Holy shit, Bush just signed into a law getting America closer to annexing with Mexicon and Canada to form the North American Union. And boy, is lou dobbs PISSED! I think he called them a bunch of elites trying to destroy America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A&search=american%20union

One World Government, here we come.

Yes Fetzer is emotional but this is just a lot of infighting and second guessing. I'd love to see you guys do any better under the circumstances. There is a lot of info to disseminate in 1 hour and he is angry and rightly so.

So stop it already and be grateful anyone paid any attention to the movement at all!

Really just stop it. You guys are being hugely unfair to anyone who is trying to put any info out there. It's up to the listeners to decide what they do with the info. Continue to blindly and emotionally say that's not possible, or hey, this issue deserves further research on the listeners part. Fetzer viewpoints alter nothing.

Hey Jim and all

I'm not sure what show most of the above "critics" were listening to, but I thought Jim Fetzer did very well considering the "quality" of the callers and the obvious agenda of the host...

A couple of points...

I think he should have asked the caller for his uncles name, who was supposedly on flight 93, phoning his aunty...

When questioned about 7/7 - he should try and get it back to 9/11, if they persist then the "golden arrow" is Peter Power of Visor Consultants...

Listen to 9/11 - 7/7 Connection (about 22 minutes in)

Good luck to Jim Fetzer and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Cheers.

Same CGI, same alleged real aircraft?
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 | 06.28.06 - 3:11 am | #

"No planes" = "No brains" asshole, even it's is valid pushing it is brainless, there's mountain of other credible info to advance, yet you think it's cool to f*ck everybody’s credibility and insult the victims of that attack. If you want an example of how damaging your "no brains" theory, sry I mean "no planes" theory is, look no further then the massive potential damage that Jimmy Walter has done chatting that sh!t in LA, and having on his webpage right under that one million challenge, which is a great idea totally ruined by the "no brains" at the WTC theory. Go start up "EWINGTV" or something and push that cointelpro bunk somewhere else you “no brainer”!

There was a caller (Joe in Seattle, @ 16m) whose uncle died on "flight 93", whose aunt had supposedly rec'd a phone call from the uncle. That was the great, perfect opportunity to request that the caller provide a copy of the credit card bill for the call!!!!!!!!!!!! (See, we've all heard, for years, about all these "calls", but I've never seen a shred of evidence that any of them really occurred and were genuine...)

In general, I think it's better to disprove/discredit the govt's theory without unnecessarily advancing any of our own. It's best to not speculate. At this stage, we can be much more sure about what did not happen than what did. People who insist upon answers to their nonsensical questions about fictitious elements of The Big Lie may cause you to be tempted to ridicule them, but try not to -- I've found that it is beneficial, in presenting 9/11 truth, to make it clear that the presenter derives absolutely zero pleasure in being right about this stuff, even to the point of wishing out loud that s/he was wrong about it! Instead of telling a flat-earther how stupid they are, try to come up with a parallel stupid scenario, and ask them if they'd believe (or how they'd answer) that.

Also, it was yet another blown opportunity when, @30min, Jim pointed out that (even Bill O'Reilly agreed that) the Pentagon video doesn't show a 757, but failed to mention that what it does show is TOO SMALL TO BE A 757! (Why does so much of the 911 truth movement insist upon always disregarding and thus helping to bury this huge, govt-lie-killing headline?)

And, BTW, there is still no known viable "pulverization" mechanism which can account for what happened at Ground Zero, so we should stop using that word; it's misleading and deceptive. (It's Pataki's and Giuliani's word, and it's part of The Big Lie...) Nor can "thermate" account for any of the phenomenal evidence above and beyond the falls of the towers.
______________________________________

And who are the bozos (not our bozo) who say the thermite issue is not too important. Get a grip!!! When did actual scientific evidence become unimportant?

I like Jim Fetzer, but I get where dudes like stallion4 are coming from if he really was chatting shit like that. I havenÂ’t heard the interview yet, but I recon what needs to be done to end all this infighting is for Jim Fetzer and say someone who's criticized him like Jim Hoffman, to go on camera and settle their differences. We all agree about WTC7 and the need to expose these crimes, let those be the unifying issues is what I say.

In case anyone's interested, here's the Jim Fetzer interview on Friday's Laura Ingraham Show. Boy is she a WITCH. She didn't give him a chance to cover the important points. She succeeded to a degree in portraying him as a 'nutty professor'. And Fetzer's maniacal giggle at the closing was the last nail in the coffin. That was a sad and strange interview.
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=CFDAB19B3ADC16D5

Let me get this straight...

Jim Fetzer repeated the Tom Flocco Barbara Olsen is alive story.

Jim Fetzer talked about missiles at the Pentagon.

Jim Fetzer came off as a "lunatic".

Jim Fetzer was "hysterical".

Did I miss anything? I couldn't get the stream to work. A recap would be nice.

The Israeli hit team probably placed the thermite and possibly also that pulverization effect - mini hydrogen device. That's how you achieve the following goals:

1. 100% bullet proof cover because Israeli spec ops don't talk, ever. So, just a few US commanders at the top so no US soldiers to blew the cover so to speak..

2. The mini hydrogen device for a lack of better term was a mil. test in the plane sight, mil.-industrial complex can't ask for more.

3. In any case of leak this story is a no go. You can't criticize Israel in MSM and this would sound like bad sci-fi.

>footage of it could have some >tampering.

Absolutely. Like with the Pentagon surveillance video frames, they fear nothing more but being caught in their crime, so they tried to hide photographic evidence in any material they had under their control.

People really need to stop throwing the word 'shill' and 'cointelpro'. When 9/11 Truth started, it was merely people asking questions. Now we got people saying all sorts of wild stuff...however, that said just because someone says something you dont like, doesnt mean they are a shill.

Hell I used to call people promoting swapped planes andPentagon theories idiots, now I am very open to that idea.

Anyways, Im glad Fetzer stopped by. I saw him at the LA thing and I liked his talk...tho yeah, some theories virtually everyone agrees is false.

Ok guys, what do you make of the no plane crowd? Why are they being so disruptive?
I dont think what hit the WTC were not
757 or 767's, but its possible some footage of it could have some tampering.

Also I am now open to Israeli role in the attacks.

Fetzer starts off well, but he gets a bit erratic and way to defensive. He needs to concentrate on being calm composed and rational, he really shouldnÂ’t have attacked Colmes like that.

How can I support the work you are doing?

CB: I really would have written back and told him that if he'd tell you why Jones' paper is embarassing or stupid you'd quit spreading it around.

Colmes knows the lie can't hold up to scrutiny much longer .Admitting to CD ,is a step in the right direction in a future where 911truth is accepted,To answer your question.

colin: What exactly did Colmes say? I must've missed that part.

Real truther> and others whitewashers

All the rant about those terrible "gag orders" is just stupid in case you are a whistleblower you either go full steam ahead and take the consequences like seeking refuge in Europe in the end or you just shut up and obey.

Whistleblower who sais it only at half mouth means nothing. I'm not speaking just about Sibel Edmonds there are many more..

That's why my underlying thesis is if "whistleblowers" feel intimidated and gag ordered and don't go 100% out with their story you have already a totalitarian regime and the whole 9/11 movement is a joke of little importance in the light of the forthcomming events upon us..

Listen to it and make up your own mind...

http://loosechange.markblu.net/ Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_- _June_27,_2006.mp3

Cheers...
a007 | 06.28.06 - 7:40 am | #

^ Thanks dude!!

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=94425&...

"British Muslims are also by far the most fond of the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, with only 17%"

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23126

"In other words, in every one of these ten Muslim communities, a majority views 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the U.S. government, Israel, or some other agency."

Dem Bruce Lee Styles

I honestly suggest you pay no attention to most of the above comments...

I'm suprised they could even take it in the way they were "machine gunning" criticisms every minute....

Sad...

