Tuesday, March 22, 2011



Jim Fetzer (with Mike Pincher)

At first consideration, the question sounds very odd on its face. How could Zapruder have not taken “the Zapruder film”? So here is some background. As many readers may be aware, I organized a JFK research group in 1992 of the most highly-qualified persons to ever study the case, including a world authority on the human brain, who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who was also an M.D. and board-qualified in radiation oncology; another M.D. who had been present in Trauma Room #1 when JFK was brought in for care and, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, in Trauma Room #2; a legendary photo-analyst, who had testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and later advised Oliver Stone on the production of "JFK"; and another Ph.D. in physics, this time with a specialization in electromagnetism, which includes the properties of light and of optics and images of moving objects.

We discovered that the autopsy X-rays had been altered to conceal a massive blow-out at the back of the head; that another person's brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives had been substituted for that of JFK; and that the most famous footage in history, the Zapruder film, had been recreated by the removal of some frames and by the introduction of others, using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects applied to original footage to create a new film. I organized and moderated the first symposium on the authenticity of the film in Dallas in 1996 and would subsequently organize and moderate a conference on this subject in Duluth in 2003. (The conference is now available on YouTube in 66 segments, under the heading, “Zapruder Fakery”.) Later that year, I would publish my third collection of studies by experts on different aspects of the case, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), one of the greatest photographic scams of history.

Which film is “the Zapruder film”?

This may sound like a lot to swallow, so I will break it down for accessibility. One of the first results of the Zapruder Film Conference was the discovery that the films currently available to the public, including David Lifton's "Z Film" (undated), the Macmillan CD (1993), Robert Groden's "The Assassination Films" (1995), and MPI's "Image of an Assassination" (1998), differ significantly in the amount of information they provide. It we take the MPI version, which is the most complete, as the base of 100% (with a total of 411,305 pixels), the least complete is only about half of that:

FRAME/ WIDTH (pixels) HEIGHT (pixels) AREA (pixels) AREA/MPI

MPI (frames):...671...............484.............324,764...............78.9%
Sprocket area:..273................317...............86,541.............100.0%

These considerations suggest that the MPI version is the best available for research. Somewhat surprisingly, however, even MPI's "Image of an Assassination" (1998) has frames missing and others out of order. MPI’s version does not include frames 155 and 156 or frames 208, 209, 210, and 211; it has reversed frames 331 and 332; and it is also missing (what ought to be) frames 341, 350, and even (the last frame) 486.

As it happens, John P. Costella, Ph.D., has produced a fresh, new version of the film, which overcomes all of these deficiencies and introduces improvements never before seen in any other version of the film, namely: corrections for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion; the inclusion of the so-called "ghost panels"; and masking of open sprocket holes to make information more accessible. In the interest of advancing the frontiers of knowledge, education, research, science and inquiry, this new, improved version is being made available to the public at no charge and is accessible at The New Zapruder Film Frames

Here is an example of frame 317 from Costella’s version, which is of special interest. When a frangible (or "exploding") bullet entered his right temple, it not only set up shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head but it also blew open a skull-flap on the right side of his head, which some have mistaken for the blow-out itself. As we shall see, they are not the same, nor should either of these genuine effects be confounded with the whitish "blob", which, as Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert, explained to Noel Twyman, was painted in. (See "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox".)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Skull-Flap is Visible but the Blow-Out is Not in Frame 317

Notice, especially, that while a skull flap is extending from the right side of his head, which is also visible in the HSCA diagram and photograph below, like them, no blow-out to the back of his head is visible, even though it can be seen in frame 374 below. A stabilized real-time version is also available at assassinationscience.com toward the bottom of the home page. The frames and the stabilized version can be down-loaded for further study, where this is the best available version for serious research.

Was it Copyrightable?

