the 9-11 truth cause when you change the topic away from 9-11 issues.

F: Questioner: Pentagon, jet fuel - . Fetzer laughs in his face.

Analysis: Try not laughing in people’s face. Answer their questions calmly and respectfully. People will give you more credence if you treat others with respect.

F: What hit the Pentagon? Instead Fetzer is speculating an A-3 came into the Pentagon.

Analysis: Say you don’t know!!!

Harnessing the energy of the sun??? and what energy would that be exactly?..... I think that if energy was coming from space we would have noticed....

Thermite was used along with explosives.... and if you did your research you'd find that there was plenty of opportunity to plant explosives..... entire offices were moved to allow for "renovations"

Security guards working at night could have very easily been working on things other than securing.

There were several computer rooms which were updated and equipped with an odd bank of batteries...... BOOM!

It wouldn't be that hard if you had all the people in place.....

I have spelled this out on several occasions.