Listen to it and make up your own mind...

http://loosechange.markblu.net/Jim_Fetzer_on_the_Alan_Colmes_radio_show_-_June_27,_2006.mp3

Cheers...

Maybe take your own advice and stop painting such a gloom&doom picture of the movement. I know your only "protecting" us from these terrible agents ,but please give a little more credit than that.

Certainly the physics evidence and Jones' work is incontrovertible and what would be most productive looking at in the media. I say this partially because my own 9/11 trigger was WTC7, but also because it is backed up by so much volume of data.

That said, unfortunately with a lie this big media often wants to steer the interviewed expert into a controversial spot (More often than not the Pentagon, today specifically was "what happened to the people on the planes." The expert is now expected to answer a question not only not of his expertise (and indeed, Colmes DEMANDED an answer to this) but the answer would be by default completely hypothetical to anyone but someone intimately knowledgable with all details of the operation from the inside.

Dave von Kleist handled this most eloquently on the Glenn Beck show when he dodged the conspiracy bombs that the talking head was throwing at him, replying that he was merely looking at photographic evidence for proof of the official story. He stuck steadfastly to his area of expertise and refused to speculate on anything else. (Prompting Glen Beck to scornfully say "That's part of the problem, you don't have a theory, it -could- be a plane, it could be a big white elephant!"

The argument is in itself kind of silly, everyone surely has some kind of inkling as to what they think happened as opposed to a blank. Beck was just frustrated in his non-ability to drive the expert into the trap that unfortunately Colmes, Carlson and others have successfully used upon their targets err I mean interviewees.

Mr. Fetzer if you are still on. Why you are still supporting on your site the Judical Watch story when it is documented that the tapes were released thanks FOIA request by flight77.info not Judicial Watch? Look at the background of Judicial Watch, their president is being sued by founders for fraud among other things. And if go deeper Judicial Watch main donors ran CIA propaganda front companies from 70s in Europe. Most propably connected to Gladio..

So my point is go back to research and pls. reconsider your position and support for Judicial Watch. Secondly that puts all the Pentagon story in very dubious light, this is most probably a trap..

So "Dr." Fetzer, was it a unanimous decision by the 9-11 "Scholars" that you appear on Faux News?

Please, If they come calling again, say no! Just say no!

Btw, Dewdney's experiments explained that cell calls could not be made above "8,000" ft. not "2,000". Where did you get that figure?

This 9/11 thing goes on forever and people in the US, if nowhere else, keep feeling amazed and stunned. Why ? What is so strange about the idea that someone orchestrated a massive psyops campaign against the people of the country that sends those campaigns everywhere else, that some buildings got blown up on purpose, that some people have disappeared by force, that there were lies and more lies and that things don't get better? Why the surprise? And please, for the sake of national security, let us speak no more of the tired tale of poor helpless Sibel Edmonds!

Whoops. :) That was me.

:) Enhance your calm, John Spartan.

To be perfectly honest with you, the sections of the 9/11 truth movement I am most skeptical of are the ones that spew hate, that scream at me, often about the messengers of controversial information.

So I am put unsettled by your tone. Drum them out of the movement? Look dude I don't know if theres some union I haven't set up with that I need to contact, but I think that a big part of becoming a "9/11 Truther" is done within yourself. It therefore matters little what others think of your status or credibility within the movement, only what you are willing to do with the information. I'm listening to this Michael Collins Piper guy talk at the moment, I'm not hearing anything I disagree with or find suspicious, save the advertising.

In short, I think the golden rule applies here as well as it does anywhere else.

Sorry again, that was me... I'm drunk.

Interesting reading. Thanks for these comments. I can't understand the guy who keeps asking "Who put Fetzer on the program?" It was the same person who puts everyone on any program, the producer! He called me from New York the day after my appearance on Hannity & Colmes to invite me on. There is no mystery. That's what producers do. The very insinuation that there's something mysterious here is extremely odd, but I chaulk it up to ignorance. As for the Barbara Olson business, I mentioned it in passing and said as I did so that I had not been able to verify it. I think some of you are getting just a bit carried away with what might be called "inside 9/11" (in parallel with "inside baseball"). Just because someone talks about or even mentions--as I did in this case--something with which you happen to disagree should not cause you to disregard or discount everything else they are saying or have ever said. That is an example of special pleading by citing only the evidence that supports your side! I have offered a yardstick to evaluate what happened here. Make a list of my points and divide it into those you liked and those you did not. I must have made between 30 and 50 points, many of which, I would bet, are either not commonly heard on radio or television or are never heard on radio or televison. So get a life! I am a great fan of David Ray Griffin and of Steve Jones. If you like what they do better than what I do, great! But understand that we are all doing what we can to promote 9/11 truth--even if we are fallible human beings who are practically never flawness in what we say and do. Just think about it and do your best to get the word out. That's what I do! I appreciated having the chance to talk with Alan Colmes. You may not have that chance. But you talk with real people every day. Do what you can to make them aware of the issues. We need your help!

Sorry, DZ, but we need to put some freakin' lines in the sand here, or don't we???

PS. u2r2h, go fuck yourself BEEOTH!

Blimpy, Blimpy, Blimpy? Where did you go wrong>?!

This is a great dissapointment so perhaps Prof. Jones will someday annouce that he actually had it wrong and there was no thermite. Fetzer would call it a mistake because he is going back to JFK research. Alex Jones would stay with Illuminati and Charlie Sheen gets standing ovations at Republican rally claiming the 9/11 episode was his best guest apperance he just played it wild to ridicule the pinkos and conspiration kooks..

In the 9/11 con world everything is possible and Carl Rove rocks guys.

Still waiting to know WHO put "Dr." Fetzer in fron of FAUX News to later promote Flocco disinfo on the Colmes show?

I wrote a letter to Alan Colmes and thought I'd share it here:

To Alan Colmes,

Tonight you asked Jim Fetzer how a government conspiracy could've taken place on 9/11 without whistleblowers or leaks. Fetzer responded, in his usual blustering manner, by mentioning the Tuskegee syphilis study which lasted from 1932 until 1972. You asked him how that story eventually broke, and said that Clinton apologized for that crime.

Of course it might be worth noting that while a whistleblower did emerge regarding the Tuskegee experiments, it took nearly forty years for that conspiracy to be exposed.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point this fact out to your listeners?

Also I wonder if it has ever occured to you to go beyond merely inviting on men like Fetzer, who make both seemingly rational and irrational claims alike, onto your radio program and instead take up the task of investigating the story. Or maybe you're not qualified to do that. Perhaps you know an actual investigative journalist who could? After all you work in that industry, and there must be at least one journalist left in the media...somewhere?

Just a suggestion.

Cheers,

Douglas Lain

PS. I'm drunk!

Whatever.

Go back to sleep America! There's more imortant things to discuss!

Eddie,' beloved terrier from 'Frasier,' dies at 16
http://www.yahoo.com/s/335348

Front page no less!

I haven't yet listened to the audio (thanks for the MP3, Anonymous; 32 Kbps would have been plenty, though), so my comments are based purely upon what I've seen here.

1. I've never before seen a comments thread like this here.

2. I wish more people were as critical of all 911 truthers as they were of this radio appearance by Jim Fetzer.

3. I wish Fetzer would be much more rigorous in all his presentations. If he's so sure -- as he should be -- that no "hijacked commercial Boeing passenger airliners" hit the buildings, then he shouldn't keep referring (as he has so often in the past) to "the planes" (sic -- he should say "the planes in question" instead...), and the burning temperature of "all that jet fuel". The Big Lie is big and powerful; we shall never vanquish it if we keep referring to its fictitious elements (especially red herrings related to "suicidal Muslim hijackers", like wire transfers to Atta, and "Able Danger") as if they are real. (Even just pointing out that WTC7 wasn't hit by any planes is risky: to most listeners it implies [that the speaker thinks] that WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by what the government says they were hit by. Big Lies must be dissected very carefully...)