The study of the film has been inhibited by the control that has been exercised over it by a private company and now by The 6th Floor Museum. A brief I commissioned by Mike Pincher, J.D., an attorney from California, was published as "The Zapruder Film: “No” to Copyright Protection". He contends—with complete justification, in my opinion—that the film was never entitled to copyright from the start. There are two separate questions that have to be addressed. The first is that if the film is genuine as an accurate depiction of an historical event, is it entitled to copyright protection? The second is that if the film has been altered and is no longer an accurate film of an historical event, especially when it is marketed as genuine, does it deserve copyright protection? Interestingly, the answer to both questions seems to be the same, “No!” It appears obvious to me that this abuse of copyright has been deliberate to inhibit the serious study of the extant film, which has become an expensive proposition. In certain respects, the question of whether the film is properly subject to copyright is even more intriguing than whether a reworked film is deserving of such a protection.

Even if the film were judged to be authentic and complete, there are good reasons why it still should not be entitled to copyright protection. The predominant one is the 1990’s federal legislation popularly known as “The JFK Records Act” that was a direct countermand to the veil of secrecy pervading the subject matter (arguably already placing the film in the public domain), but also because of language in judicial case law. In 1998, the government purchased the film for $16,000,000, but did not also acquire its copyright. As Pincher argues in his study, while one 1968 federal district court case called it copyrightable, it is highly doubtful, based on subsequent case law, that even the Federal Second Appellate Circuit would agree. More significantly, it is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would support it. Pincher contends—and I agree—that the film was never properly copyrightable to begin with, both because of its great public interest as a news event, and, no doubt more importantly, in that the assassination cannot be properly understood without public access to this source in toto. The idea of the event and its precise Z-film depiction cannot be properly treated separately. Even if the film were authentic, it would not deserve copyright protection.

And if the Film is Fake?

In considering the issue of copyright, a sharp line must be drawn between not only fiction and non-fiction, but between non-fiction and the recording of an historical event. There is no latitude of expression for the latter. Substantial similarity, as in the case of Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, has no bearing. An historical record per se is either accurate or not, has no creative value otherwise and cannot be tampered with. The Zapruder family and assignees have no entitlement of copyright protection relative to the extant film, when the film that came out of Zapruder's camera and what we see in that film are two different depictions—and, indeed, depictions that are drastically different—and by design. The Kennedy assassination can only be accurately studied based upon the original film as a whole, with its expression appreciated as a whole uncompromised by change or alteration. Even individual frames are incapable of doing the occasion justice. Privilege only attaches to the real film seen as a whole in real time. Thus, no copyright protection can attend to the extant version of the film.

Those who study the individual frames or the stabilized version of the film archived at assassinationscience.com may notice a feature that they have probably not seen in earlier versions, in particular, the "ghost panels" that surround the sprocket holes These are double-exposures due to the design of the camera that was originally used by Zapruder to take the original film, which link one frame to another and cannot be duplicated. When those who were recreating the film had made the content changes they desired, then had to re-shoot most of its frames in a laboratory to recreate the ghost panels, in the absence of which the deception involved in its re-editing would have been immediately apparent. It is for this reason that the film as a whole had to be recreated, which makes the film as a whole a "fabrication". That does not mean that none of it is real, but only that it takes a great deal of investigation and study to separate the authentic from the fake parts, as I am about to explain. But the answer to the intriguing question with which we began should be evident: Zapruder did not film the Zapruder film for the simple reason that no one took a film that was revised!

How we know it’s fake

The reason the article, “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, is so very important, therefore, is that we now have new proof of its alteration from an unexpected source. Clint Hill, a Secret Service agent on the Kennedy detail, is, along with Jack and Jackie, the most conspicuous figure in the Zapruder film, where he is the only agent who responded in an attempt to protect Jackie. What Clint has to tell us about his actions at the time—which he has maintained for 47 years!—contradicts what we see in the film. Another agent on the opposite side of the limousine, John Ready, also started to respond when the first shots were fired, but was called back by Emory Roberts, Agent in Charge of the Secret Service Detail in Dallas. This makes Roberts one of the principal suspects in setting JFK up for the hit, where we have discovered more than 15 indications that that was the case. The other key players were the driver, William Greer, who, unbelievable as it may sound, actually pulled the limo to the left and to a complete halt to make sure that JFK would be killed, and Floyd Boring, the Assistant Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, who was not in Dealey Plaza, as Vincent Palamara has also explained in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

