Dr Fetzer theories

[Len Colby]

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

Sorry for the egregious omission which I just corrected. Though I almost always agree with Evan and "Tink" and often agree with you I rarely agree with John S. and even less so with Mark and I think this is the first time Mike and I have agreed about anything, the breadth of consensus on this issue is especially damning. Since most of the looney faction moved on to "deeper" pastures Fetzer has been left with few defenders here other than his co-authors and even some of them, Lifton comes to mind, have tired of him.

[John Dolva]

Yep, (thank you) and we also often disagree but that does not hinder collaboration. We come from different places in space and mind. Where we meet I think are the important things. I disagree with the JS comments. He lives in a different category entirely that, I think, few of us have a real understanding of, I know I don't but I've met him and I have no qualms about expressing a fundamental respect. We don't talk much and I suspect disagree on a number of issues, others not, ditto Duke, Thomas and others, Mark is one I often agree with. So, there we are, a disparate group with the capacity to see beyong the personal to whatever degree. Jim Fetzer comes nowhere near this category. (imo)

[B. A. Copeland]

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

That was my point Mr. White, earlier. Where has these foolish discussions on Thermate/Thermite gotten us over the years? I am of the belief that being that 9/11 was planned WELL in advance, the perps also made SURE that the internet would be chock FULL of their operatives and main traffic sites would be handled by them. The main idea is to divide and conquer, to keep people going in complete circles concerning 9/11 to the point where it becomes tiresome. To have agents like Galloway stand up in congress spitting garbage, and then go onto the "Big Brother" show in England and make an idiotic fool of himself. To have agents like Jimmy Walter say one thing with clarity concerning 9/11 at one moment, then become a degenerate "lunatic" later on (ALL the passengers were still alive and working for the Govt..???!?...come on now) in order to make the ENTIRE 9/11 movement look dumb and waste of time. Dont even get me started on Mr. CIA Fake Stephen Jones and his "beautiful" history concerning Cold Fusion Technology.

Many of these "luminaries" have been placed there for a very specific purpose. To make sure the 9/11 truth movement gains absolutely no momentum whatsoever. Unfortunately they've succeeded VERY well.....

I might add, that you honestly need to carefully study my words concerning Fetzer and the entire BreakForNews affair. It's just weird and smells fishy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since I have done hundreds of interviews about 9/11 and this was only one (recommended to me by Thomas Mattingly, since I am not a follower of Fintan Dunne), please tell me what it was I said that could have stuck in your craw like this. I find that very odd. I have a hard time figuring out where Fintan is coming from (and I don't think I have every actually listened to one of his shows), so if you can help me sort out what was going on on that particular show, be my guest! I am especially interested in what you take to be the "deception operation" that, I infer, you think I am disseminating. I have many articles about 9/11, including "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic?", "Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", and many more. The best place to begin would probably be with "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which you can google. Some of my most recent presentations include "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job"?", which I presented in Buenos Aires at an international symposium held at The National Library on 11 September 2009, which is archived at http://911scholars.org, and "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?", which I presented in London on 14 July 2010, which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/. Since you seem to have a keen interest in my research on 9/11, I would be glad to have your take on these, too. And don't overlook the Scholars forum at http://911scholars.ning.com, where you can do a search and find many other studies of mine, since I am sure you want to be thorough and comprehensive, not to say "fair and balanced". Dozens of my presentations are archived on YouTube.

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 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Once again, Glenn Viklund steps up to the plate and demonstrates that he has NO IDEA what he is talking about,

Victoria Ashley is well-known as an agent of disinformation. I wish it were not so. When Viklund ignores the real

history of the society, which is archived on http://911scholars.org under "Founder's Corner", and embraces this

caricature of what really happened, you know that his research skills are diminished and that he needs someone

to lead him by the nose, because he hasn't a ghost of a chance of figuring any of this out for himself. I thought

I had already replied to these smears by pointing out that Wikipedia publishes many of them in violation of its

own guidelines, since the article offers no citations in support of these misleading and distorted reports. See

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml in case you missed it. Citing

Victoria Ashley on my contributions to 9/11 would be like citing Josiah Thompson on my contributions to JFK!

If you knew enough about 9/11 to know what is going on, you would only cite Victoria in a duplicitous effort

to tarnish me. But, then, I suppose I should at least give you credit! That is obviously your modus operandi.

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 Those who care about the truth should read it.

"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 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Len Colby has put together a really good list this time. Give it some thought and you will appreciate why what he has done here

is valuable to those who are search for the truth about JFK, 9/11, and other important matters. There are some surprises there.

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 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

Once again, Glenn Viklund steps up to the plate and demonstrates that he has NO IDEA what he is talking about,

Victoria Ashley is well-known as an agent of disinformation. I wish it were not so. When Viklund ignores the real

history of the society, which is archived on http://911scholars.org under "Founder's Corner", ...

What evidence do you have that she "is well-known as an agent of disinformation" does anyone besides you and your associates believe this?