4. Jim Hoffman is a known gatekeeper: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/HoffmanOmittedFlashFrame+.gif (An honest incisive 911 truther ought to say stuff like, "We know that we can't blame the 'collapses' on 'airplanes', so why should anyone still blame 9/11 on 'hijackers'?". Jim Hoffman, OTOH, says stuff like "We know that we cannot blame the collapses on airplanes, but if you dare even suggest that it wasn't hijacked airplanes which hit the buildings, I'll attack you on behalf of the lying government which said they did." How any honest 911 truther could suggest that Hoffman still has any credibility left at all as a 911 researcher is beyond my comprehension.

5. Steven Jones has consistently focused people's attention on what brought the towers down, even though A)we already knew that gravity couldn't have brought them down, as observed, without a lot of help, and B)the deverticalizations of the towers cannot begin to account for what became of them! That is why I find all the attention being paid to "thermite" and/or "thermate" (ie, 4th-of-July-sparkler-like chemicals) to fit the definition and function of both a red herring and a limited hangout. I am concerned that Dr. Jones' past ties to the U.S. Dept of Energy may still run too deep for him to feel that he can freely examine the WTC dust sample(s?) in his possession for signs of molecular dissociation (as he told me months and months ago he'd do; as of 4/21 it was "next week"...), which would constitute evidence that temperatures hotter than the Sun (which is, BTW, much hotter than "thermate") had been present at "Ground Zero". Jones' work may seem "brilliant" to Fetzer (his st911 co-founder), but it's not.

6. Some people around here worry more about the messenger(s) than the message.
______________________________________

To each his own. But don't say I didn't warn ya!

Good luck with all that !

listen to you guys either dissing mr. fetzer or giving him advice - ha - you guys would pee your damned pants if you were in that situation -
support jim fetzer!
__________________

We need to drum the fucks out of the movement who want to drum fucks out of the movement.

We cannot use people with ELITE-mindset.. they drag down the spirit.

colin wrote: " I'm surprised ,238 comments and Nico isn't around.

Spoke too soon!

Helllllooo, Nico.

Thanks for nothing.

Here's something you'll enjoy:

Forward to 48:40 of this audio broadcast from today on Michael Collins Piper's show:

The Piper Report

Tue., June 27, 2006:
M3U
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.m3u
RAM
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.ram
Individual MP3: Click Here"
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060627_Tue_Piper.mp3

We need to drum these fucks out of the "moevement" before it's too late!

damn, the phony Barbara Olsen is alive story.

No! No don't talk about Barbara Olsen! NO!

yeah, this is going way too fast, and getting way too irrational..

But still kicking ass. He has a right to be pissed.

NO!!!!!!!!!!1111111

Not the Barbera Olsen is alive Tom Flocco story.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!111

Is this guy a patsy or what? Pulled? Impossible cell-phone calls? This is like 2004 shit.

Olsen. Oh my god. Attah next?

the tactic of the conspiracy theory debunker - make them explain EVERYTHING and every possible outcome.

Colmes is good at this.

Jim use the SCIENCE!

hmmmmmm
We're on shaky ground before the break.
Interested to see what callers have to say.

Yea like "who exactly did this and why?". We can't quite answer those questions yet. Perhaps we never will.

Anyone going to call? Some of you could bring in some good talking points...

"i hope fetzer slows down just a bit"

FU*KIN' A!

He needs to regroup during this break because that Flocco/Olsen nonsense is NOT what I wanted to hear. WTF? Now I'm sorry I told people to take notes!

anyone know the number?

If anyone gets thru, please let us know what the screening process was like.

dammit they told me they have too many callers...

i told them I wanted to discuss Ahmad/$100,000 -> Atta amongst other items.

damn.

Fetzer needs to calm down....

The information does leak out!
Hello, Sibel Edmonds!

Anything but Attah, dude.

He's getting emotional

Anything but Attah, dude.
Brian | 06.28.06 - 12:31 am | #

???

Fetzer is out of control.

he's too dismissive of the victims survivors.

This is quickly turning into a disaster.

Fetzer is coming off Nucking Futz!

I am mortified as a 9/11 truther.

Take a deep breath Jim...focus on the facts.

Have Your Say!   Call Alan at 1-877-FOR-ALAN (1-877-367-2526) 

this is not going well. he seems unbalanced. he's going for the shotgun effect. he needs to be laser focused and not try to answer every possible contigency. he doesnt sound like a philosophy/crtical thinking professor, he sounds too exciteable.

If anyone can get in please tell him to calm down and move away from any speculation!

How is colmes reacting to all this?What fetzer saying that is so nutty?

Operation Northwoods.
Nice recovery

I just tried to call in, I got through to the FOX secretary, and she asked "What do you want to talk about" To which I replied "I wanted to respond to the assertation that noone has come forward, specifically FBI agent Robert Wright and Sibel Edmonds the translator." She sounded tired all of a sudden, and put me on hold. She came back, asked again, I repeated, and she said that there was no more time for questions. I am sorry Mr. Fetzer.

It is nutty because it is an orgy of useless evidence bracketing valid claims.

He needs to ask Colmes if he's seen building 7 fall down!

WTF!

Incubator stories. Not too bad of a bounce-back in that sense. More people should know about this.

Never got a chance to get on with my question

Someone call and please make the pont that the burden proof is on the government to prove their conspiracy theory . Lets stick to the incontravertable evidence.

"We are experts." What a tool.

oK HE WAS OUT OF control and he didn't use the SCIENTIFIC evidence but he got the word out, the st911 webiste is the key. People are going to want to know for thesmselves. I wish he had stuck to the scientific evidence but Colmbs outfoxed him this time. hey shook him up somewhe, He still did a good enough job. I'm disappinted but I'm still proud of him. He sould have challenged them to a debate on the SCIENTIFIC evidence.

We have to remember how much pressure there is when you are on a show like that. Mr. Fetzer takes it very seriously, and people were asking him questions loudly while his volume levels were dropping, making it hard to respond. That is very aggravating, and please remember how sensitive an issue this is. We should stand united behind -anyone- who gets on the air about this, not resent Fetzer b/c he got mad on a guest. He's trying to spread truth, not wait a table or make friends after all. God bless him.

Bush is a manufactured speaker for a munufactured version of 9/11 truth.

Fetzer:9/11truth

OK.

Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN himself incapable of intelligent discussion. I hope he doesnt do anymore mainstream media interviews to represent 9/11 truth, and they get somebody more competent.

I think I'm gonna have to have another drink after THAT fiasco! NO I KNOW I'm going to have another drink!

OMG! Joon Conner just got on! LOL!!!!111

Man...that hour just flew by. More time is needed to go through all of the evidence in a pragmatic way.

These people are funny.

Well said, Daricus!
"We should stand united behind -anyone- who gets on the air about this, not resent Fetzer b/c he got mad on a guest. He's trying to spread truth, not wait a table or make friends after all. God bless him."

If Fetzer didn't disparage the question askers, his other comments would've been fine. Yelling at the people we're trying to get to learn the truth doesn't help the cause.

I heard John Connor too. LOL

he gets on everything.

damn i got through on the graffiti thing and hada good sentence for it but didn't know it was me (should've had the volume down)...

anyway my sentence was gonna be:

"FBI translator Sibel Edmonds tried to blow the whistle on 911 but was fired and gag-ordered for doing so."

you guys sound like a bunch of nervous mom's teaching their kids to drive stick shift.

colmes believes fetzer. don't you get it.

fetzer got nervous but the program ended on a good note.

colmes gave alot of national airtime to the cause. time to start writing the thank you notes.

"Jim Fetzer, has PROVEN himself incapable of intelligent discussion. I hope he doesnt do anymore mainstream media interviews to represent 9/11 truth, and they get somebody more competent."

You nuckin' think?!! Just nuckin' with ya. I agree.

