Search the Community

. [Original post removed. Every EF thread becomes a rabbit hole. Goodbye]

James H. Fetzer - Wikipedia NOT Jim Fetzer Those familiar with Wikipedia will not be surprised when I report additional confirmation that Wiki affords a central source for the dissemination of information that is false and misleading, especially about crucial and controversial issues of our time, even going to far as to distort and twist the history of the first major research society devoted to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, as I have explained in "Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op". In that instance, I repeatedly attempted to correct the history of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I founded, and was repeatedly rebuffed. For the past several years, therefore, I have worked to maintain the accuracy and completeness of my Wiki entry, with some considerable success until relatively recently. The first change to the text is that I am no longer identified first as an "American philosopher" who is also a conspiracy theorist, but now as an"American conspiracy theorist" who is also a philosopher, even though of the 29 books that I have published 24 are in philosophy and only 5 deal with conspiracies. But they wanted to tarnish me with the label of being a "conspiracy theorist", because it is so useful politically as an ad hominemattack regardless of the quality of one's research. In the past couple of weeks, it has been butchered by removing around half the content and more than half the supporting links, which I feature below, showing the original at least since 22 July 2011 (where I had made occasional updates from time to time), where I have highlighted in red the parts that have been removed when you compare the current version with this one. The first thing you will notice is "the warning labels", which are used to instill uncertainty in readers about an entry like mine, no matter how copiously it has been documented. Here is the version they installed since the massacre of my old entry: Wiki has several policies that can be cited on any occasion, since they are at least partially inconsistent. One is that of so-called "neutrality of viewpoint", where the subjects of entries are not supposed to edit their own entries. This is a rather odd policy and even self-defeating policy, since no one is going to be more aware of the activities and accomplishments of a subject than that subject himself. Another is the condition of "verifiability", where Wiki is especially keen on third-party sources, no matter how extensively a subject may have documented his entries. Since no one knows a subject better than that subject himself and all of my entries were verifable, discounting an addition on the basis of its source, especially when it is verifiable, commits the common "genetic fallacy". There is no reason to discount verifiable additions. Even my promotion to Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996, which is recorded on my curriculum vitae, was being rejected in this latest version until I offered a source at the University. For this modest victory, however, there were many--and far more serious--defeats. I had been aware of incremental changes to my entry, which included, for example, removing the sub-heading, "Explaining the Explanandum", in which I explained why Judy Wood, Ph.D., had not only done more to clarify evidence of the destruction at the World Trade Center that needs to be explained (technically known as "the explanandum") but had also done more by way of "proof of concept" to elucidate her take on how it was done using directed energy weapons than had Steven Jones in relation to his endorsement of nanothermite (technically known as "the explanans"). Scientific explanations combine explanans with explanandum, as I have detailed in many places. Because I had mentioned that I discussed it here in passing during a rather intense exchange with supporters of Judy Wood, who appear to believe I am not sufficiently supportive of her in spite of (most recently) giving her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2009), a 5-star review, the thought passed my mind that the edits were theirs, since most of my discussion related to her was taken out. I now suspect that it was not Wood or her supporters who made these edits, but rather that this latest wholesale revision to my Wiki page--with its omissions and severe deletions in two main areas--was probably instead done to diminish knowledge of my lack of support for Steve Jones' work and to minimize my contributions to the study of the assassination of JFK. Here is the lastest version of what Wiki has to say about my JFK research: This entry has many problems, including citing me as "the author" of three books that I edited and claiming that I assert that "approximately six gunmen were firing at Kennedy", when there is nothing "approximate" about it. In an effort to make this new version at least more accurate and more informative, I submitted revisions as follows, which were also promptly rejected: My experience with Wikipedia has been replicated time and time again by others, whose views post a threat to the interests that dominate its operations. Ironically, given its avowed commitment to "neutrality" in its point of view, one of Wiki's editors is John McAdams, who is a notorious "lone nutter" and defender of the THE WARREN REPORT (1964), which of course has been refuted on multiple grounds over and over again. (A nice review of Adams' book, JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC (2011) by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has recently appeared.) Attempts to hype the credentials