01-02-2016, 04:20 AM
I've followed 9/11 research closely since 2001. Jim hasn't, but I believe his 9/11 commentary in the Fetzer Pt. 2 piece is pretty on target. The only thing I'd add is David Shayler (from what I saw at the time) was originally a relatively sincere researcher and whistleblower. He was appearing in credible documentaries on 7/7 and 9/11, and had a number of sober and well-argued things to say. Then at a certain point (and I've only seen the details of this discussed a few years ago on a UK forum) David Shayler sought treatment for a marijuana addiction. The doctor/specialist who he saw was named on a UK forum and offered hypnotherapy as part of the treatment. The UK forum members dug up biographical details on the doctor, and he was linked to the UK intelligence and security services. Lo and behold, when David reappeared in public (at a UK public forum on 9/11) he claimed he was the messiah and decided he now preferred to dress in women's clothing. Guys like Colby at the Education Forum were gleeful and posted pics of Shayler in drag, and even The Guardian couldn't avoid noting how Shayler's rapid descent into weirdness appeared to help the people he had been speaking out against beforehand. Shayler's endorsement of the holograms/no planes theory began sometime after that. His theories were nowhere near as extreme beforehand. Shayler ended up squatting with some homeless people in a house in suburban Britain, and there are photos online from the day when the cops came and forcibly evicted him and threw him out into the street. Regardless of why, however, his commentary on 9/11 went from helpful, to unhelpful, much in the way that Jim described.
Stephen Jones tore Judy Wood's space laser articles to shreds in a couple of academic pieces, but Wood still gets named as a credible researcher by activists on Facebook and every second Amazon and YouTube listing related to 9/11 has 'reviewers' popping up suggesting people read Wood's book. A quick and dirty method to dumb down the movement. A documentary on Jones came out on YouTube a few years ago, and is linked here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE
The Judy Wood space laser stuff serves the same purpose as that book that came out a year or two ago suggesting that JFK was whacked by an accidental secret service shot intended for Oswald. Newcomers take it at face value - although I think 'newcomers' to 9/11 debate will obviously also hear Wood's theories and think that 9/11 researchers have gone around the twist.
Fetzer is not a pleasant topic to discuss, but I think it serves a purpose to point out disinfo or plain misleading research when it appears. Fetzer's positions may well stem from stubbornness but the end result is I believe harmful, and Jim's essays are a constructive response.
Stephen Jones tore Judy Wood's space laser articles to shreds in a couple of academic pieces, but Wood still gets named as a credible researcher by activists on Facebook and every second Amazon and YouTube listing related to 9/11 has 'reviewers' popping up suggesting people read Wood's book. A quick and dirty method to dumb down the movement. A documentary on Jones came out on YouTube a few years ago, and is linked here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE
The Judy Wood space laser stuff serves the same purpose as that book that came out a year or two ago suggesting that JFK was whacked by an accidental secret service shot intended for Oswald. Newcomers take it at face value - although I think 'newcomers' to 9/11 debate will obviously also hear Wood's theories and think that 9/11 researchers have gone around the twist.
Fetzer is not a pleasant topic to discuss, but I think it serves a purpose to point out disinfo or plain misleading research when it appears. Fetzer's positions may well stem from stubbornness but the end result is I believe harmful, and Jim's essays are a constructive response.