Colmes beleives CD?Maybe we could salvage this wreck.

Did Martin Luther King get the truth out by screaming generalities and unfounded statements on national radio shows?

I caught the show in the middle so I missed Fetzer's performance in the first half.

Right now Fetzer is saying at least a couple of things that are wild conjectures. He is saying that he is certain that the reason Mineta resigned the other day was because Fetzer had mentioned MinetaÂ’s testimony the night before on Hannity and Colmes TV. How could he be certain of that?
I love it when Fetzer mention facts, but I cringe when I hear him make wild speculations and conjectures. I also cringe when I hear him go into depth on unrelated issues like JFKÂ’s assassination.

He's going some of the distracting evidence, and not focusing enough on the core issues.

Good discussion on Operations Northwoods and other scams to start past wars. Good mention that the FBI has no hard evidence on Bin Laden.

HeÂ’s changing the topic to NAFTA superhighways. This is not 9-11 related.

He’s talking about cell phone calls from planes being impossible. The “hello I’m Mark Bingham” story.

Caller brings up speed of collapse, which is good. Colmes interrupts and doesnÂ’t want to listen to this, and changes the topic.

Jones has found thermite residue on the steel. That does seem like pretty strong evidence, although they may in the future try to refute it.

I wish they would start out with the facts that the matter was never properly investigated, that every Commissioner had conflicts of interest such as members of intelligence committees,

He is speculating an A-3 came into the Pentagon. Talking about small impact point, no evidence of a 757 at Pentagon. The mass media loves to talk about the Pentagon.

That was not an easy interview, or a very friendly format. The host lets aggressive, verbally combative callers stay on the line and interrupt Fetzer several times, making it very difficult for him to get a word in at times.

Fetzer is strong, courageous, and good when sticks to solid evidence. The more he sticks to solid evidence and solid, provable points, and questions that remain unanswered, the better he is.

What do others think of his performance?

Despite him sounding crazy, I think he did a good job with the time to information ration. Plus, you can tell that everyone who called in opposing the truth movement didn't know JACK SHIT and obviously has done NO research...

Plus, you can tell that everyone who called in opposing the truth movement didn't know JACK SHIT and obviously has done NO research...
ChrisB | 06.28.06 - 1:06 am | #

That's because after doing SOME research, its hard to oppose the "truth movement" and not join it.

I don't think it's true that we should stand behind anyone who speaks "truth" about 9/11. After all there is a guy named David Icke who says that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the British Royal family who are, after all, really alien lizard people in disguise.

Fetzer either doesn't know how he sounds or doesn't care. Somebody needs to let the air out of him.

I did enjoy the one sentence sign offs at the end of the program, but again inserting the WTC 7 stuff into that context makes the WTC 7 stuff sound nuts.

The entire movement will probobly collapse when Prof. Jones suddenly says "I was wrong about the thermate, CD et al" just like when he brought down cold-fusion research own his own with one statement.

I wish Jim had stuck strickly to the SCIENTIFIC evidence. You take all the emotion out of it and you're left with the scientific facts. I wish he could have done that. Thanks guys for all you do.

Did Martin Luther King get the truth out by screaming generalities and unfounded statements on national radio shows?
Brian | Edit comment Delete comment | 06.28.06 - 1:06 am | #

ding ding ding, have a winner!

This is a tremendous moment in the forwarding of 9/11 Truth. Thank you, Professor Fetzer for all you are doing and have done; that was a magnificent presentation you just did on Alan Colmes' show.
Navigating the call-ins freak show . . . geez, that's like being asked to juggle greased pigs . . . but given the show format you did a most commendable job of fending off the Ignorant Loud.

Credit too, to Alan Colmes, who really helped to keep things on track. I was surprised that he asked timely, good questions, and shut down the foaming-at-the-mouth rabble.

Prof. Fetzer, you are one of my heros. Your passion for this country and the truth is entirely clear, and your intellectual rigor is a mighty weapon.
Very few can present information like you just did.

Bravo!

You don't have to have done the research to support the official story...that's why it's the official story.

Fetzer asked an angry caller what was wrong with her. I can't believe it.

He presented information like an 8th grader, reading off of a 9/11 website.

cormorant: Are you related to Fetzer or something? Please. It was a disaster.

I'd like to make a prediction at this point- though it is the stuff of 9/11 Truther nightmares...

Right-wing radio show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity may seize on this opportunity to infuriate their own listeners and permanently prejudice them against 9/11 Truth. Only a few choice soundbites from that exchange would be needed to push the vast majority of potentially reachable minds completely into outright contempt for skeptical inquiry about 9/11. As a paranoid person, I can't help but believe that this exchange is going to come back to haunt the movement. (I hope I'm wrong and nobody's listening...)

The seeming inability or unwillingness on Fetzer's part to stay within the orthodoxy of 9/11 Truth is crushing. When we lead with WTC 7, the thermite/thermate issues, the Mineta testimony, the Norad standdown, the FEMA-arrived-in-New-York-on-9/10, the Hijackers-Are-Partly-Still-Alive- we have the potential to really provoke reflection.

But when we spout about Olsen, holograms, de-planing events, missles/fighters hitting the Pentagon, the Bali bombings, etc.- we do more damage than we can possibly imagine to our case.

We must choose the battles that can be won- and avoid those that could, at best, produce a stalemate. Tonight, it feels like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory...

(I still can't believe it. The Barbara Olsen thing is making me want to cry!)

Anyone have a link to the audio on this? I missed it.

"sounded crazy" - he's just not used to being on national media.

part of his problem was that he assumed that Colmes was going to bust his nuts.

i posted here that we should all avoid prejudice.

fetzer will get better at this.

colmes repeated many times that he was a professor and former marine corp officer.

and . . . nothing is stopping anyone else from forming an organization, publishing press releases and appearing on national media.

i loved the hill billy woman that called - do you think she was for real?

Brian: Thermate and even building 7 is not the whole story. The fact that Bush had foreknowledge is a fact. The very best defense they have is negligence, probably willful.

Although I do sometimes wonder if Ruppert has a point about pursuing physical evidence and hanging too much on the controlled demolition hypothesis.

He did fine on t.v., then got all up his own asshole.

i was afraid of this whenever i read Fetzer's arguements with Hoffman.. i thought he might be a bit past the irrational point, unfortunately he was for sure tonight.

Can you prove that Bush had foreknowledge? Are the people who did this stupid enough to cast a president who can't be used as a scapegoat in this situation?

Jim: Do you really want to hear what critics like me have to say? Are you willing to not take it personally?

The scientific evidence, Jim did get it in there under difficult circumstances. He made the points about building 7, Thermite, what else, the Pinetta testimony is on video, the cell phones, flight 93, no wreckage there or at the Pentegon. No werekeage, no plane, video tapes being kept secret. NO WRECKAGE NO PLANE HE GOT THAT IN, HE DID THE JOB!

Also, is it wise to stick to the claim "controlled demolition" for all three of the towers? Is it possible that the demolition could be explained without such a speculative word before it?

Here's an MP3 of the entire interview...

http://www.filefactory.com/?87578f

Brian,

It's all good man. Dunne makes some good points. I'm not sold on the Jones thing... yet. Time will tell.

But one thing is for sure, the 9-11 "truth" movement has been infiltrated. The evidence is in this thread.

It's all good, though! This shit is only motivating me to keep on keeping on!

A great quote:

You wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.

stallion4-

Where in this thread is the evidence that the movement has been infiltrated? What do you mean? Please explain.

OK, I'll start. Prof Fetzer, don't ever talk about the Barbara Olsen bullshit again.