According to your version of events how many people voted in the poll and how many of them voted to leave?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Colby has this much right: I do regard STRANGER THAN FICTION as an excellent introduction to the history of Zionism and of Israeli "false flag" operations. There are many more, including the assault on the USS Liberty and attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and on a Jewish Community Center there in 1994. Their willingness to kill their own people is astounding and their hypocrisy rivals that displayed by some on this forum. Notice, in particular, that while this guy tries to get a lot of mileage out of my endorsement of a very good book, he has not shown that any of the analysis that it presents is wrong. He simply appeals to your naive understanding of history, without recommending that you conduct research of your own to determine if the author is right or wrong, because that would be counter productive. I have interviewed Albert Pastore, Jeff Gates, Stephen Lendman, Barry Chamish, Elias Davidsson and others about such things. These "The Real Deal" show archives are found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. No one should worry that Colby's attacks will not continue ad nauseum.

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

Edited October 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

Colby has this much right: I do regard STRANGER THAN FICTION as an excellent introduction to the history of Zionism and of Israeli "false flag" operations. There are many more, including the assault on the USS Liberty and attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and on a Jewish Community Center there in 1994. Their willingness to kill their own people is astounding and their hypocrisy rivals that displayed by some on this forum. Notice, in particular, that while this guy tries to get a lot of mileage out of my endorsement of a very good book, he has not shown that any of the analysis that it presents is wrong. He simply appeals to your naive understanding of history, without recommending that you conduct research of your own to determine if the author is right or wrong, because that would be counter productive. I have interviewed Albert Pastore, Jeff Gates, Stephen Lendman, Barry Chamish, Elias Davidsson and others about such things. These "The Real Deal" show archives are found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. No one should worry that Colby's attacks will not continue ad nauseum.

Do you agree with Pastore that

- the Nazi's discrimination against Jews and invasions of their neighbors were justified?

- Jews were responsible for WWII?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice

[Glenn Viklund]

Once again, Glenn Viklund steps up to the plate and demonstrates that he has NO IDEA what he is talking about,

Victoria Ashley is well-known as an agent of disinformation. I wish it were not so. When Viklund ignores the real

history of the society, which is archived on http://911scholars.org under "Founder's Corner", and embraces this

caricature of what really happened, you know that his research skills are diminished and that he needs someone

to lead him by the nose, because he hasn't a ghost of a chance of figuring any of this out for himself. I thought

I had already replied to these smears by pointing out that Wikipedia publishes many of them in violation of its

own guidelines, since the article offers no citations in support of these misleading and distorted reports. See

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml in case you missed it. Citing

Victoria Ashley on my contributions to 9/11 would be like citing Josiah Thompson on my contributions to JFK!

If you knew enough about 9/11 to know what is going on, you would only cite Victoria in a duplicitous effort

to tarnish me. But, then, I suppose I should at least give you credit! That is obviously your modus operandi.

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 Those who care about the truth should read it.

"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.

A typical trademark of Fetzer is that not only are others wrong for not agreeing to all of his clownish BS-theories. No, they are disinformants, government agents, insiders, liars or something similar. When hard evidence is presented that goes against him, like for instance court decisions related to the JVB scam, Fetzer's immediately, with his big mouth wide open, deeming it "drivel!!" and worse, because Fetzer does not know what judicially constitutes evidence. Instead. Fetzer who knows absolutely zero of the judicial world, spends three months screaming his throat off, "look at all the evidence that JVB is the real deal". None, of course, which have yet been presented.

So it's certainly only to be expected to see him denying that there was a vote where an overwhelming majority voted against him. And it's to be expected that "I don't know what I'm talking about", another trademark Fetzer rant, used hundreds of times in the JVB thread against non-believers, and for years elsewhere in this forum. So of course he wants to dismiss Victoria Ashleys article. On the other hand, Fetzer himself has no hesitations about quoting a certified crackpot like David "reptiles-have-taken-over-the-human-race" Icke. Pretty soon I would expect Fetzer's version to turn this catastrophic vote of deep mistrust into a vote of confidence, positive on his behalf. That's how Fetzer normally handles facts and the truth.

My two cats have better judgment than Fetzer and are far more reliable. Neither are they offending anyone as soon as they open their mouth.

The simple facts are that Fetzer published a variety of deeply offending, unsubstantiated stuff, was completely and utterly impossible to work with and furthermore, was a public relations disaster.

Qualities that Fetzer during the six months I've been a member of this forum has displayed with the utmost enthusiasm on numerous occasions.

You don't fool me with your highly immature antics and your BS.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. I would quote Josiah Thompson 365/24/7 over your outlandish crap, no matter what the subject is. JT is a decent man and a researcher, none of which applies to you.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Martin Hinrichs]

Do you agree with Pastore that

- the Nazi's discrimination against Jews and invasions of their neighbors were justified?

- Jews were responsible for WWII?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice

I agree with Len. I think this questions should be answered.

