The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer

[Martin White]

I met Jim Fetzer briefly in London in around 2002, and I tried to mediate between him and Josiah Thompson over at Rich DellaRosa's forum. Predictably, it was no use.

I too liked the first couple of his books on JFK, although I was critical of some of Jack White's work published in Murder In Dealey Plaza which I didn't think had had any scrutiny before it was published.

I still keep an eye on what he's doing, but he no longer convinces me although it's still interesting. I keep an open mind but almost all he does currently makes no sense to me.

I mean, take these mass shootings and the live TV shooting. This is supposedly organised by Obama to encourage gun control, to remove guns from the hands of the masses. I do have questions about the live shootings, such as the hand holding the gun looks white to me, and the wounds would surely have been visible - but even if they WERE staged shootings, I don't buy the false gun-control motive. It makes no sense to me that anyone would think that the US Government would be prevented from its intended goals (whatever they were) by homeowners brandishing handguns.

And the Paul is dead thing? I can't bring myself to even care about that one. If I was trying to preach conspiracy theory to the masses, I'd stick to the ones that really matter - JFK and 9/11 to pick what I consider the most important two.

A bit like the no planes theory - I find it hard to believe that all these people from Sandy Hook, Charleston etc were successfully "disappeared" without anything leaking out.

That said, after having clearly got away with killing JFK, it would not surprise me at all if the sponsors of that scheme branched out and got more and more ambitious, so there may well be more real conspiracies. So I remain open minded but my threshold for being convinced gets higher as I get older.

[Tracy Riddle]

I mean, take these mass shootings and the live TV shooting. This is supposedly organised by Obama to encourage gun control, to remove guns from the hands of the masses. I do have questions about the live shootings, such as the hand holding the gun looks white to me, and the wounds would surely have been visible - but even if they WERE staged shootings, I don't buy the false gun-control motive. It makes no sense to me that anyone would think that the US Government would be prevented from its intended goals (whatever they were) by homeowners brandishing handguns.

The focus on Obama or Bush shows a real lack of understanding by some people of the deep state, the vast un-elected government and its links to powerful people outside of government. Like those who think that LBJ was the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination, they can't get their minds beyond the elected officials.

The gun control motive also makes no sense to me. The Powers That Be are actually helping to thin the surplus population by letting the dumber folks kill each other and themselves with their guns. I think that any domestic false flag mass shootings are being done to create a crime of fear, to give the police/intelligence/military more power, and to encourage people to think that "terrorists" are walking among us.

[Dawn Meredith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k


This is how loony these people are. I would have punched him too.

And here is the Kubrick hoax I mentioned in my article:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/273600/f...n-landing/

This was a creation to counter the fact that NASA had found some wreckage of one of the Apollo missions on the moon's surface. Which is really powerful evidence we went. So they put this hoax together.

BTW, if you click through the links at the end of the article to the Sandy Hook stuff, they used the same techniques there. They manufacture evidence. See for yourself. Its a disgrace really. Because of what it does to the people doing really good work on these SCADS.

I can't download his "book"
which I have read is just a bunch of postings. I did watch the video "We Need to talk about Sandy Hook" several months ago and agree that there are many issues around this case. That said no one dying, in my opinion , is not one of them. So even if I could download his stupid book why would I waste time reading it?

Dawn

[Tracy Riddle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k


This is how loony these people are. I would have punched him too.

And here is the Kubrick hoax I mentioned in my article:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/273600/f...n-landing/

This was a creation to counter the fact that NASA had found some wreckage of one of the Apollo missions on the moon's surface. Which is really powerful evidence we went. So they put this hoax together.

BTW, if you click through the links at the end of the article to the Sandy Hook stuff, they used the same techniques there. They manufacture evidence. See for yourself. Its a disgrace really. Because of what it does to the people doing really good work on these SCADS.

I can't download his "book"
which I have read is just a bunch of postings. I did watch the video "We Need to talk about Sandy Hook" several months ago and agree that there are many issues around this case. That said no one dying, in my opinion , is not one of them. So even if I could download his stupid book why would I waste time reading it?

Dawn

I did download the book and read about half of it. It was pretty terrible, and at least in the first half didn't address any of the real questions I have about Sandy Hook.

[Tracy Riddle]

Doesn't a nuclear explosion leave radioactivity?


Wouldn't a nuclear explosion at the bedrock base of the Tower have kinetically collapsed the building at that point? And doesn't this contradict the planted demolition charges theory?

We must keep in mind that we can only speculate about what kind of high-tech weapons the Pentagon and others have available to them today. Stuff that may sound like science fiction, but might be made public only 20 years from now.

[Albert Doyle]

Doesn't a nuclear explosion leave radioactivity?