It is possible that these videos could be released later. If calls were not possible why does Griffin quote this as evidence to prove a theory?:CeeCee Lyles "...husband then heard screaming in the background followed by a "whooshing sound, a sound like wind," then more screaming, after which he lost contact".
The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin

I have observed that certain words get a reaction that tells me they are buying the real deal scientific story. Words like Science, Controlled demoliton and especially Newtons law of motion. They love Newton. They swing right around when they hear Newtons Law of motion things like that. I would like to get it down to a finer spiel. There has got to be a way to study this the way advertisers study peoples reaction to certain workds. A marketing sudy. We could do this amoung ourselves.

I disagree with you a bit on that one stallion. It is POSSIBLE that a so called "Agent" has visited these pages, but it is our minds that have been truly infiltrated.

What happened to Dr. Fetzer?

OLSEN ARRESTED IN EUROPE:
http://tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm

PENTAGON: What specifically would you like to know? I think a brief summary of the collected data is "where is the plane?", perhaps represented best by Dave Von Kleist's video "9/11 In Plane Site"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+s...
Although that video really focuses on the lack of a plane visibly at the crash site, David Ray Griffin makes a good case for more investigation on this matter in "The New Pearl Harbour". For further details, this is the website where Loose Change gets most of their info on the pentagon:http://www.geocities.com/killtown/

WHISTLEBLOWERS:
-Mary Schneider
http://www.maryschneider.us/
-Robert Wright
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00001.htm
-Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

There's actually quite a few though, but there's three for you to peruse.

I hope that helps. Any other questions?

Fucking Flocco story? Need I say more?

The new ESPN/USA Today poll is out. After this loss, Jim Fetzer has slipped from number one guy you want interviewed about 9/11 Truth to number five. Here are the current standings.
(1) David Ray Griffin.
(2) Alex Jones
(3) Steven Jones
(4) Mike Berger
(5) Jim Fetzer
(6) Morgan Reynolds
(7) Nico Haupt

Hey Jimbo? Who made the decision to put you on FOX News?

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Colmes admitted CD ? Jim ,any idea whats going on in gatekeeper Colmes little head? Is this not significant for a fox employee ?

The best voices to represent the movement to the outside world aren't Fetzer or Alex Jones- they are too emotional and unpredictable, and too often provide their critics with the very soundbites necessary to destroy their own credibility. Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer seem better suited to rally the troops. If Fetzer goes off on a nutty tangent like Barbara Olsen may yet live, the 9/11 Truthers aren't going to suddenly repudiate him. And if Alex Jones goes thermo-nuclear and starts screaming about something, it'll get truthers blood pumping (and often outsiders blood boiling).

The best faces for 9/11 Truth for mass media consumption are the gentle geniuses David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Their humility and thoughtfulness is so appealing, so disarming, it is all but impossible to disbelieve them. They are logical and methodical- easy to follow and easy to trust.

Jim Hoffman also deserves more credit than he sometimes gets as a rational advocate for 9/11 Truth. He is Fetzer's emotional polar opposite- cautious and self-controlled- but he is his intellectual equal, he is as well-versed in the 9/11 subject as anyone in the movement. His caution has, in some cases, led him to reject certain matters that most of us believe deserve a fair hearing. But I think most of us would agree that tonight would've been a lot better had the guest been a little overly cautious- refusing to render opinions on subjects for which there wasn't definitive proof. Steering away from the fantastic- and forcing the callers and Colmes to refute that which can not be refuted.

Those of you who are telling yourselves (and the board) "it wasn't that bad" are deluded. A few moments of greatness + a few moments of abject nuttiness = a lot of time with a great nut... And that's not what we want the public to perceive.

When doing a blogsearch this second for Fetzer (fearing badmouth posts from listeners of the interview), I just saw this story. The title made me laugh- but the article did not. In light of tonight's roller-coaster-that-went-off-the-tracks ride, it made me sad.

How did he admit it? What did he say?

I have told Jim Fetzer and if you are listening, I think you have a lot of strong points, including your drive, dedication, energy, knowledge, and ability to think and talk under pressure.

I think you are most effective when talking about clearly provable evidence. I think you should study the most effective points, and shy away from areas of conjecture. I don't think you should ask a questioner if there is something wrong with them like you did in tonight's interview. I think you should definitely never talk JFK or Global Warming, or any other diversionary topic when you are talking about 9/11 on a media program as a guest. When you are given valuable time on the air you should use all of that time to communicate 9/11 truth. I don't believe that a moment of air time should be spent on irrelevant topics. You need to learn to get off a bad topic quickly when you are asked a bad question by answering it quickly, and changing subject and quickly putting in a strong talking point. You probably should study talking points, and put them in the order of importance. You can control the subject of information you talk about, so you might as well talk about the most effective things.

So, I admire you Mr. Fetzer, I thank you for the time, energy and effort you have put in for 9/11 truth. I encourage you to continue what you are doing, and I hope that you will use the counsel of some of the serious points discussed on this board to think seriously if there are ways you can be more effective. You effectiveness in communication can and likely will make a great deal of difference in the course of history. So please use your unique talents and your unique personality to its greatest use in furthering the cause of 9/11 truth.

Daricus, that Mary lady is a Flocco sycophant and every bit as nuts.

Whistleblowers who are indirectly connected or are not allowed to say anything are useless. I will let in Plane Site refute itself. That Olsen article is no proof. Even if it were true nobody would buy it. You may as well be handing out Bohemian Grove Dvds.

@Brian: Well Im glad your open to 9/11 Truth.

I dont think Steven Jones will say "I was wrong about thermate". And I'll tell you why. In the final cut of Loose Change they'll have what I would only call the "smoking gun", several actually, proving some of our arguments.
Loose Change Final Cut is going to change a lot of things, and I cannot wait. This plus 9/11 Pres For Truth is really going to bring our case to a new level.

And of course Colmes accepts controlled demolition. Only an idiot can sit here and say it was "pancake".
Only thing is, people will say al Qaeda did it. I bet you thats what right wingers will say. They will say al Qaeda had operatives in the building. Just you wait.

And Fetzer...fuck. Im sorry, NO people from 9/11 on the flights are alive. Sorry to say. And whether it was 757 or 767's, planes hit the towers. But I do think now it was a small millitary jet that hit the pentagon. Again, you guys are going to be shocked whats in Loose Change final edit, and the people who have come forward. Ive been assured its going to be truly a new frontier.

OMG! Here come the sycophants!

WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!

I'm naturally suspicious of people who post here to bash relentlessly. Brian , I think we get your point.Your coming across real clear.

Mr. Fetzer: I'm going to assume you do want to hear it.

1. When Colmes asked you what hit the Pentagon you didn't emphasize the problem of lack of evidence. That is the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon has been classified. This is a problem for the official story, instead of talking about problems with the official story you quickly supplied answers that without a lot of background sound nutty. Hell even knowing a lot of the background these theories about drone planes are highly speculative. A lot of this stuff is speculative, and it's okay to speculate and brainstorm, but only after you've thoroughly dismantled the official story. That takes time.
2. You seemed to miss the central problem you face. The problem is conscision. Everything has to be concise, even when you're on for almost an hour, because of the format. Colmes kept switching subjects on you and you tried to answer all the questions in the time limit, which is a problem and not easily overcome, but it seemed to me that you didn't even acknowlege the problem or weren't aware of the problem.

I could go on, but I won't. I actuall think that if you understand the problem on conscision, refrain from speculating, and reigned in your frustration you would have done well.

3rd Letter to Structural Engineering Professors (send out a couple hours ago) available here:

http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?p=35252#35252

I missed a bit of the beginning? Did Colmes really admit the Controlled demolition theory was sound? If so then I take back all of my comments. That would be significant I think.

OMG! Here come the sycophants!

WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!
Anonymous | 06.28.06 - 2:06 am | #
______________________

That was me.

So, Mr. Fetzer, who made the decision to put you on FAUX News?

Yeah Fetzer f'd up big time, and I just met the guy. He gave a powerful speach, but he does get impassioned. He did a much better job with Blink 182 on the radio.

But we got one thing: Colmes believes in CD now. Score.

