Dr Fetzer theories

[Jack White]

James,

Sorry, I owe you an apology. Just went through "Murder" again, and the uncertainties I had were with Jack Whites section on The Z film.

I'm sorry for the confusion, entirely my own. I'll be more careful in my posts in future.

I have another of your books on the way, I'll look forward to reading it.

All the best, Steve Duffy.

What are your uncertainties about my work? I know that only one item in the color section is wrong,

and I had found it and tried to get it corrected, but was told that the book was already at the printer.

I will be glad to explain anything you think is erroneous.

Or read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which will answer most of your questions.

Jack

[Steve Duffy]

Thanks Jack. I'll pm you with any questions I might have in the future. I'll order the Z hoax book before to long.

Steve.

[Jack White]

I seldom reply to PMs. Use my email jwjfk@flash.net

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

Steve,

Thanks for hanging in there. A certain clique, including Viklund, Colby, Lamson and some others--have nothing better to do than

spend their time launching spitballs in my direction. They are singularly unproductive, but make themselves obnoxious by trying

to keep members of this forum from even reading my books, which is quite indefensible, considering that eleven contributed to

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), nine to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and six to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX

(2003). I have had dozens, in some cases hundreds, of exchanges with these nits in the past and frankly no longer have the time

of day for them. I appreciate your interest in my work. Anytime you want to contact me, I'll be glad to hear from you. Best wishes,

Jim

I seem to have started something, which wasn't my intent. I read a few comments about James before I created my own, and in fact, it was the first post I created on ANY forum, so forgive me if it came across brash and crude. James' work was one of the reasons I wanted to start posting, and it seemed he was a "controversial" figure, if I can use that term, on the boards. I wanted to get a majority feel about a particular researcher/author whom I was having trouble understanding, on the basis of one book and some articles I had read. It wasn't, in hindsight, how I should have gone about it. Forgive a newbie.

As for questions that I may have, well I've ordered James' other works, and will read them in turn.

If I have any further questions or inquiries, I'll pm James directly, I think. (If that's agreeable).

So, I've nothing else to add, sorry again if anyone was offended. I do try to be respectful to all, as I expect to be treated in turn. Thanks Steve.

I find that the best way to deal with the trio mentioned above is to avoid reading a word they have posted. Jim is correct, they are here to flame, disrupt and insult. Engage at your own risk.

Just because Jim and Jack disagreed on Judyth does not mean they would end their long friendship over this. My husband and I disagree on 9-11 and are very happily married. He is waiting to hear from controlled demo experts on the WTC buildings 1 and 2. (Agrees that building 7 fell "consistent with controlled demo".)

Steve, you will recognize the flamers quickly as they post a great deal. Garbage in garbage out.

Dawn

[B. A. Copeland]

My observation is that Fetzer, at best, is an interesting character. There are a couple of topics regarding "is Fetzer CIA/fake"? at breakfornews.com and the entire scenario of how Fetzer actually was involved in an interview with Fintan Dunne is very, very fishy, not to mention how the audio interview went throughout. I actually think many here at the EduForum are not really aware of the complexity of the deception operations aimed at the general populace (left, right, etc) and especially those who truly know what is going on.

BreakForNews topic: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2049&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Odd thing is, Fintan's radio interview was actually cut short by "technical problems" which was called long before it happened by a forum member. Fetzer even had an advance man (T.J Mattingly) prop up on the forums to tell the members what a good guy Fetzer was. The entire affair was just weird and smelled fishy...What do I think of Fetzer and his theories?....well lets just say I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement.

Edited October 11, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Jack White]

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911, what specifically causes your caution? He is at least 90% correct

in his observations. My only reservation is that he may be overemphasizing the participation of Israel. He is

willing to stick his neck out farther than any other researcher on many issues.

Jack

[Glenn Viklund]

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is a perfect example of one of the trio spouting off when he has no idea what he is talking about. I am

sorry, Viklund, but you are a sorry excuse for a student of any serious subject. To see what happened that he

does not understand, google "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

[David G. Healy]

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

oh-my! you'll never make it as a comic, either..... Judyth really has you running in circles doesn't she!

[Len Colby]

Here is a perfect example of one of the trio spouting off when he has no idea what he is talking about. I am

sorry, Viklund, but you are a sorry excuse for a student of any serious subject. To see what happened that he

does not understand, google "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

Glenn

For once Fetzer is sorta right. Since he found Scholars for Truth and had the rights to the name those who didn't like the way he was doing things decided to pull up stakes and started Scholars for Truth and Justice, a rival group. If it is my understanding that most of the active members joined the exodus, the loony fringe Reynolds, Woods, Tarpley, Madsen stayed or joined.

[Len Colby]

Fetzer has many idiotic views, his most offensive are that

Jews were responsible for: both World Wars, the rise of Hitler,

Hitler’s discrimination against the Jews and invasions of Poland, Norway, Holland, and Belgium were justified.

He repeatedly heaped praise on the author “Alberto Pastore” (a pseudonym) and his book Stranger Than Fiction and read the first several chapters in their entirety on air, rebroadcast the program then invited “Pastore” on his program and gave him a veritable hero’s welcome. He has never expressed any reservation about anything in the book. Thus it is reasonable to presume that he fully endorsed the passages he read on air. Quoting Pastore he declared:

The German people were bitterly resentful of not only the Zionist role in bringing about their defeat in World War I, but also over the brutal monetary reparations which had been imposed upon them by certain Zionist bankers who helped craft the brutal Treaty of Versailles after the war. Stripped of formerly German territory, and with the German economy in ruins, the people of Germany elected Adolf Hitler as their Chancellor. Hitler and the Nazi party soon seized control of the German media, banks, and universities away from the influential Zionists who had reigned supreme in those institutions.

Fetzer and his supporters might try to hide behind the fig leaf that the text refers to Zionists rather than Jews but all Jews regardless of whether or not they were Zionists were forced out of “German media, banks, and universities” disgustingly Fetzer who continuously makes so much of being a champion of free speech and progressive “scholar” and who has been involved in academia for over 50 years gave his stamp of approval to racial discrimination in higher education in other fields. Shortly after this he justified Hitler’s invasions of his neighbors.

In September of 1939, Germany and Poland went to war over disputed territory that was taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty of 1918. Under the phony pretext of protecting Poland, Great Britain and France immediately declared war on Germany (conveniently ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union had invaded Poland too). Germany pleaded with Britain and France (the Allies) to withdraw their war declarations but to no avail. The Allies continued their massive military buildup along Germany’s western frontiers. In the spring of 1940, the war in the West began when Germany launched pre-emptive invasions of Norway, Holland, and Belgium, pinning the British and French forces on the beaches of Belgium.

Fetzer and Pastore also blamed Jews for the World Wars and Germsny’s defeats and the rise of Hitler. But this post is lonbg enough already. For more details, citations and links to Fetzer reading the cited passages go to this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16296

[Len Colby]

Steve,

Thanks for hanging in there. A certain clique, including Viklund, Colby, Lamson and some others--have nothing better to do than

spend their time launching spitballs in my direction. They are singularly unproductive, but make themselves obnoxious by trying

to keep members of this forum from even reading my books, which is quite indefensible, considering that eleven contributed to

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), nine to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and six to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX

(2003). I have had dozens, in some cases hundreds, of exchanges with these nits in the past and frankly no longer have the time

of day for them. I appreciate your interest in my work. Anytime you want to contact me, I'll be glad to hear from you. Best wishes,

Jim

I seem to have started something, which wasn't my intent. I read a few comments about James before I created my own, and in fact, it was the first post I created on ANY forum, so forgive me if it came across brash and crude. James' work was one of the reasons I wanted to start posting, and it seemed he was a "controversial" figure, if I can use that term, on the boards. I wanted to get a majority feel about a particular researcher/author whom I was having trouble understanding, on the basis of one book and some articles I had read. It wasn't, in hindsight, how I should have gone about it. Forgive a newbie.

As for questions that I may have, well I've ordered James' other works, and will read them in turn.

If I have any further questions or inquiries, I'll pm James directly, I think. (If that's agreeable).

So, I've nothing else to add, sorry again if anyone was offended. I do try to be respectful to all, as I expect to be treated in turn. Thanks Steve.

I find that the best way to deal with the trio mentioned above is to avoid reading a word they have posted. Jim is correct, they are here to flame, disrupt and insult. Engage at your own risk.

Just because Jim and Jack disagreed on Judyth does not mean they would end their long friendship over this. My husband and I disagree on 9-11 and are very happily married. He is waiting to hear from controlled demo experts on the WTC buildings 1 and 2. (Agrees that building 7 fell "consistent with controlled demo".)