of proponents of the "official account" and to diminsh those of its criticis appears to be what we should expect in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination in 2013. Another sacred myth that Wikipedia appears committed to defending at all costs is that of the Holocaust, where the author of books that argue the American high command, led by Dwight David Eisenhower, had allowed many deaths which could have been prevented found himself in a similar situation, where he attempted to correct flaws in the Wikipedia entry that dealt with them but was similarly rebuffed. These paragraphs by Peter Meyer come from "Why is Wikipedia Censoring me?" So here is the earlier version of my entry, where the deletions have been identified in red. The copyright laws make exceptions for fair use and especially for criticism, since it would be difficult to criticize a work if you could not display it for that purpose. I would welcome those who have further thoughts about this, but I am convinced on the basis of my own personal experience, first in relation to the history of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and now in relation to my research on JFK (and my discussions of 9/11 and the work of Judy Wood) that it cannot be relied upon and should not be regarded as a trustworthy source. For trivial and non-controversial issues, it works fine; but when it comes to matters of great importance, such as the Holocaust, JFK and 9/11, the situation is reversed. The more controversial a subject, the less one should place confidence in Wikipedia. User beware! James Henry Fetzer - Wikipedia as a disinfo op Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia James H. Fetzer James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is an American philosopher, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth,[1] and a well-known conspiracy theorist.[2][3][4]He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. Two of his most recent books were on the evolution of intelligence and philosophical aspects of "the Christian Right's crusade against science". He is also an advocate of the 9/11 conspiracy[5] and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. He has published three collections of studies on the death of JFK, co-authored another on the plane crash that took the life of Senator Paul Wellstone, and edited the first book fromScholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization he founded. Fetzer makes frequent appearances on radio and television. CONTENTS [hide] 1 Biography 2 Works 3 Controversial views 3.1 Assassination of John F. Kennedy 3.2 September 11, 2001 attacks 3.3 Explaining the explanandum 3.4 Death of Paul Wellstone 3.5 Disinformation [*]4 Radio [*]5 Publications [*]6 References [*]7 External links Biography James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attendedSouth Pasadena High School.[6] He went on to study philosophy atPrinceton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.[6] After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.[6] Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, theUniversity of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[1] At the University of Kentucky, he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government. WORKS Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science.[1] He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes, and the professional organization, The Society for Machines & Mentality.[7] The Society for Machines & Mentality has been accepted as a special interest group (SIG) of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).[8] His first article in the philosophy of computer science, "Program Verification: The Very Idea", Communications of the ACM (1988), ignited an international debate that has not subsided to this day.[9] CONTROVERSIAL VIEWS Fetzer has written about the John F. Kennedy assassination and has been interviewed on his theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks, by Richard and Kate Mucci, hosts of Out There TV, and radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Jerry Springer, Donny Deutch and several hosts on Air America, among others.[10][11] He has been interviewed on Hannity & Colmes (twice) and on The O'Reilly Factor as well as other television programs. Some have questioned his apparent endorsement of a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration,[12] members of which he believes have betrayed the country and violated their oaths of office. From the fall of 2006 to November 2008 he co-hosted an internet radio program "The Dynamic Duo" on the Genesis Communications Network with Kevin Barrett. He co-edits an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK.[13] Assassination of John F. Kennedy Fetzer maintains that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Zapruder filmusing sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. He has edited three collections of studies on the assassination, run four conferences on the subject, and continues to make numerous talk show appearances on the topic.[14] Fetzer has lectured on this subject at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities.[15] In June 2007 he published a detailed review and rebuttal of Vincent Bugliosi's massive study of the assassination, Reclaiming History, for Assassination Research.[16] In January 2009, in collaboration with Jack White, he published a new study of the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film of the assassination.[17]This was a recent development in a long-standing dispute with Josiah Thompson, which he has discussed in numerous articles, including New Proof of JFK Film Fakery[18] and Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid.[19] A recent study, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"[20] demonstrates inconsistencies between Clint Hill's description of his actions that day and what the film records. Another, "Did Zapruder take 'the Zapruder film'? [21] argues that Zapruder cannot have taken the film that bears his name. Fetzer has observed that presuming its authenticity functions as the backbone of the cover-up, since it becomes impossible to reconstruct the actual sequence of events in Dealey Plaza on the basis of a fabricated film. In response to the announcement that a Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, had shown that the "backyard photograph" of alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was authentic, after decades of controversy, he and Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire (1989), one of the primary sources for Oliver Stone's "JFK", published an article arguing that Farid's research was inadequate on multiple grounds, including (a) that he only studied one feature (the nose shadow) of one photo, when there are four, ( that he ignored other, more imposing proofs of fakery (including the block chin, the insert line between the chin and the lower lip, and the cut-off finger tips of his right hand), and © a demonstration by Jack White using the newspapers as an internal ruler that the person was too short to be Oswald.[22] Fetzer and Marrs also asserted that, if Farid had conducted a search of the literature, he would have known that the face is exactly the same across all four photographs taken in different poses at different times, which is a photographic impossibility. Others have taken an interest in their work and published articles of their own about their study.[23] September 11, 2001 attacks Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom.[24] Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operators were faked. During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers.[25]He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects. On May 17, 2007, he presented a two-hour critique of Steven E. Jones' work, which has been archived under the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community".[26] On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories.[27] That weekend, he appeared at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con AgendaSymposium in Los Angeles, California.[28] On December 18, 2006, he was the featured guest on a three and 1/2 hour television program devoted to 9/11, which was broadcast live from Athens by satellite worldwide.[29][30] During June 2008, he was flown to Buenos Aires to present a series of lectures on 9/11 and JFK. His visit received considerable publicity, including a 20-minute television interview broadcast across South America and articles in the News Service of the Republic of Argentina.[31][32] He was flown back to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during "The International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice" held at The National Library on September 11, 2009.[33] On 14 July 2010, he spoke along with Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon at a symposium, "Debunking the 'War on Terror'", at Friends House in London, which was moderated by Ken O'Keefe.[34] In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barretthad been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state." Fetzer agreed to appear on O'Reilly's show himself on October 12, 2006.[35] Fetzer has detailed his research and theories during the Midwest Social Forum held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in a joint presentation with Kevin Barrett, also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which they recently reprised at the University of Wisconsin–Madison[36] Fetzer is founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11".[37] Differences in attitude and approach toward the science and the politics of 9/11 research led to a split with Steven Jones, whom Fetzer had invited to be his co-chair, in December 2006, almost exactly one year after its creation. Many 9/11 activists support Jones over Fetzer. A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments[38] On August 3–5, 2007, he conducted the first conference sponsored by Scholars on "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.[39] In his most recent work as a columnist for Veterans Today, "Seven Questions about 9/11" and "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", he has presented evidence that all four of the plane crashes on 9/11 were faked, where no planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon and one or another form of fakery was used in New York.[40][41] Even more strikingly, in collaboration with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, he has challenged "the myth of nanothermite" by explaining that it does not have the gas-expansion properties of explosives and, with a detonation rate of 895 m/s, cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel in the Twin Towers, which would require rates in excess of 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel, which has punctured perhaps the most widely help belief within the community about how the towers were destroyed and accented his disagreements with Jones.[42] Explaining the explanandum Fetzer has spoken positively of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, who left Scholars due in part to disagreement with the organization, objecting to the unwillingness of the society to consider 'no big boeing' theories (conspiracy theories arguing that no large aircraft hit the World Trade Center and that video evidence of the planes hitting the towers have serious inconsistencies showing them to be "doctored").