Oh and Brian, I believe in being skeptical, and Im sure you dont believe the official story...but Im guessing your still LIHOP?

Did anybody record the Colmes Fetzer interview, and will it be posted somewhere?

You don't like Flocco? I haven't read much of his stuff. Here's the same story from some other sources, for your reading pleasure. Do you have google? It's surprisingly easy to use.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-barbara-olson-still-alive.html
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=89307
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1129922597...,
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/

Is that enough?

Once again, here's an MP3 of the interview:

http://www.filefactory.com/?87578f

I'm not sure if the MP3 should be posted on the 911blogger front page though...

Perhaps I do bash relentlessly, even when speaking the truth. I think that I can relate to Dr. Fetzer in this way, letting the wrong emotions overtake me to create a lousy debator. Hopefully, we can all just collectivly learn from this experience. All I can say is that everyone has to sort out 5 years of disinfo, and hopefully as a collective source! The people leading the movement are as full as disinfo as any of us so they need to be directly communicated with as much as possible.

You don't like Flocco? I haven't read much of his stuff. Here's the same story from some other sources, for your reading pleasure. Do you have google? It's surprisingly easy to use.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/200...till- alive.html
http:// forums.therandirhodesshow...showtopic=89307
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi- loc...129922597,53369,
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/

Is that enough?
Daricus | 06.28.06 - 2:11 am | #

___________________________-

I'm confused? Are you saying the story is legit? It's fucking crap!

LIHOP? Yuck! Hell no!

John> this has been covered here a couple of times:

1. the FOIA documents by flight77.info shows the Pentagon releasing timing was not because of Judicial Watch activity

2. Tom Fitton current president of JW the guy who were worldwide on TV claiming he released the footage is being sued for fraud by JW founders. Fitton took part in several disinfo projects in the past apart from JW just google him.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

4. Scholars endorsed JW numerous times so they either did not checked the JW or are somehow part of the plot

Jon I believe Judicial Watch used to be legit. Then Fitton? took over, & he is a young neocon.

"Yes, I can not believe for a moment they would risk leaving Barbara Olson alive. If she showed-up someday, their whole 9/11 LIE would be shot to hell! The wouldn't risk that."

To my knowledge, this was the last "credible" story written by Flocco.

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FBILinguist.htm

Everything after that is questionable.

My guess is that Flocco is a clever mole for the gov't. He was very convincing a while back, now he's more obviously acting on the govt's behalf.

"fraudolent entity called "Judical Watch"

Tono... why are they fraudulent? Because of their statement regarding the Pentagon Video?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 11:14 am | #
Jon, if you even have to ask that, its clear you havent done enough research into them. check the backrounds of the people that currently run it. check Fiottons statements after the "Flight 77" video was released.

1. the FOIA documents by flight77.info shows the Pentagon releasing timing was not because of Judicial Watch activity

I thought Flight77.info's FOIA was for the whole kit and kaboodle (84 videos)?

2. Tom Fitton current president of JW the guy who were worldwide on TV claiming he released the footage is being sued for fraud by JW founders. Fitton took part in several disinfo projects in the past apart from JW just google him.

Ok.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

Ok.

4. Scholars endorsed JW numerous times so they either did not checked the JW or are somehow part of the plot

I seriously doubt that. Have the scholars been infiltrated? Maybe... However, I know for a fact that there are SEVERAL good people who belong to that organization.

"Jon, if you even have to ask that, its clear you havent done enough research into them. check the backrounds of the people that currently run it. check Fiottons statements after the "Flight 77" video was released."

Well duh... I don't research every organization out there. I know about their ridiculous comment regarding putting these ridiculous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories "to rest".

John>

1. At least my understanding is that
Fligh77.info had numerous FOIAs and appeales and JW piggybacked on the process. The DOJ/FBI correspondence and dates are on their website

4. It's very strange Scholars support without any evidence fringe aspects of 9/11 (Fetzer) while shills like JW and Tom Fitton get their bianco approval. That's either honest and very stupid ommission or something bad going on the part of Scholars..

"fringe aspects of 9/11 (Fetzer)"

He was the one who founded the scholars group. Lord KNOWS I don't agree with everything Jim Fetzer says, but I do appreciate the fact that the scholars are around. They just removed WingTV from their site. It's taking them time to "come around".

I believe the previous founders/directors of J.W. were legitimate gov't watchdogs. They are now suing Fitton. J.W.'s previous good record may be why the Scholars trusted them.

Well "solar cookers and 9/11" as well as wingTV link was there for six months for god sake a lot of damage done..

I still have some trust fro Fetzer but he have to slow down and use the excess energy to clean their act together..

He can start with the Judicial Watch/Pentagon trap right away

On Jim Fetzer and ST911 -

ScholarsFor911Truth.org:
Muddling the Evidence
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, Feb. 19, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html

"Publicizing his ignorance of the basic facts, and relying on his self-important bona fides as Distinguished McKnight Philosopher of Science, Fetzer's performance amounts to this, 'Trust me Charles, I don't have a basic grasp of the details necessary to address the official account of how the Towers collapsed, and here I am to represent Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but take my word for it, the government is lying and they did it!'"

"Well "solar cookers and 9/11" as well as wingTV link was there for six months for god sake a lot of damage done.."

I know.

3. JW itself is dubious entity to begin with, smear Clinton campaign in 90s. Major donors connected to CIA fronts in Europe and elsewhere

Those are their long term donors not just some new contacts under Tom Fitton!
JW was a disinfo shop (a bit right wing leaning) entity from the begining in '94 or so..

reader, does bashing Prof. Fetzer really help the truth movement? Who are you trying to kid here?

Tono... J-O-N.

again, if you point to photos of plane parts as being indicative then you must also point to other photos http://www.911studies.com/index.html which call into account the first photos authenticity.
__________-

Fetzer & Blob are in bed with Tom Fitton and Judical Watch disinfos who's next?

J-O-N-,

oops, J-O-N-, do you have a quick link on your blog or elsewhere on how the 1993 WTC bombing involved the FBI?

A Critical Review of James Fetzer's
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/fetzer.html

The Company We Keep by Michael Green
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html....

"... Fetzer begins by lumping together many critics of 911 who would not want to be associated with its spoiler, e.g...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
"Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account. Documenting these poison pills has not redeemed the 9/11 Truth Movement in public opinion because few in the Movement have taken a stand, fearing that to do so would be "divisive." "

Exactly, they managed to destroy the Black Panthers as well as the antiwar movement. 9/11 movement is another piece of cake for them..

Busheviks never sleep and they will win in the end because general public is just a bunch of morons who will exchange own liberty for stable price of $3 gallon of gas or the "security" of badly paid 80hrs week job..

mr. fetzer did a fine job - alan colmes would have made any one else his bitch on live radio and recorded for posterity.
support jim fetzer!
______________

the difference between someone who should and shouldn't be a frontman to discuss 9/11 issues is whether or not they have a 'filter' as to what is and isn't fact.

fetzer rattled out every theory known to man regarding 9/11, and apparently had no filter at all as to what was provable fact and what was just supposition or heresay.

asside from that, i respect anyone out fighting for 9/11 truth. but, we have to critique one another and try to firm up what is a good approach.

stick to the facts when given such an opportunity, and avoid the heresay and supposition!

"oops, J-O-N-, do you have a quick link on your blog or elsewhere on how the 1993 WTC bombing involved the FBI?"

Yes.

Tapes Depict Proposal To Thwart Bomb Used In Trade Center Blast

"The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said."

Well duh... I don't research every organization out there. I know about their ridiculous comment regarding putting these ridiculous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories "to rest".
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 11:27 am | #
well isnt that enough for you to know that the organization is bullshit?

Jon, thanks for the link^

"well isnt that enough for you to know that the organization is bullshit?"

What about stories like this?

White House Dodges Anthrax Questions

Sibel Edmonds Is Proof That The "War On Terror" Is A Lie

Judge In Scooter Libby, Sibel Edonds Cases Is Redacted In Action

"Jon, thanks for the link^"

Welcome... there's a little more...