Wouldn't a nuclear explosion at the bedrock base of the Tower have kinetically collapsed the building at that point? And doesn't this contradict the planted demolition charges theory?

We must keep in mind that we can only speculate about what kind of high-tech weapons the Pentagon and others have available to them today. Stuff that may sound like science fiction, but might be made public only 20 years from now.

Which doesn't really answer the point that such a device, if set off at the bedrock level, would have collapsed the towers from the base and not the upper areas as was seen.

[Tracy Riddle]

Doesn't a nuclear explosion leave radioactivity?


Wouldn't a nuclear explosion at the bedrock base of the Tower have kinetically collapsed the building at that point? And doesn't this contradict the planted demolition charges theory?

We must keep in mind that we can only speculate about what kind of high-tech weapons the Pentagon and others have available to them today. Stuff that may sound like science fiction, but might be made public only 20 years from now.

Which doesn't really answer the point that such a device, if set off at the bedrock level, would have collapsed the towers from the base and not the upper areas as was seen.

Oh yes. I was just talking generally about this whole subject of "what brought the towers down?"

[David Josephs]

Doesn't a nuclear explosion leave radioactivity?


Wouldn't a nuclear explosion at the bedrock base of the Tower have kinetically collapsed the building at that point? And doesn't this contradict the planted demolition charges theory?

We must keep in mind that we can only speculate about what kind of high-tech weapons the Pentagon and others have available to them today. Stuff that may sound like science fiction, but might be made public only 20 years from now.

Which doesn't really answer the point that such a device, if set off at the bedrock level, would have collapsed the towers from the base and not the upper areas as was seen.

I realize this is a WTF happened to Fetz thread and we all enjoy the 50+ year old ongoing conspiracy more than the 15 year old one which can trace its roots back thru that day in Nov.

As absurd as the Silly Bullet Theory our government wants us to once again suspend the laws of physics and believe what you're told - not your lying eyes and intelligence

Albert -

What we see/hear is
1) explosions
2) the heat travels thru the steel skeleton and along with cutting charges on the core and secondary columns removes the 90,000 tons of building below the "impact" floors.
3) the water in the concrete vaporizes as explosions shoot material hundreds of feet into the air and horizontally - instead of a pile of rubble 30 stories tall looking like a pancake stack, 1/3 of the material from the buildings vaporizes with the remaining material reduced to dust...
4) the building falls with no resistence from its skeleton at free fall speeds - THIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE IN ANY REALITY ON ANY PLANE OF EXISTENCE
5) the heat from these explosions keeps "ground zero" smoldering for months in a non oxygen environment - NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE WITHOUT RADIATION
6) the many, many forms of cancer developed by those at ground zero are not possible due to the causes offered - while the USGov claimes the smoke and debris would not be sufficient to cause these cancers
7) elevated levels of radiation in the ground and surrounding areas of the Pentagon which the report claims is from the vaporization of the airplane



If you look carefully at WTC1's collapse you'll see the spire and roof (just like WTC7) begin to fall into the building before the building around it starts to implode.
This is the result of these massive core columns basically vaporizing leaving the "meat" of the bulding with nothing to hold it up.

I came across these the other day... I can't confirm if they were photoshopped as I know I can make a missle look like this easily.

What I can say for sure is no 757 hit the pentagon






So a 757 hit the side of this building?

[Jim DiEugenio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k


This is how loony these people are. I would have punched him too.

And here is the Kubrick hoax I mentioned in my article:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/273600/f...n-landing/

This was a creation to counter the fact that NASA had found some wreckage of one of the Apollo missions on the moon's surface. Which is really powerful evidence we went. So they put this hoax together.

BTW, if you click through the links at the end of the article to the Sandy Hook stuff, they used the same techniques there. They manufacture evidence. See for yourself. Its a disgrace really. Because of what it does to the people doing really good work on these SCADS.

I can't download his "book"
which I have read is just a bunch of postings. I did watch the video "We Need to talk about Sandy Hook" several months ago and agree that there are many issues around this case. That said no one dying, in my opinion , is not one of them. So even if I could download his stupid book why would I waste time reading it?

Dawn

Dawn, please click through to the links in the Sandy Hook section of part 2. You will see that there is a ring of people who have CREATED evidence to make Sandy Hook look like a FEMA exercise. In other words, the "conspiracy" is the conspiracy. That is what shocked me. That Fetzer had fallen in with these people. But if you look at what happened with the JFK case, then it was a natural progression from Cinque, Hankey etc.


PS: To certain posters above, this is not a 9-11 thread. I imagine there is a 9-11 section on DPF. This is about what happened to Jim Fetzer and how that has ominous overtones.

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer responds to DiEugenio (Starts around 60 minute mark):



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuqDnPzDNIg