Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity

[Dawn Meredith]

Jack...you may have a point, but the way I see it, Nixon is the only man with the connections to actually pull the strings to kill Kennedy and cover it up. Remember, Nicon was actually in Dallas the day of the assassination, lied about it, and to his dying day, claimed he had no clue what he was doing on November 22. And remember, the Bay Of Pigs was Nixon's project, not Kennedy's. Kennedy went along with it after the fact, and after he realized that he had been duped, he started to draw up plans to destroy the CIA. Dulles (Warren Commisioner), Charles Cabell (Deputy Director of CIA), and Warren Commisioner John J. McCloy were all Nixon loyalists. Nixon was the CIA's action man in the Eisenhower admistration when the coup of Mossadegh went down, and had close connections with almost everyone who covered up the assassination. I understand where you're coming from, but Nixon was the only man who benefited from all of the Sixties assassinations. Just my two cents

James, Nixon did not have the power to keep the CIA from having him be forced to resign from office. He was set up, in part, by his own WH attorney: John Dean, into making what appeared to be "admissions" while in fact he was merely commenting on Dean's remarks.

Dawn

[Phil Dragoo]

Following the assassination of the 35th president, Dr. King (who also threatened the War and the rest of the agenda), Robert Kennedy (for reasons obscenely obvious), the so-called sponsors fell like terra cotta warriors:

Johnson whimpered when Cronkite called Tet for the North. Though Nixon ascended, he descended on an elevator operated by Company men.

Hoover's heart attack. Johnson's heart attack. Nixon's resignation.

Ford's fumble followed by Turner's Halloween trick or treat for 820 case officers--but the one-termer was replaced.

The saga continues, but it seems to be peopled by The Hollow Men.

As Jack notes, the play is not written by the actors, who are expendable.

The Globe Theater. All the world's a stage.

I am for Jack and Charles in chairs with a black backdrop. A discussion to make Frost-Nixon seem absolutely pedestrian by comparison.

Dylan offered that you may be president of the you-knighted states, but y'got t'please somebody.

I would add that Angleton et al are also footmen.

[Jack White]

Following the assassination of the 35th president, Dr. King (who also threatened the War and the rest of the agenda), Robert Kennedy (for reasons obscenely obvious), the so-called sponsors fell like terra cotta warriors:

Johnson whimpered when Cronkite called Tet for the North. Though Nixon ascended, he descended on an elevator operated by Company men.

Hoover's heart attack. Johnson's heart attack. Nixon's resignation.

Ford's fumble followed by Turner's Halloween trick or treat for 820 case officers--but the one-termer was replaced.

The saga continues, but it seems to be peopled by The Hollow Men.

As Jack notes, the play is not written by the actors, who are expendable.

The Globe Theater. All the world's a stage.

I am for Jack and Charles in chairs with a black backdrop. A discussion to make Frost-Nixon seem absolutely pedestrian by comparison.

Dylan offered that you may be president of the you-knighted states, but y'got t'please somebody.

I would add that Angleton et al are also footmen.

Nice assessment.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn,

Here's some of the evidence that strongly suggests that it may have been easier to control the outcome by faking planes than using real ones, even though I believe a real 757 was flown toward the Pentagon before flying over it as a distraction. Check out "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", too, which is accessible via google. (And thanks for that good wish!)

Jim

Elias Davidsson, "No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11"
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.ph...Itemid=107

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=16924

James H. Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

Regarding the speed of Flight 175, here's an interview with an aeronautical
engineer, which you can hear http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3

John Lear, among our nation's most distinguished pilots, even submitted
an affidavit in a lawsuit, which, along with many other statements he has
made, can be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum, using this link:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-on-the and
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-in-the

Here are some studies about the passenger lists, which are incoherent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5Fg9Nw9YA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qbhOUcO...re=related

Here are some more general discussions about the events of 9/11:

"Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/05/...ed-by.html

"New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html

"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Destruction"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...h-and.html

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...attle.html

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com, enter the title

Just a little problem with this, Jim. My son-in law's brother was there and saw the planes. He was working right up the street. I think pushing the no plane theory makes us sound nuts. It also smacks of disinformation in my opinion. I think many know people who saw the event, the second plane especially would be terribly insulted by this "view".

[James H. Fetzer]

Dawn, your son-in-law's brother cannot have seen what did not occur. I
am distressed that you apparently have not even taken the time to read
the links I have sent. Here is more from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Sorry to
say, some one appears to be pulling your leg. And if exposing falsehoods
and revealing truths about 9/11 is your definition of "disinformation", be
my guest. Andrew Johnson studied the "witness reports" collated by The
New York Times--there were about 500--which were all over the place. I
think it would be more responsible of you intellectually to actually study
the evidence I have provided. Take a look at the first fifteen slides of my
Powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?" on http://911scholars.org, for a
start, and let me know what about what I present you do not understand.