That Clint Hill has been saying the same thing for 47 years might make this sound like "old news". But the discovery that Clint had been saying this for so long only became apparent when John Costella viewed the video of what he had to say at a Warwicks bookstore, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYpY8zI_wwA , only this past December. John took a closer look and recognized that Clint had been saying the same thing, but that its importance for the authenticity of the Zapruder film had up until now gone unnoticed. Mike Pincher has also pointed out to me that, insofar as the film appears to have been recreated at a highly-classified photographic and film laboratory run by the CIA at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, NY, the extant film appears to be a product of the government. Products of the government, which are financed at taxpayer expense, however, like other government documents, studies, and reports, do not qualify for copyright protection. Ironically, the discovery that the film has been faked also nullifies any arrangements that even the government itself has made regarding its copyright protection. There thus appear to be a variety of grounds for denying copyright to the extant film, which Mike Pincher has explained.

Resistance to Zapruder fakery

Among those in the JFK research community who have been the most outspoken in opposition to Zapruder film fakery are Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson. Robert Groden has a vast collection of JFK memorabilia, including what appears to be an early copy of the film. Josiah Thompson published his book SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), based upon the study of the film to which he had access through a special arrangement with LIFE magazine. In my opinion, they both have serious conflicts of interest in being objective about the proof we have adduced, since the value of Groden's collection and the significance of Thompson's book would be seriously compromised were the fabrication of the film to become widely accepted by the public. The arguments that they have given for its authenticity, moreover, have not withstood critical scrutiny. Josiah, for example, has argued that it would have been impossible to fake the film because of an unbroken chain of custody from Dallas to LIFE magazine and after, a claim that was recently dismantled by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a civilian panel created by the JFK Records Act.

Its former senior analyst for military affairs, Douglas Horne, has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), in which he traces the discoveries that occurred during its years of operation in declassifying more than sixty thousand documents and records that had been withheld from the public by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service and other government agencies. Among those discoveries was that one version of the Zapruder film was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and another on Sunday, 24 November 1963. The first was an 8mm film that had been developed in Dallas. The second was a 16mm film that had been developed in Rochester. There were five physical properties of the strips of celluloid which distinguished them, as I have explained in "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". So the chain of custody argument, which Thompson, especially, has championed, has no merit.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Both the Skull-Flap and the Blow-Out are Visible in Frame 374

In addition, we have discovered a great many changes in the content of the extant version of the film from what it should have shown, based upon studies of the medical evidence, the physical evidence, and the reports of a large number of eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza, none of whom, interestingly, reported observing the dramatic, back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that is so striking in the film. Clint also describes peering into a hole in the back of JFK's head, a gaping, fist-sized blow-out, which by itself contradicts the official X-rays, some of the autopsy photographs and diagrams, and early frames of the Zapruder film, where, as a new group of Hollywood experts has found, it was (crudely) painted over in black. Some years ago, on the hunch that the conspirators who were redoing the film might have spent so much time concentrating on those early frames, especially 313-317, that they could have overlooked the wound in later frames, I made a search and found that it is clearly visible in frame 374, as I emphasized in HOAX. So the simplest proof that the film has been altered is that the head wound is visible in some frames but has been concealed in others, which is something that you can confirm for yourself.

Algorithmic Proofs of Fakery

Here is how you can prove for yourself that what I am telling you is true. Go to the article, “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, then do as follows:

(1) Scroll down to frame 374, where you can see the blow out in his head;

(2) Compare that with the HSCA photo and diagram, the next image in line;

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(3) Do you observe that the skull flap is present but the blow-out is not?

(4) Scroll down to the witnesses reporting the location of the blow-out;

(5) Do you see that it corresponds with the blow out seen in frame 374?

(6) Scroll down to the X-ray on the left and "Area P" defined on the right.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(7) Do you see where "Area P" closely resembles the blow-out in frame 374?

(8) Do you see where "Area P" is unusually bright in the X-ray on the left?

(9) Scroll down to the diagrams of the head wound by Charles Crenshaw, M.D.

(10) Do you see how his diagram agrees with frame 374 and X-ray "Area P"?

(11) Go to the Zapruder film as individual frames or in its stabilized version.

(12) Compare what you see in frames 313-317 with what you see in frame 374.