Steve, you will recognize the flamers quickly as they post a great deal. Garbage in garbage out.

Dawn

Except that its not just the three of us saying such things. You must have missed similar comments from John Dolva, John Simkin, Mark Knight, Mike Hogan and now BA Copeland. Elsewhere other members including Josiah Thompson, Evan Burton, Barb Junkkarinen, Martin Hinrichs and Martin Shackelford.

EDIT: Added the bolded names above, see John's post below and my reply

Edited October 12, 2010 by Len Colby

[John Dolva]

Hey, don't leave me out. I've stated my opinion that Jim's full of it on numerous occasions. Thank you.

[Glenn Viklund]

Here is a perfect example of one of the trio spouting off when he has no idea what he is talking about. I am

sorry, Viklund, but you are a sorry excuse for a student of any serious subject. To see what happened that he

does not understand, google "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

Glenn

For once Fetzer is sorta right. Since he found Scholars for Truth and had the rights to the name those who didn't like the way he was doing things decided to pull up stakes and started Scholars for Truth and Justice, a rival group. If it is my understanding that most of the active members joined the exodus, the loony fringe Reynolds, Woods, Tarpley, Madsen stayed or joined.

A miniscule number supported Fetzer and who could be surprised by this outcome? Not even within the obscure organisations started by himself with himself in charge does he get support. Instead people are turning their back on him and his methods, which was the point. After having seen how he treats people here, indeed perfectly understandable.

Just look in this thread, Mark Knight - a "disinformation agent". Fetzer had no qualms in labeling me "a spy", "an insider", "having stolen secret information" etc, etc.

No wonder people stand up against this lunacy.

Edit.

This is what I was talking about:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html#fetzer

"By the end of about one year, the situation had gotten so dire that some of the members, including Steven Jones, decided they could no longer allow Fetzer to control the website, and decided to take a vote on what to do, since Fetzer refused to remove the offending posts. Eventually, after several weeks involving hundreds of emails attempting to resolve the situation, a poll and subsequent vote was taken of the membership via email. All but ten of the more than two hundred members who participated in the vote voted to leave Fetzer's original group and form a new group. Thirty people, including the ten, voted to join both groups. ( For more information on the split, please see: Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: FAQ )"

The article leaves no doubts as to how they look upon Fetzer, in case anyone thought so.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

Here is a perfect example of one of the trio spouting off when he has no idea what he is talking about. I am

sorry, Viklund, but you are a sorry excuse for a student of any serious subject. To see what happened that he

does not understand, google "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

Glenn

For once Fetzer is sorta right. Since he found Scholars for Truth and had the rights to the name those who didn't like the way he was doing things decided to pull up stakes and started Scholars for Truth and Justice, a rival group. If it is my understanding that most of the active members joined the exodus, the loony fringe Reynolds, Woods, Tarpley, Madsen stayed or joined.

A miniscule number supported Fetzer and who could be surprised by this outcome? Not even within the obscure organisations started by himself with himself in charge does he get support. Instead people are turning their back on him and his methods, which was the point. After having seen how he treats people here, indeed perfectly understandable.

Just look in this thread, Mark Knight - a "disinformation agent". Fetzer had no qualms in labeling me "a spy", "an insider", "having stolen secret information" etc, etc.

No wonder people stand up against this lunacy.

Edit.

This is what I was talking about:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html#fetzer

"By the end of about one year, the situation had gotten so dire that some of the members, including Steven Jones, decided they could no longer allow Fetzer to control the website, and decided to take a vote on what to do, since Fetzer refused to remove the offending posts. Eventually, after several weeks involving hundreds of emails attempting to resolve the situation, a poll and subsequent vote was taken of the membership via email. All but ten of the more than two hundred members who participated in the vote voted to leave Fetzer's original group and form a new group. Thirty people, including the ten, voted to join both groups. ( For more information on the split, please see: Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: FAQ )"

The article leaves no doubts as to how they look upon Fetzer, in case anyone thought so.

Steven Jones and his group pinned all of their hopes on THERMITE/THERMATE, and quit researching.

THERMITE/THERMATE was not the answer. It may have been used, but could not be responsible

for the top down explosions and free fall. Fetzer saw that and pressed ahead toward answers

which fit the TOTAL evidence. It matters not a whit that a FEW on this forum side wrongly with Jones.

Jack