February 1993

www.cooperativeresearch.org

An attempt to blow up the WTC fails. Six people are killed in the misfired blast. Analysts later determine that had the terrorists not made a minor error in the placement of the bomb, both towers could have fallen and up to 50,000 people could have been killed. The attempt is organized by Ramzi Yousef, who has close ties to bin Laden. [Congressional Hearings 2/24/98] The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. [ [New York Times 10/28/93] ] Why did the FBI seemingly let the terrorists go ahead with the bombing? Others suspects are ineptly investigated before the bombing (see July 1990 and November 5, 1990). Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes in internal documents that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing attempt. [ [Independent 11/1/98] ] Ahmad Ajaj, an associate of Yousef, may have been a mole for the Israeli Mossad, and the Mossad may have had advanced knowledge of the bombing (see September 1, 1992). US officials later state that the overall mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is a close relative of Ramzi Yousef, [Independent, 6/6/02] probably his uncle. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02] One of the attackers even left a message found by investigators stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” 9/11 can be seen as a completion of this failed attack. [AP 9/30/01]

off topic...

Does anyone else but me think that Alan Colmes has A HUGE FRIGGIN NOGGIN?

I mean...Holy Crap! he doesn't have a forehead...he's got a fivehead.

It's ridiculous.

"off topic...

Does anyone else but me think that Alan Colmes has A HUGE FRIGGIN NOGGIN?

I mean...Holy Crap! he doesn't have a forehead...he's got a fivehead.

It's ridiculous."

He's supposed to look that way. Hannity is the "good-looking/all-american" conservative, and Holmes is the "squirrelly" liberal.

Do you think he pays extra for hats?

>>reader, does bashing Prof. Fetzer really help the truth movement? Who are you trying to kid here?

It's not bashing, it's a simple critique. The movement is in need of critique to shed the nonsense we are constantly smeared with to millions.

Those who are sure there was no plane or a military drone at the Pentagon are getting us smeared over and over and over and never mention that many of us do not agree with that position. People like Reynolds openly say that there is consensus on no plane. This is wrong. A few are starting to figure out that it's a booby trap -

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

But far too late.

No area of science could ever move forward without critique. If you emotionally protect your theory, you are doing a disservice to science. All science is theory, trial and error and correction. If you cannot critique, you don't have science, you have belief.

The problem is that Fetzer and people like Morgan Reynolds insist that they know the science, but they don't -- Fetzer won't admit that the hole is 90'+ below and that this allows for a 757. They ascribe a different standard of evidence to a Sky Warrior or missile than they do to the most likely object that hit - the 757. They toss out evidence that doesn't fit their theory (witnesses). That's belief, not science. Reynolds insists that the planes didn't hit the WTC, despite the mountains of evidence. That's not science. It's not even logical.

Yet, these are the 'scholars' of the movement. A movement where debate and critique are shunned as 'trashing' etc.

Good luck, then. You'll need it. Because it will only take 10x longer to get anywhere when every theory is embraced and none can be critiqued.

I appreciated the many reasonable comments on here expressing frustration about the presentation of debunked nonsense.

Notice that this is Fetzer's method - everything goes. Try reading ST911 and finding a story on there. You can't. It's jammed full of so much stuff that you can't find anything except his own voice on the radio over and over. The approach assumes that all info is good info, that UFO promoters are to be promoted as 911 promoters also. It's all good! No planes anywhere! All theories are okay! The problem is that while many of us may believe somewhat in UFOs, that once again only gets us smeared in the media. There's no consideration for credibility of the theories being promoted on there, which is the opposite to what a 'scholar's group' is supposed to be about.

Just my thoughts.

I agree with what you said reader. Theories should not be promoted as fact.

What's The Difference Between Theory And Fact?

Fetzer won't admit that the hole is 90'+ below and that this allows for a 757.

there wasn't a 90'+ hole at first. the wall of the pentagon remained standing for a good while after blob77 struck it before it collapsed.
_______________

"but Mineta thought otherwise and said so"

Actually, Mineta said he didn't find out until later that it was a "shoot-down" order.

Douglas Lain ,doing a wonderful job of systematically dismantling scholars for 911 truth and exposing all the shills .Good job ! Very heartening for the movement.

Right. Mineta called claimed it was a shoot down order that was being discussed, but he isn't even sure about that. It's ambigious and I think it shows a stand down order was given, but it's not a smoking gun.

And for Fetzer to claim that Mineta resigned because of his two minute appearance on FOX is just the kind of self-serving speculation that makes people stop listening. He might as well have described his tinfoil hat.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

>Greg: Or on national radio I should >say.
>douglas Lain | Homepage | 06.28.06 - >1:45 pm | #

It's a matter of being a good speaker/speechwriter or not. And when you're not, and in the limelight, you most likely end up in 50% of how good you could have said it.

The 9/11 movement needs a good speaker. Charlie Sheen did it brilliantly when he called in to Alex Jones, but CNN/others wouldn't write a word of it - they know it! it's an open secret.

As I've said for a while...

The "young man" Mineta was referring to was running in and out of the room.

If he received a "shoot-down" order, he would have awaited confirmation of that "shoot-down".

The reason I think he was running in and out of the room citing the distance of Flight 77 was because the "order" that he "questioned" was something he didn't agree with.

At that point, knowing that both towers were hit, why would the "young man" question a "shoot-down" order? I think he questioned a "stand-down" order.

Considering Andrews Air Force Base is right around the corner, and the Pentagon has defenses of its' own, and Flight 77 STILL managed to hit the Pentagon, it makes sense that it was a "stand-down" order.

Whether it was a "stand-down" order for Andrews or a "stand-down" order of the Pentagon's defenses, we don't know.

Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?

Jon: You and I are in agreement about what the Mineta testimony probably means, but disagree about how strong it is as evidence.

Dr. Fetzer: (if you're reading this far down this substantial thread);
With all due respect sir, there is no need to establish a list of
+ and -'s for your interview. It comes down to a very basic rule of thumb:
do not answer questions that will lead to speculation. Answer any such loaded questions with a simple "I am sticking to the established, scientific facts, and will not speculate." This will keep future interviews focused, and far more effective. Thank you for your work.

"Jon: You and I are in agreement about what the Mineta testimony probably means, but disagree about how strong it is as evidence."

9/11 Report - Cheney at PEOC 9:58

Mineta Testimoney - Cheney at PEOC by at least 9:20

Those who wrote the 9/11 Report lied to specifically protect Cheney.

I'd say it's very strong evidence.

"Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?"

You won't know what I think until later tonight.

Put Mineta's testimony on top of the fact that General Myers refused to say who was in charge of the Wargames when Cynthia McKinney asked him, and you start to get a pretty clear picture as to who the "Maestro" was.

Jon: What we need is a real investigation.
All I'm really saying is that the Mineta testimony doesn't fit into a soundbite for television, but there are plenty of facts that do. WTC 7. The Pentagon being hit without any scrambled intercept planes when it is, after all, the Pentagon fits into a soundbite, the fact that no other skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire fits. The ISI connection even fits.

"Jon: What we need is a real investigation.

All I'm really saying is that the Mineta testimony doesn't fit into a soundbite for television, but there are plenty of facts that do. WTC 7. The Pentagon being hit without any scrambled intercept planes when it is, after all, the Pentagon fits into a soundbite, the fact that no other skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire fits. The ISI connection even fits."

Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles as it hit the Pentagon.

or

Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles as it hit the Pentagon from a place the 9/11 Report said he wasn't even at.

That's a pretty good sound byte.

And I agree. We need a new investigation.

"Well, Jon- having listened to the entire piece by now- do you have a summary opinion? Some of us feel like the bad outweighs the good- and that last night was a real let down. Others seem to think that the passion and enthusiasm of the presentation are more important than the accuracy.