Since the blow out is visible in frame 374 but not in earlier frames, such as 313-317, what does that tell you? Hollywood experts have determined it (the blow out) was painted over in black in those early frames, which means that the film has been altered. The limo stop was also taken out, where we have around 60 witnesses who reported seeing it dramatically slow or come to a complete stop. But the car had to slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop. Notice in the section entitled, "The Limo Stop", I quote witnesses—Toni Foster, Billy Lovelady, Roy Truly, and Mrs. Earle Cabell—who report seeing the limo stop with their own eyes. Is there anything you question about what they are reporting? But if the limo came to a stop—and all four of the motorcycle patrolmen said the same thing—since the stop is not in the film, what happened to it? Did it simply disappear? Or did it have to be removed when the film was reworked, because it was an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit? Which is the principal reason the Zapruder film had to be faked, the ramifications of which clearly extend far beyond recreation of the film.

The Commission’s Dereliction

Indeed, there are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit, including leaving two Secret Service agents (who would have been with the limo) at Love Field, placing the vehicles in the wrong order (with the President’s limo first, when it should have been preceded by those of the Mayor of Dallas and of the Vice President), removing the flat-bed truck that should have accompanied the President’s vehicle to provide for press and television coverage), not welding down the manhole covers, not covering the open windows, ordering the 112th Intelligence Unit to “stand down”, allowing the crowd to spill out into the street, taking a turn of more than 90°, changing the motorcade route three days before the event, reducing the motorcycle escort to four and directing them not to ride forward the rear wheels, not responding after bullets began to be fired, pulling the limo to the left and a stop to make sure JFK would be killed, getting bucket and sponge to wash the brains and blood off the limo at Parkland Hospital before he had even been pronounced dead; and more that involve the autopsy X-rays and photos, which suggests the direction in which responsibility lies for the assassination of JFK.

Greer’s bringing the limo to a halt and Kellerman’s silence and inaction over blatant violations of protocol for which he was responsible confirms both of their roles among the crucial conspirators. Moreover, whether someone personally finds Hill credible or not does not detract from impugning the integrity of the Warren Commission itself. Clint Hill’s account so severely contradicts the Zapruder film that the commission had a duty to inquire of him, which it failed to do. Thus, neither the accuracy of the film nor the integrity of the Secret Service appear to have been of the least concern to the commission, which was operating—with tacit or overt complicity of the FBI and its own staff—to substantiate the predetermined conclusion that Oswald was “the lone gunman” regardless of truth. His testimony is sufficient, at the least, to either establish that the film wasn't what it was presented to be (which eliminates it as authoritative evidence for assassination research) or that he, as a member of the president's protective detail, was lying and should have been removed as an agent or criminally prosecuted or both. The corruption of the Warren Commission becomes all the more glaring from these reflections on what it did not do as well as what it did.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella, Ph.D. His latest--and 29th--book is The Place of Probability in Science.

Mike Pincher, J.D., of Palmdale, CA, currently practices as a trial attorney in the Los Angeles area, graduated from SUNY Albany and earned his Doctor of Jurisprudence at San Fernando Valley (now LaVerne) College of Law.

Monday, March 21, 2011

A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)

A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)

Allan Weisbecker


Your recent bloggo-sphere conflict with Kevin Ryan did not surprise me – I’ve had my own problematical interaction with Doctor Ryan (coincidentally, with Bob Parry as well); somehow I feel qualified to comment here.

As you likely know, Doctor Ryan has been doing investigative work regarding how the explosives came to be placed in the WTC towers (plus Building 7), i.e., in-depth histories of the security companies and personnel involved, and so forth.

As you also know, I’ve recently published an ambitious essay which covers several subjects, as is suggested by the title: ‘On the Deep State, Denial, 9/11, and the Legend of ‘Maverick’ FBI Agent John O’Neill’. And that’s just the subtitle, the main title being, ‘Orwell’s Optimism’. I know: Whoa!

Although I’d like to think that the heart of the piece is an expose of a faulty system of thought/inquiry, call it a ‘paradigm problem’ (hinted at by the ‘Denial’ plus the reference to Orwell in the title), my practical aim is to explode the myth of FBI Agent John O’Neill, who was supposedly killed on 9/11, and is considered ‘the real thing’ and a martyr by many of the truth persuasion – to my knowledge, the possibility that O’Neill was part of the 9/11 conspiracy has never even been considered; in fact, the very idea borders on ‘truther heresy’ – a concept with which, unfortunately, I am of late becoming very familiar.