Martin

[B. A. Copeland]

It's probably safe to say that Dunne believes that either Fetzer is a operative/fake or simply not up to speed, specifically as it concerns issues on 9/11. Why not just take a listen to the audio? TJ comes in as some sort of advance man, he is already connected to another shady personality (Sibel Edmonds, who is connected to Daniel "CIA" Ellsberg, etc.). A forum member fortold that the GCN will probably have "technical difficulties" which they did, in order to sort of 'trap' Dunne. It was a pretty seemingly slick Op. Its not so simply laid out. Ultimately, and especially when one considers the deep penetration and preparation for the 9/11 event, its not "out there" to take a step back and look at the entire event with BFN as it happened. The entire 9/11 movement has been severely compromised and that was prepared for in advance. This is not difficult to see.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17857#17857

Edited October 13, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[John Dolva]

(imo). The 911 The dogma of ''an opportunity in everything'' kicked in and uncounted numbers (millions?) of innocents have and will continue to suffer in so many ways. Stepping further back the anti war movement is where it's at. To some extent the search for the truth about the JFK assassination is about honoring that which can be see as good about him. In a sense assume that he has prevailed and accordingly act. Through this the harsh reality we live in today becomes stark. In it we find our failings. I think one of his great strengths was his to some extent staunch whatever may come uncompromising base line. A bit like the buck stops here. Thus far and no further etc etc. It's probably a bit uncomfortable all around though.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Once again, Glenn Viklund steps up to the plate and demonstrates that he has NO IDEA what he is talking about,

Victoria Ashley is well-known as an agent of disinformation. I wish it were not so. When Viklund ignores the real

history of the society, which is archived on http://911scholars.org under "Founder's Corner", and embraces this

caricature of what really happened, you know that his research skills are diminished and that he needs someone

to lead him by the nose, because he hasn't a ghost of a chance of figuring any of this out for himself. I thought

I had already replied to these smears by pointing out that Wikipedia publishes many of them in violation of its

own guidelines, since the article offers no citations in support of these misleading and distorted reports. See

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml in case you missed it. Citing

Victoria Ashley on my contributions to 9/11 would be like citing Josiah Thompson on my contributions to JFK!

If you knew enough about 9/11 to know what is going on, you would only cite Victoria in a duplicitous effort

to tarnish me. But, then, I suppose I should at least give you credit! That is obviously your modus operandi.

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 Those who care about the truth should read it.

"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.

A typical trademark of Fetzer is that not only are others wrong for not agreeing to all of his clownish BS-theories. No, they are disinformants, government agents, insiders, liars or something similar. When hard evidence is presented that goes against him, like for instance court decisions related to the JVB scam, Fetzer's immediately, with his big mouth wide open, deeming it "drivel!!" and worse, because Fetzer does not know what judicially constitutes evidence. Instead. Fetzer who knows absolutely zero of the judicial world, spends three months screaming his throat off, "look at all the evidence that JVB is the real deal". None, of course, which have yet been presented.

So it's certainly only to be expected to see him denying that there was a vote where an overwhelming majority voted against him. And it's to be expected that "I don't know what I'm talking about", another trademark Fetzer rant, used hundreds of times in the JVB thread against non-believers, and for years elsewhere in this forum. So of course he wants to dismiss Victoria Ashleys article. On the other hand, Fetzer himself has no hesitations about quoting a certified crackpot like David "reptiles-have-taken-over-the-human-race" Icke. Pretty soon I would expect Fetzer's version to turn this catastrophic vote of deep mistrust into a vote of confidence, positive on his behalf. That's how Fetzer normally handles facts and the truth.

My two cats have better judgment than Fetzer and are far more reliable. Neither are they offending anyone as soon as they open their mouth.

The simple facts are that Fetzer published a variety of deeply offending, unsubstantiated stuff, was completely and utterly impossible to work with and furthermore, was a public relations disaster.

Qualities that Fetzer during the six months I've been a member of this forum has displayed with the utmost enthusiasm on numerous occasions.

You don't fool me with your highly immature antics and your BS.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. I would quote Josiah Thompson 365/24/7 over your outlandish crap, no matter what the subject is. JT is a decent man and a researcher, none of which applies to you.

Overall!------Clearly one of the most intelligent post to occur in quite an extended period of time.

Specifically[b]!----"My two cats have better judgment than Fetzer and are far more reliable. Neither are they offending anyone as soon as they open their mouth."[/b]

Wish that I had come up with that one!

Tom

P.S. Which, says what for those who actually believe much of what he expouses.

[Len Colby]

Do you agree with Pastore that

- the Nazi's discrimination against Jews and invasions of their neighbors were justified?

- Jews were responsible for WWII?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice

I agree with Len. I think this questions should be answered.

Martin

He certainly should but almost certainly won't because he probablly realized there is no good answer and that the best tactic is to ignore it and hope people forget about it. Criticizing Israel and Zionists is one thing but pushing Antisemitism and justifying the acts of the Nazia are beyond the pale. Remembering Joseph Welch's rhetorical question to McCarthy, Fetzer has "no sense of decency".

Edited October 15, 2010 by Len Colby