[43] Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a "satellite-mounted military weapon" may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that "the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based." [44] For Fetzer, "Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steven [Jones]".[44] Steven Jones and others claim to have refuted the mini-nuke hypothesis[45][46] Jones has responded to Reynolds and Wood directly, but they have not viewed his remarks as refutations.[47] After featuring fifteen or more students of video fakery as guests on his radio program, Fetzer decided that claims of video fakery and claims that no planes hit the tower are logically distinct issue. He has become convinced that video fakery took place on 9/11 and has published several articles about it, including "Mounting Evidence of Video Fakery on 9/11" [48] and "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11".[49] Wood and Reynolds both contributed chapters to his first book for Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy(2007). Death of Paul Wellstone Fetzer has co-authored a book in which the authors collect and analyze public information and witness statements, arguing that Minnesota SenatorPaul Wellstone's death in an airplane crash was not accidental but resulted from a small-scale conspiracy to ensure Republican control of the Senate.[50]He has co-authored a study of the documents on which the NTSB's report was based with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which was published in Michael Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter.[51] He recently addressed this subject again in the context of an article inspired by the revelation of Seymour Hersh that Vice President Dick Cheney had been running an assassination operation from his office.[52] Disinformation In Fetzer's words, "in this day and age, we all have to become experts ondisinformation."[53][54] According to Fetzer, "disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise." [53] Misinformation Fetzer defines as "false, mistaken, or misleading information"; disinformation is misinformation propounded "in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse."[55] Fetzer describes five levels of disinformation.[56] RADIO From 2001-08, Fetzer made regular appearances on Black Op Radio,[57] an internet broadcast dedicated to conspiratorial subject matter, primarily the JFK assassination. He still appears on the show occasionally, but less often than before. For a time, Fetzer co-hosted "The Dynamic Duo", a show on the GCN network, along with fellow 9/11 Truther Kevin Barrett. Today, Fetzer solo hosts a show called "The Real Deal" on Revere Radio.[58] He has interviewed a wide range of experts on various subjects, including JFK, 9/11, election fraud, domestic politics and foreign affairs.[59] A recent series of four programs was devoted to suspicious non-combat military deaths, a subject he was drawn into by research on the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman for his OpEdNews article, "Has Cheney been Murdering Americans?".[52] PUBLICATIONS Philosophy of Science: Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Rowman & Littlefield. June 1984. p. 292 p.. ISBN 0-8476-7341-3. edited by James H. Fetzer. (August 1985). Sociobiology and Epistemology. Springer. p. 296 p.. ISBN 90-277-2005-3. Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives. 1991. ASIN B000IBICGK. James H. Fetzer (October 1992). Philosophy of Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 197 p.. ISBN 1-55778-481-7 ed. by James H. Fetzer (January 1993). Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 512 p.. ISBN 1-55778-480-9. Charles E. M. Dunlop; James H. Fetzer. (March 1993). Glossary of Cognitive Science (A Paragon House Glossary for Research, Reading, and Writing). Paragon. p. 288 p.. ISBN 1-55778-567-8. James H. Fetzer. (January 1997). Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 191 p.. ISBN 1-55778-739-5. Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Vol. 7, No. 4. Kluwer. November 1997. ASIN B000KEV460. edited by James H. Fetzer. (December 2000). Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford. p. 384 p.. ISBN 0-19-512137-6. James H. Fetzer. (January 2001). Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits. Springer. p. 364 p.. ISBN 0-7923-0548-5 Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are Not Machines. Springer. January 8, 2002. p. 352 p.. ISBN 1-4020-0243-2. ed. by James H. Fetzer (May 2002). Consciousness Evolving (Advances in Consciousness Research). John Benjamins. p. 251 p..ISBN 1-58811-108-3. James H. Fetzer (2005). The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals With Minds?. Open Court. p. 272 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9459-7. James H. Fetzer. (August 9, 2006). Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Springer. p. 348 p.. ISBN 90-277-1335-9. James H. Fetzer (December 28, 2006). Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right's Crusade Against Science. Open Court. p. 288 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9605-0. Conspiracy Research: edited by James H. Fetzer. (October 1997). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Open Court. p. 480 p.. ISBN0-8126-9366-3. ed. by James H. Fetzer. (August 2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then. Open Court. p. 496 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9422-8. ed. by James H. Fetzer (September 2003). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Catfeet Press. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9547-X. Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs) & James H. Fetzer. (November 2004). American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone. Vox Pop. p. 188 p.. ISBN 0-9752763-0-1. ed. by James H. Fetzer. (March 28, 2007). The 9/11 Conspiracy. Open Court. p. 450 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9612-3. REFERENCES ^ abc Lederer, Sarah (February 2009). "James Fetzer's Home Page". Duluth: University of Minnesota. http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ "We're all conspiracy theorists at heart". BBC News. February 16, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/6368341.stm. Retrieved May 5, 2010. ^ http://www.landlinem...0/011210-06.htm ^ "O'Reilly Takes on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist!". Fox News. October 13, 2006. http://www.foxnews.c...,220500,00.html. ^ Pope, Justin (August 6, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive". Associated Press. http://www.washingto...6080600393.html. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ abchttp://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ ^ http://www.d.umn.edu.../specialcv.html ^ "Society for Machines and Mentality". http://www.cs.hamilton.edu/~sfmm/. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2783 ^ http://twilightpines...id=42&Itemid=47 ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= bMrBMPq_Axo ^ John Gravois, "Professors of Paranoia?: Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories", The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. ^ Fetzer, James H; Costella, John P (2 February 2009). "Assassination Research - Journal for the Advanced Study of the Death of JFK". Duluth MN: Assassination Research. http://assassinationresearch.com/. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ http://911scholars.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=53 ^ "Reasoning about Assassinations: Critical Thinking in Political Contexts". 3rd International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities. 2005. http://h05.cgpublisher.com/proposals/488/index_html. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ Fetzer, James H (5 June 2007). "A closed mind perpetrating a fraud on the public" (pdf). Assassination Research (Duluth MN: Assassination Research) 5 (1). http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1fetzer.pdf. Retrieved 3 February 2009. ^ Fetzer, James H (20 January 2009). "Moorman In The Street - Revisited". JFKresearch. http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html ^ http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html ^ http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html ^ http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-real-fake-and-so-is-he/ ^ Narain, Jaya (6 September 2006). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'". London Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Ltd. http://www.dailymail...inside-job.html. Retrieved 2009-02-03. ^ [1] ^ http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc ^ American Scholars Symposium ^ [2] ^ http://www.911blogger.com/node/5222 ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&idPub=109367&id=235352&dis=1&sec=1 ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=109367&id=235361&idnota=235361 ^ http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jim-fetzer-on-911-at-the?xg_source=activity ^ [3] ^ Jim Kouri, "Activist Kevin Barrett Claims Bill O'Reilly Threatened Him", National Ledger, July 23, 2006. ^ Megan Twohey, "Lecturer denounces critics of his 9-11 teachings: 'Inside job' theory draws calls for firing, UW probe", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 9, 2006. ^ Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Who Are We ^ [4]. ^ http://www.avatarpro...tegory_Code=BMV ^ [5] ^ [6] ^ [7] ^ http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones#NBB ^ a b http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html ^ Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers ^ Theories that Nuclear Weapons Destroyed the Twin Towers ^ Jones: Reply to Reynolds & Wood ^ [8] ^ [9] ^ Dameron, Eva (2005, October 31). "Author makes case for murder". Daily Lobo (University of New Mexico). http://media.www.dai...gepublisher.com. ^ http://www.fromthewi...wellstone.shtml ^ abhttp://www.opednews....090408-987.html ^ a b Jim Fetzer, "Disinformation, the Use of False Information, Minds and Machines, 14: 231–240, 2004." ^ Arabesque, "9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples" ^ Jim Fetzer, Information: Does It Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, pp. 223–229." ^ Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation." ^ http://www.blackopradio.com ^ http://www.revereradionetwork.com ^ http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/ Scholars for 9/11Truth, an organization founded by James H. Fetzer which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11 The Dynamic Duo, Fetzer's radio show on The Genesis Communications Network, cohosted with fellow 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett 911 a Hoax? Scholar for 911 Truth versus American Thinker, discussion between Fetzer and J.R. Dunn from The American Thinker(September 18, 2006) A Critical Review of James Fetzer's Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK by Jim Hoffman (February 6, 2006). James Fetzer's comment on Wikipedia - Google Video The Company We Keep by Michael Green (February 15, 2006). Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11: JAMES FETZER by Victoria Ashley (August 5, 2007). [show]v · d · eArticles on 9/11 conspiracy theories This page was last modified on 22 July 2011 at 14:56. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.