I believe my essay lays bare the evidence and logic underlying my thesis that O’Neill was indeed one of the bad guys and almost certainly faked his death that day. But my point in bringing this up here is that Doctor Ryan, given his subject of deep inquiry – how the WTC security system was so massively breached that tons of explosive/incendiary materials could have been installed throughout the skeletal infrastructure – should in theory be extremely interested in my findings, since John O’Neill was the head of security of the whole WTC complex for the three weeks preceding 9/11. (The ‘O’Neill myth’ is built upon the disinformation/misinformation – what clearly started as disinformation became misinformation when repeated by the victims of the disinformer – that O’Neill started work on 9/11. He in fact started work on August 23rd.)

As most 9/11 researchers know (and as Doctor Ryan has pointed out), the two to three weeks prior to 9/11 were fraught with what, in retrospect, one can only describe as ‘suspicious’ goings on at the complex: power downs (one of which was described by a knowledgeable tenant as ‘unprecedented’), sudden ‘elevator maintenance’, along with the suspension of security surveillance and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs; the sorts of doings that would fit with finalizing prep work (if only a systems’ check) commensurate with the complexities of a top-down disintegration engineered to pass for a gravity-driven collapse (if only to the disinformed/misinformed masses).

To put the matter rhetorically: Assuming, as most of us do, that 9/11 was a hugely complex, intricately planned black op – and keeping in mind that ‘terrorists’ (aided by the FBI) already tried to blow up the WTC – is there even a modicum, even a theoretical molecule, of a possibility that the plan would include giving a ‘real thing’ anti-terror expert the job of uncovering a ‘bomb plot’ at the last minute, when the explosives were already in place?

In fact, would it not make sense that the WTC Head of Security would have been charged (by the deep state perps) with the vital task of seeing that all went smoothly in those last weeks before zero hour?

Jim, I would hope that an epiphanic light bulb is lighting up over the head of anyone who happens to read this, as I believe (from your response) it went off over yours, but my point in outlining this information here (there’s much, much more) relates to Doctor Ryan.

A word search of his WTC security-breach analysis reveals several mentions of O’Neill’s name but no actual information. In fact, Doctor Ryan implies that O’Neill started work on September 10th, which is incorrect, and the reason for believing that O’Neill was ‘set up’ to be killed during the attacks.

Odd to get that wrong, given the intensity of the research implied by the short-book length of Doctor Ryan’s tome. Hoping to contribute to what I consider a vital area of the 9/11 story, back in early January I emailed Doctor Ryan my essay, including my cv (my background would arose curiosity in most people) and a short synopsis with the cover letter. Doctor Ryan swiftly replied, saying he would soon give my essay a look. That was the last I heard from him, although weeks later, on March 1st, I wrote reminding him of our previous correspondence and the relevance (to him) of my work on the O’Neill matter; I saw fit to mention that my lengthy essay possibly contained non-O’Neill-related assertions that he might not agree with; I directed him to the page with the O’Neill nitty-gritty.

No response.

A digression is in order.

Spending most of my time down here in outback Mexico working on my film, I have only very spotty Internet, and my outside research (for my film) being of a certain slant (‘truth’ related, to be sure), it was only back in the fall that I became aware of Doctor Ryan’s intolerance, even outright belligerence, towards researchers that he – for reasons that are often nothing short of mystifying – disagrees with.

I can still recall the moment back then when I realized that all was not well with the good Doctor. Having been very aware of his early work and commitment, plus his personal sacrifices (career loss, etc.), I came across an essay of his excoriating those who are wont to point out that no large plane (Flight 77 or any 757 or its ilk) hit the Pentagon.

WTF? Talk about a wrinkled brow! I was so taken aback by Doctor Ryan’s erudite, meticulously crafted balderdash that I at first thought the author might be a different ‘Kevin Ryan’ than the one who in the name of truth had stood up to the powers that be at Underwriters Laboratories and who had changed his life to pursue the facts of 9/11. This Kevin Ryan sounded like some blatant deep state stooge/sock puppet.

