The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer

[Anthony Thorne]

Ruppert's book is still worthwhile, even if you discount the Peak Oil thing.

The whole back and forth about WTC7 and the melting point of steel and free-fall speed and so on is a great way to bury the conversation in excessive technical details. I agree with Gage and his fellow engineers but I've seen vociferous reviewers on Amazon lambast recent 9/11 books because the volume in question didn't discuss the buildings, freefall, nanothermite, etc etc etc. In one case I responded with a link to the author's earlier book, also on 9/11, which was published by Trine Day, which did have a big chapter on the demolition issue, and which has a screenshot of glowing WTC molten steel on the back cover. Not good enough - the author (said the Amazon reviewer) was clearly disinfo and the book was not to be trusted. There's probably about 50 other issues and facts that could be used to attack the official 9/11 story, but controlled demolition (which I agree with btw) has become the big one, blocking out a lot of the rest of the debate. No wonder Fetzer likes dragging space lasers into the discussion.

[Matthew Poe]

Jim and Anthony,

You make good points. One doesn't have to buy into a researcher's whole program to find worth in their digging, facts can be valuable in themselves. Jim, I further credit your insight into that at the end of the day these information battles are on two fronts, not only challenging the official story and winning over a section of the public, but the more difficult job of getting a corrupt and complacent establishment to concede at least merit to the evidence brought forth. I credit Ruppert for seeing these barriers in advance, while I (who was actually at the towers that morning) was still trusting the status quo al-Qaeda did it scenario.

[Jim DiEugenio]

You were there that morning?

That must be an interesting story.

[R.K. Locke]

Matt:

That is not the only argument Mike made in his book of course. I mean the thing is 600 pages long. He begins the book with the very astute acknowledgement that there were about 3-5 war games going on that day. And that only two people knew about all of them, Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that this was a very good reason for the late response by air.

To my knowledge, Mike never backtracked on his book at all. In fact, he actually told me once that he thought Cheney was behind the whole thing. (Although I do agree he was wrong about Peak Oil.)

Mr. Locke, when you have been involved in these wars as long as I have, you will understand that the other side will always come up with arguments against even the most simple and visual indications of skull dugggery. This is why Mike did not like to argue in that direction. See, the HSCA did just that, they justified the SBT with a trajectory analysis guy from NASA.

So it took us decades to come up with something better than that, the fact that CE 399 was substituted, and we can prove that today. (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 224-26)

I mean you have seen the whole thing about steel being severely weakened at 1700 degrees right? And the magazine reply to Loose Change? Mike actually predicted the latter based on the JFK case.

Not once, here or elsewhere, have I advocated focussing upon that line of argument. On the contrary, I have repeatedly posted about the deleterious effects of focussing on technical minutiae of deep events to the exclusion of other, more persuasive and verifiable evidence. My point, which I thought was quite clear, is that it is not difficult to establish that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, and therefore to take a firm position on it. You said:

"I have learned through the years that in order to speak on these types of subjects one should have mastered them before one ventures forth.

I simply do not have the time to do that with these other cases."


I don't believe that you have to have mastered the subject of 9/11 to assert the belief that the official story was a lie, and I don't believe that it takes much time to get to grips with the fundamentals of this hugely important event.

[Matthew Poe]

You were there that morning?

That must be an interesting story.

The short version: I was inside the Federal Building (directly across the street from "ground zero" running north) when Tower Two came down. I ducked inside just in enough time, or surely I'd be dead. It seemed crazy that another one would come down, but I remember hearing what I likened to "a glacier cracking." Inside there was one guy, in a suit, not nearly as scared as the rest of us, who said matter-of-factly, "and here comes the second one." Then it sounded like we were being bombed. The lights cut out completely, or so much dust came in that the emergency generator lights became useless, and eventually a firefighter came in to rescue us, but it was so dark I got lost so I had to find my way outside. When I did, it was a choking hell--dark as night. There were a great deal of after explosions which were explained to me by some construction types I bumped into as "cars exploding."

I suspected nothing except Al-Qaeda lunatics with boxcutters and 747's for years. It was actual some study I did on the JFK assassination that made the 9/11 truth movement not seem so far out, not to mention some parallels I saw in the set-up of patsies etc.. Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

[Anthony Thorne]

Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

Amazing story Matt, though obviously very unpleasant to experience in person.

James mentioned he'd read CROSSING THE RUBICON and WAR ON TRUTH. That's better than many, and covers a lot of the discrepancies in the official story. Interestingly, Ahmed had written a volume three years earlier titled THE WAR ON FREEDOM, which came out in mid-2002. He was among the very first writers to question the event at length in a book, and stalwarts of the 9/11 research community later cited Ahmed's book as a useful resource. To publish it in June 2002, he must have begun writing it not long after the attacks. I'd be curious to know where he first got his data from, or what his sources were. Of course, any guy with a name like Nafeez Ahmed probably has his finger on the pulse of writers and contacts that more typically Anglo writers don't - witness Gore Vidal stating as much on the back of the WAR ON TRUTH volume.