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:27:11 -0700 [10:27:11 AM CDT]
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
To: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Subject: NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Click here for full article...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraf...Deets.html

[James H. Fetzer]

Dawn,

Have you spoken with your son-in-law's brother about this? I would
be very interested in knowing exactly where he was standing when
he made these observations, with specific times and locations. The
belief that someone saw something live when they actually viewed
it on television can be very strong. Ronald Reagan famously thought
he had actually served in the US military when he had actually only
made some promotional appearances on film. But he believed them!

I am not saying the same is true of your brother, but since you seem
to have done no research at all on this matter--by reviewing what I
have sent above--it troubles me that you would take for granted what
you seem to have been told. I presume he did not SEE Flight 11 hit
the North Tower. Therefore, what he claims to have SEEN is Flight 175
hit the South. But the plane in the video is flying at an impossible speed,
its entry into the building violated Newton's laws of motion, and more.

Do you appreciate that, if this plane passed through its own length into
the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own
length in air, that means the building posed no more resistance to its path
of flight than air? It should have crumbled like an empty beer-can against
a brick wall (or a car crashing into a tree at high speed). If you doubt it,
check out the first fifteen frames of the Powerpoint on the Scholars web
site here: http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/...Aires.html

Jim

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim:
I asked you specific question and asked you NOT to send me links. That I was preparing for a huge jury trial and had no time for anything but that.
So of course you responded by doing the very thing I asked you not to do.
No I have not talked to Mike, he lives in NY. His brother and my daughter live in Lancaster Pa. I am relating what he told my daughter about what he saw.

Were YOU there? Have you talked with anyone who was?

I note that you did not comment on Bob's arrest...curious.

Back to work,
Dawn

[Peter Presland]

As a UK resident, I'm a bit reluctant to pitch in on this but, from my relatively lightweight study to date, there are at least two areas that I find VERY puzzling if we are to accept that the aircraft allegedly involved were indeed the scheduled flights claimed in the official narrative.

The most compelling one is that the engine parts agreed to have been found and photographs of which are in the public domain, could NOT have come from the aircraft they are supposed to have come from - no references to hand but they are easily locatable. Also all FOI requests for information about part numbers from alleged wrecked (black boxes etc) that I have seen reported have been declined on clearly spurious grounds. What ARE they trying to hide?

The other thing that niggles away at me is a compelling analysis of the video of the second tower strike. fairly simple frame by frame analysis seems to demonstrate that the time taken for the 'plane' to travel its own length - ending with the nose just touching the tower, is EXACTLY the same as the time taken for the tail section to vanish inside the tower from the moment the nose first touched - the impact causing no slowing whatsoever IOW.

Seems to me that both those issues beg for authoritative official response but instead - Silence.

[James H. Fetzer]

Dawn,

These exchanges are public and the links are not simply for you. I wrote to Bob about his arrest and expressed my support. Should I have sent a copy to you? When you make insinuations about "disinformation", don't expect me to take them lying down. I have spent a huge amount of time and effort into research on this, which you are either ignoring altogether or casually dismissing. I have interviewed a dozen or more experts about this matter (of video fakery and Flight 175), published articles about it, and know what I am talking about. You appear to accept a casual second or third-hand report over the laws of aerodynamics and the laws of motion. I am very disappointed in you. Surely you cannot conduct your legal cases in such an irresponsible fashion. I already interviewed Andrew Johnson about the witness reports collated by The New York Times, which were all over the place. Witness reports cannot take precedence over the laws of physics. If you don't know that, I can't imagine what you are doing practicing law. And Pilots have confirmed that the plane was traveling at an impossible speed. If you didn't want me to reply, why did you post at this time? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are off base about this.

Jim

Jim:
I asked you specific question and asked you NOT to send me links. That I was preparing for a huge jury trial and had no time for anything but that.
So of course you responded by doing the very thing I asked you not to do.
No I have not talked to Mike, he lives in NY. His brother and my daughter live in Lancaster Pa. I am relating what he told my daughter about what he saw.

Were YOU there? Have you talked with anyone who was?

I note that you did not comment on Bob's arrest...curious.

Back to work,
Dawn

[Peter Presland]

While I'm on the subject, this post on Washington's Blog is apposite too. It postulates a civil damages case where proof of negligence on the part of one of the airline security companies accused of allowing hijackers on board, turns on forensic proof that they were indeed the planes involved:

In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.
And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The rest of the post goes on to demonstrate that no such forensic evidence has been made available and that attempts to have it (if it exists) released have been uniformly stone-walled.

One of the most compelling issues is summed up thus:

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB’s air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency’s painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question’s purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.
However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

So Why? why is there such prickly official sensitivity - not to say bloody-minded obstinate refusal to engage at all - with these issues?

I personally do not care a toss who thinks I'm nutty for asking these sorts of questions. Everyone accused a certain innocent young lad of outrageous behaviour when he exclaimed that the Emperor was naked. In similar fashion, I intend to go where the evidence takes me and that evidence includes the very strange behaviour of officialdom when asked the most obvious of questions about these scheduled flights.

I'm certainly not riding some sort of hobby-horse on this. Neither do I claim to have studied these things exhaustively; but as far as I am concerned NO avenue of serious inquiry should be declared verboden - because the moment it IS so declared, that's the moment I for one am likely to start focussing hard on it.