I kid you not. I spent google-strokes making sure it was the same guy.

I have come to see certain aspects of the 9/11 attacks as pure and perfect examples of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ Syndrome. Building 7 of course comes immediately to mind, but for me the obvious fact that no airliner hit the Pentagon is in a class by itself, not just due to the ‘bigness’ of the event itself (in fact, for sheer mammothity, Building 7 wins out), but because it does not take a ‘leap of reason’ to ‘see the lie’ for what it is, which Building 7 does – to see that lie one must resort to ‘causation theory’, or – god forbid – have a modicum of imaginative ability (to picture the infrastructure during collapse); hence we have the maddening ‘I’m not an engineer’ or ‘I need more information’ or other ‘appeals to ignorance’ regarding 7’s collapse, which are difficult to respond to (due to their utter nonsensicalness).

With the Pentagon/airliner issue, however, all one (or any child) need do is look at the photographs taken before the fa├žade collapsed. (And then, after the collapse, there are those showing no airliner within the building, but those are of the ‘icing on the cake’ variety.) For me to go further here in explanation is to fall into the ‘misdirection trap’, which, unlike Doctor Ryan, I refuse to do: Anyone looking at the photos and then ‘needing more information’ can legitimately be queried, as a Brooklynite truther buddy of mine tends to do: ‘Whaddare ya, frickin’ blind?’

Some things are actually pretty simple.

(Pilots for 9/11 Truth and, especially, the CIT boys have aptly explained how and why people saw a big airliner flying toward the Pentagon that day. To them I say, ‘Great and thank you for the good work!’, but I didn’t need you guys to know what did not happen that day – since I’m not frickin’ blind. Again, I will not fall into the misdirection trap by elaborating.)

My emailed caveat to Doctor Ryan – and my directing him to the relevant O’Neill page – was based on a mention of the Pentagon/airliner issue in my essay. I assumed that a scientist, indeed a Ph.D.-ed one at that, could separate issues, especially if they were directly differentiated by a respectful ‘fellow researcher’.

No response from the good Doctor. Although I asked him to please just zero in on my essay’s O’Neill information, it’s possible that Doctor Ryan is ignoring my work out of pettiness over my Pentagon opinion; this would peg him as small of mind, so no need to deal with that possibility. (If he is indeed that small of mind then my point in writing this letter is made, if in a backassward way.)

The other possible root of his ignoring my information is the ‘ego/denial issue’ (dealt with in depth in my essay), which, ironically (for him) Doctor Ryan himself well defines with respect to Bob Parry: According to Doctor Ryan, Parry refuses to properly deal with 9/11 because it would mean that as a journalist he’s spent the last decade missing the most important story of his life; hence we witness Parry’s denial, nay, his Orwellian doublethink (denial on steroids) – it takes more than simple denial to come up with his ‘spacious atrium equals freefall collapse’ lollapalooza, among other utter stupidities.

In other words, Doctor Ryan’s failure to examine in detail the doings of the ‘counterterrorism maverick’ who oversaw the WTC complex security for the three weeks before zero hour, and who was face-to-face given his job by two men on everyone’s short list of active co-conspirators – Larry Silverstein and Jerome Hauer (O’Neill’s ‘drinking buddy’) – would put him close to, if not quite firmly in, Parry’s category of journalists who missed a ‘Biggie’.

Doctor Kevin Ryan – yes, that Kevin Ryan, the scientist, the Truther Scientist Kevin Ryan – appears to be ignoring evidence because it does not fit his thesis.

Assuming, as I am here, that my essay ‘nails it’ re O’Neill, what other explanation have we? If I was somehow mistaken in my pegging of O’Neill as a colluder, why wouldn’t Doctor Ryan merely say so, if only in a terse email?

(Jim, you’ve read my essay but in the event that other folks who have not done so come across this letter: Aside from yourself, a short list of those who have endorsed my O’Neill findings include David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Craig Ranke, Sander Hicks, and Bob McIlvaine; there are a slew of others.)

Dispiriting, no? It gets worse.

I’ll further digress to a generalization here, but only to buttress my above thesis that Doctor Ryan is himself a stone-caster not without the same sin he has the gall to berate you for: the one against reason.

I say buttress my thesis because Doctor Ryan is far from the first to ignore the ‘all the evidence’ requirement for validating an explanatory hypothesis (in this case, how the ‘explosives’ came to be in the WTC) – assuming, as I (and others) do, that my O’Neill information is ‘evidence’. This past fall I sent a summation of my O’Neill research to Alex Jones’s Infowars.com. No response, even after multiple submissions. (As with Doctor Ryan, my work apparently didn’t even disserve a ‘pass’.) Wanting to get my research ‘out there’, I then joined Jones’s Prison Planet Forum and attempted to start a thread with my information.

Jones immediately banned me permanently from his (public) Forum.

At first, aside from disappointed, I was mystified. Then it hit me. Jones, in his films as well as on his website and radio show, has always lionized John O’Neill; Jones as much as anyone, is a victim of the disinformation surrounding ‘The Legend of John O’Neill’.

Ego. (The hypocrisy of my being censored by this ‘info-warrior’ is implicit.) Alex Jones does not like to be wrong about anything. So, like Doctor Ryan in this case, he simply ignores problematical evidence.

Not long after the Jones debacle, I contacted James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, whose podcast I’d for a long time considered the best of its kind. After seeing some of my work, including a rough cut of the film I’m working on, Corbett asked me to do a podcast interview. I gladly agreed; as I say, I respect the guy and take his work very seriously. (In spite of what follows, I still highly recommend Corbettreport.com.)

A matter of days after the podcast invitation, I sent Corbett my essay.

I never heard from him again. In spite of entreaties as to, ‘What’s up?’, no explanation, no apology, no ‘bye-bye’. Corbett, like Jones, has often glorified O’Neill, and, like many of the truth persuasion, believes that O’Neill had been set up for murder on 9/11. (As my essay shows, nothing could be further from the truth.)

But what’s my point, at least so far? Twofold. Doctor Kevin Ryan, in terms of background and scientific integrity, has no right to excoriate you. (More on this in a minute.)

In a more general sense, very unfortunately the truth ‘movement’ appears to be going the way of so many others that start out with some degree of ‘purity’ and then in effect fall apart from within, due to the very deficiencies of human nature that its proponents are supposed to defend against. (The ‘green’ movement being by far the best example.)

I speak of ego (as in ‘egotist’ or ‘egomaniacal’) and the denial-evolving-to-doublethink (denial’s ‘Big Brother’) that ego often depends upon for survival – say, when someone points out an obvious truth that pops (or at least deflates) your own balloon.

But back on point, for I’m not done with Doctor Ryan. Jim, although you have defended yourself well in your blog-reply, given the vitriol of his attack on you, and his adding insult to injury by entitling it ‘Why Robert Parry Is Right About 9/11 Truth’ (no matter Doctor Ryan’s ‘thinking’, to title a 9/11 piece thus is just downright frickin’ stupid), and given Doctor Ryan’s own imperfections, I have a few comments to add.

First, as you point out, there’s his misquoting you by leaving out the ‘virtually’ in your sentence ‘virtually every claim made by the government about 9/11 is provably false.’ Aside from outright dishonesty, Doctor Ryan is displaying his pettiness, his nastiness here, and also his ignorance. As David Ray Griffin has pointed out – I believe in his critique of the 9/11 Commission Report – taken in context, indeed every word (let alone claim) in that Report – the government’s official ‘official story’ – is a lie. So even without the ‘virtually’, your statement is at least arguably true. Given that there is so little in your essay that is in any way arguable – it’s a good summation of 9/11 truth – I sense that Doctor Ryan’s diatribe is motivated by less than pure motives.

Although far be it from me to fathom the thought processes of another writer (let alone one with a Piled-Higher-and-Deeper after his name), I’d bet a valued possession that ego is somewhere in Doctor Ryan’s motive mix. (Could it be as lame as this: Not only did you beat Doctor Ryan to the Parry-response punch, but you did so via Michel Chossudovsky’s prestigious Globalresearch.ca website? Given Doctor Ryan’s two-bit jabs at you, frankly it would not surprise me if he’s just out flat jealous.)

Aside from the above misquotation dishonesty, Doctor Ryan leads off with an astounding assertion: ‘The Fetzer article is an example of shameful, self-aggrandizing theft and falsehood.’