Where do you fall?
Anonymous | 06.28.06 - 2:19 pm | #"

And what are you doing more than Fetzer for the truth movement, genius???

Douglas, I don´t understand your reasoning. Obviously if they're cooking up cockamine stories not even the people who claim to believe those stories can´t understand or explain - they're complicit.

Of course I think they're complicit. Maybe you missed it earlier but I actually think they'll have a dump in the pants both before and after being hanged. Same goes for their shills and collaborators and other traitors I'm sure.

As I've said for a while...

The "young man" Mineta was referring to was running in and out of the room.

If he received a "shoot-down" order, he would have awaited confirmation of that "shoot-down".

The reason I think he was running in and out of the room citing the distance of Flight 77 was because the "order" that he "questioned" was something he didn't agree with.

At that point, knowing that both towers were hit, why would the "young man" question a "shoot-down" order? I think he questioned a "stand-down" order.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 2:14 pm | #

The reason I think that the "young man" was running in & out of the room is because it was a cheap ploy to make it seem that AA77 was approaching, when in reality the Pentagon was stuck by a drone or missile!

"The reason I think that the "young man" was running in & out of the room is because it was a cheap ploy to make it seem that AA77 was approaching, when in reality the Pentagon was stuck by a drone or missile!"

:-:

Why should we take people seriously who can´t even explain why the believe certain things? As you can see; the people who claim to believe that a 757 hit the wall of the pentagon at 530 mph. virtually hugging the ground are unable to explain how that stunt was accomplished. As a result it's clearly a question of blind belief and nothing else. What makes this blind belief in this and other unsubstantiated official fables especially staggering is the fact that the story comes from accomplished and serial liars who have lied about pretty much everything and in fact can hardly open their mouths without lying. Now why would people believe blindly impossible nonsense from pathological liars?

blob: All I'm saying is start with your best.

Over at conspiracy smasher he's claiming Fetzer yelled at one of the relatives of the dead. Did I miss that?

I've started with my best before.

As i've said countless times here before; this won´t get anywhere until the people who prepared the 9/11 nonsense for the excessively gullible American public are forced to discuss their fables, Then and first then will the fables collapse. Until this happens they will just continue siccing obfuscating shills on us.

I could claim to be a relative of anyone. Would you believe this? Do you believe ANYTHING if it helps your blind faith in impossible things you neither comprehend or explain? :)

Having reviewed the program just now, I tend to agree that I was much too combative in relation to Colmes and some of the callers. I was literally out of breath when it started and had expected Colmes to be quite hostile. I never quite adjusted to the fact that he was actually being reasonable. Sorry about that. I am going on with Laura Ingraham on Friday (moved for the fifth time!) and plan to do better. So I fault my own style but the content was highly appropriate. Try disentangling them yourself. You just might be surprised.

Fetzer & Blob are in bed with Tom Fitton and Judical Watch disinfos who's next?
Tono Stano | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Some of these posts strike me as very odd. This "Tono Stano" person wants to make a mountain out of a molehill. I commented on pressure from Judicial Watch, which it certainly applied. The news coverage when the tapes were released stated as much, so I don't know where "Tono Stano" is coming from. I can certain see a nasty guy when I read him, however, which is the case here. This person "Tono Stano", in my opinion, is completely untrustworthy. Getting something wrong, by the way, is not lying unless it is deliberate!

As for the Olson story, I only said that I had received reports, which I had been unable to verify, of her having been arrested in Europe. How do you guys know that is false? Even if Flocco is a flake, that would not be enough to show that what he said here was wrong. In my opinion, it fits with what else we know about her and her alleged call to her husband, Ted. I would not be surprised if it were true. How do any of you know its false? Her name is not on the Social Security Death Index. Please tell me.

Douglas Lain ,doing a wonderful job of systematically dismantling scholars for 911 truth and exposing all the shills .Good job ! Very heartening for the movement.
colin | 06.28.06 - 2:04 pm | #

This is very, very interesting. Douglas sent me a note yesterday saying that, in spite of his criticism of me on this forum, he still supports the society I founded with Steve Jones. I don't know where else you are going to look for scholarly expertise, because we have it and this forum does not. I am not thereby criticizing this forum, by the way, since 911blogger was not set up for that purpose. I do think that a lot of the criticism advanced here is far off base. My style was over the top, but my content was right on the mark.

Self-Evaluation: Style: C. Content: A.

P.S. About the engine part that was found at the Pentagon, the point that I was making is that no Boeing engine parts were found there. The part that was appears to have come from a JT8D, an engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior. I thought the fact that I was talking about no Boeing engine parts begin found there was obvious from the context. This complaint is contrived.

I also find it fascinating that some of your are "piling on" with Hoffman's attacks on me and Scholars. I sent him my reply to his first attack on me and Scholars, but he refused to publish it on his site. I think my second reply to his second attack explains why. Go to st911.org and scroll down the list of "Articles" if you want my responses to what he has been saying about us.

I haven't read all the way back up the thread but saw people talking about Mineta. There's a new essay on that here:

How They Get Away With It
by Michael Green
Version 1.1; June 18, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html

It seems unlikely that Dr. Fetzer is not going to change his presentation style. He seems perfectly satisfied with his performance. In fact, Daricus, who talked with him right after he finished, said Fetzer "...thought it went very well, called it the best *bleep* 45 mins on 9/11 ever."

I am willing to put aside the distasteful element of hubris and self-congratulation. Sometimes the people who are the best at what they do are more than happy to tell you .

But while I can overlook the arrogance, I can't help but be troubled by the myopia. This was not a bellweather moment for the movement- it was in fact a set-back, and may only fall short of a true disaster because the listenership of Alan Colmes radio show is probably miniscule.

Fetzer's opening comments were true gold- evidencing that he has within him the capability to be great. And then, quite suddenly, like a demented alchemist, he began mixing lead and tin in (unprovable no passenger theories, etc.) and then- as if not satisfied that the alloy was debased enough, he proceeded to pour in excrement (Barbara Olson may live).

That he can not see this and will not concede that perhaps he made some mistakes and should in the future stay within the realm of the provable and verifiable means that he lacks objectivity and the capacity for reflected self-criticism.

Dr. Fetzer- I love your passion. What I heard of your Coast To Coast appearance with Alex Jones was often breathtaking. But please, PLEASE be willing to hold yourself to account. Do not assume yourself to be above criticism or beyond reproach. There is obviously so much more at stake than individual egos here- and as a result, the leaders of the movement must hold themselves to a much higher standard.

You want to believe the official story. This is because you're conditioned to believe official stories. But the officials are owned by corporations which control all indoctrination. They're only interested in the bottom line. War is big business. They'll do anything to get that going and use their official assets as required.

Stano, your spin is ridiculous. Give it up. People see through these shill tactics.

I find it mighty strange that people who accept totally unsubstantiated official stories totally blindly and clearly without understanding said stories should demand absolute exactitude practically down to syllables from the people refuting those impossible stories. :)

"Even if Flocco is a flake, that would not be enough to show that what he said here was wrong."

From Wayne Madsen regarding the Flocco/Olsen story.

"It is BS -- this came out as the Polish-Austrian border which does not exist. This guy belongs in the loony bin"

As I said earlier Jim, I HATE the fact that Flocco has lost his mind because everything I attributed to him years ago becomes quesitonable, however, I know better than to do so now.

As should you. You wouldn't report information from a proven disinformationist once you found out that he was a disinformationist would you? I should hope not.

Anonymous,

You missed my last post (two before your last one).

Jim

Now; why aren´t you fake worriers about the 9/11 truth movement demanding that the authors of the official story join the discussion? If your cencern about the movement were genuine surely you would be calling for this.

One sided discussions never go anywhere, this goes without saying. We can´t discuss this affair with government shills forever, the government itself must join the discussion. It is after all responsible for the official story we're discussing.