In THE WAR ON FREEDOM, Ahmed actually named names that he softened in the later WAR ON TRUTH - I think Richard Myers was one. The full book is below as a PDF.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:The_War_on_Freedom.pdf

Peter Dale Scott's WAR CONSPIRACY reprint contains a final, added chapter based on an earlier article and lecture that he did a few years back - JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both. He dwells upon the things each event has in common - a long list, from suspects working as double-agents, to patsies named minutes after the event, FBI links to the drug trade, cover-up commissions working hard to bury the truth etc - and there are enough of them to make you suspect that whoever planned the latter was not unfamiliar with how prior groups might have gone about planning the former. Scott's recent trilogy of books - ROAD TO 9/11, AMERICAN WAR MACHINE and THE AMERICAN DEEP STATE, are worth a look. The three of them cover events from around the time of the OSS up to events today, and it makes for a good broad picture snapshot of how things like the JFK assassination came about, and what it led to. FWIW, Jonathan Elinoff, the documentary director who is tangled in events in Colorado with an unreleased documentary and various harassment campaigns from local legal and govt figures there, mentioned something that I gather he was told by the Homeland Security guys when they came to Colorado and he worked with them for a few weeks prior to Pat Sullivan's arrest - that the groups that run black ops for the highest bidder today almost surely have a better documented and written down summary of what the JFK assassination was than we do, simply as it's a useful model for how to run a successful conspiracy. The observation seemed telling when he pointed out that Sullivan - the high profile, decorated sheriff who eventually did time in the Colorado prison named after himself - was formerly a demolitions expert and diver who took part in the Bay of Pigs, and was a close personal friend of George H. W. Bush.

I persuaded Scott over email to allow a reprint of THE DALLAS CONSPIRACY for historical reasons - with 'reprint' being a free scan I was going to prepare and put online for free, and Scott asked if he could write a new intro for it - but the copy of THE DALLAS CONSPIRACY that a researcher told me he had available to copy turned out to be lost or non-existent.

[Lauren Johnson]

I suspected nothing except Al-Qaeda lunatics with boxcutters and 747's for years. It was actual some study I did on the JFK assassination that made the 9/11 truth movement not seem so far out, not to mention some parallels I saw in the set-up of patsies etc.. Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

Same here, Matt. I just thought the Bush administration was using the whole thing as an excuse to go to war, etc. A friend said, you gotta read CTR. I borrowed, then bought my own. My eyes started to open eleven years ago. Joining DPR gave me the context. I was definitely late to the party.

Thanks for your story. It's very powerful.

Would you happen to know what firefighters think now about 9/11? I understand they have been told to STFU.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

You were there that morning?

That must be an interesting story.

The short version: I was inside the Federal Building (directly across the street from "ground zero" running north) when Tower Two came down. I ducked inside just in enough time, or surely I'd be dead. It seemed crazy that another one would come down, but I remember hearing what I likened to "a glacier cracking." Inside there was one guy, in a suit, not nearly as scared as the rest of us, who said matter-of-factly, "and here comes the second one." Then it sounded like we were being bombed. The lights cut out completely, or so much dust came in that the emergency generator lights became useless, and eventually a firefighter came in to rescue us, but it was so dark I got lost so I had to find my way outside. When I did, it was a choking hell--dark as night. There were a great deal of after explosions which were explained to me by some construction types I bumped into as "cars exploding."

I suspected nothing except Al-Qaeda lunatics with boxcutters and 747's for years. It was actual some study I did on the JFK assassination that made the 9/11 truth movement not seem so far out, not to mention some parallels I saw in the set-up of patsies etc.. Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

Just to clarify: You witnessed the North Tower (WTC1) coming down, which was the first to be hit by a plane, but the second one to come down. Correct?
Have you been in the area before, did you see or hear any of the planes by any chance?
And just a minor detail, the planes were 767's, not 747's.

[Tracy Riddle]

You were there that morning?

That must be an interesting story.

The short version: I was inside the Federal Building (directly across the street from "ground zero" running north) when Tower Two came down. I ducked inside just in enough time, or surely I'd be dead. It seemed crazy that another one would come down, but I remember hearing what I likened to "a glacier cracking." Inside there was one guy, in a suit, not nearly as scared as the rest of us, who said matter-of-factly, "and here comes the second one." Then it sounded like we were being bombed. The lights cut out completely, or so much dust came in that the emergency generator lights became useless, and eventually a firefighter came in to rescue us, but it was so dark I got lost so I had to find my way outside. When I did, it was a choking hell--dark as night. There were a great deal of after explosions which were explained to me by some construction types I bumped into as "cars exploding."

I suspected nothing except Al-Qaeda lunatics with boxcutters and 747's for years. It was actual some study I did on the JFK assassination that made the 9/11 truth movement not seem so far out, not to mention some parallels I saw in the set-up of patsies etc.. Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

Just to clarify: You witnessed the North Tower (WTC1) coming down, which was the first to be hit by a plane, but the second one to come down. Correct?
Have you been in the area before, did you see or hear any of the planes by any chance?
And just a minor detail, the planes were 767's, not 747's.

Tower Two is the South tower, the first to collapse.

[Tracy Riddle]

I suspected nothing except Al-Qaeda lunatics with boxcutters and 747's for years. It was actual some study I did on the JFK assassination that made the 9/11 truth movement not seem so far out, not to mention some parallels I saw in the set-up of patsies etc.. Now, thinking about it it does seem like we were trapped inside a massive demolition site.

Same here, Matt. I just thought the Bush administration was using the whole thing as an excuse to go to war, etc. A friend said, you gotta read CTR. I borrowed, then bought my own. My eyes started to open eleven years ago. Joining DPR gave me the context. I was definitely late to the party.

Thanks for your story. It's very powerful.

Would you happen to know what firefighters think now about 9/11? I understand they have been told to STFU.

I suspected something wasn't right the morning of 9/11 with the complete failure of airport security (and cockpit security on the planes), NORAD/FAA and the jet interceptors. You could not just have everybody, at all levels, failing to do their jobs simultaneously. That's a coincidence theory too far. But for many years I was stuck in the "let it happen" camp.

Coming from an engineering family, and working at an engineering company on 9/11, I heard a lot of people in that field express their first gut reaction - "They used explosives to bring those buildings down" - but then they all went silent once the official story came out. There was so much fear and cognitive dissonance associated with that event. People practice denial as a survival mechanism.