Doctor Ryan – and I’ll address you directly from here – I would never deny that a writer, any writer, myself included, might be motivated (to write) by ‘self-aggrandizement’, in the broad sense, which, to give you the benefit of the doubt (a concept you may be unfamiliar with), I assume you used in your verbal assault. (Surely you didn’t mean that Jim Fetzer wrote his essay for financial self-aggrandizement?!)

But theft and falsehood? Since you do have a Ph.D., Doctor Ryan, you can’t be completely new to the writing game, but I assure you it feels like you don’t understand that words really do have meaning. You have, in public print, called another writer a thief and a liar.

This bears repeating, with a twist: Jim Fetzer takes the time and expends the energy to defend the very movement you claim to be dedicated to and which was ignorantly and falsely denigrated by a well-known journalist and you burn precious words calling him a thief and a liar? You do understand that you did that, don’t you?


As Jim Fetzer points out (it bears repeating), you are obviously unaware that nowadays it’s a given for a ‘truth’ essayist to sum up the research we are all intimately familiar with and refer to it with the general pronoun ‘our’, meaning folks who understand what 9/11 was. Not since The New Pearl Harbor has anyone tried readers’ patience with a constant reminder that the writer did not actually do the original research.

Do you, Doctor Ryan, in a short-length essay, see fit to credit every fact or event-transpiration with a source note? (The first plane hit at 8:46, did it, sir? Really? How do you know that? What’s your source?)



Since 90% of Jim Fetzer’s essay is of the 9/11 Truth 101 variety – sort of a Cliff Notes of one of David Ray Griffin’s early books, say – stuff most of us have known for years, I’ll not take the time to nit pick as you have done. But since you seem obsessed with uncertainty about the Pentagon/airliner issue, I’ll briefly break my no-misdirection rule, and while I’m at it breach another subject you seem interested in: the presence of deep state assets, or moles, within the truth movement. Here’s a particularly revealing paragraph from your diatribe:

‘The evidence we have suggests that Fetzer and his colleagues took the opportunity of the heightened mainstream media coverage around the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to engage in an evil parlor game of disruption, similar to the COINTELPRO operations of the past and the kind of “cognitive infiltration” supported by members of the Obama Administration. There is other evidence for this possibility, in that Fetzer is known to be an expert on the use and value of false information.’

Not only is Jim Fetzer a thief and a liar, but now he’s a mole, a deep state asset. That’s what you’re saying here, isn’t it, Doctor Ryan? Thief, liar, traitor. Wow.

Which reminds me of something…

Back in the States this fall I had a lengthy phone conversation with a ‘name’ in the truth movement (the sort of conversation that would entail a breach of etiquette should I ID the other person). On the subject of deep state moles, we agreed that the bloggosphere is riddled with them – shills, sock puppets, call them what you will. Their main goal is to create discord among the truly committed and the common method of doing so is misdirection, i.e., to create controversy where in reality there is none, thereby directing energies to non-productive areas.

Your name, Doctor Ryan, was the first to come up in this regard – via my companion – and your attitude about the Pentagon/airliner issue was offered as prime facie evidence. In other words, my companion considered your view sufficient evidence, while I more conservatively label it as necessary but not sufficient. (In other words, all moles espouse your view but not all who do so are moles.)

Your attack on Jim Fetzer is in fact more misdirection, here of the nastiest sort, i.e., a personal attack on a ‘name’ – which was guaranteed to create a ‘stir’, thereby diverting energies and creating discord. (Jim Fetzer and I – plus several others – have taken the time to compose formal replies to you when at least in theory we could have been pursuing actual research or reaching out to the unwashed… uh, brainwashed multitudes.)

Doctor Ryan, you have wasted everyone’s very precious time (I include any reader of this letter here) with your inflammatory accusations. Assuming this was not by design, in other words, assuming you are not a mole, do you not see that you might as well be one?

I doubt that you are an actual (ex officio) deep state asset, but only because my own research into the John O’Neill matter has shown me how powerful is the ego / denial / doublethink trait in the human psyche. Like so many others, once you have started down a particular mental path (Pentagon/airliner, say), you are loathe to give it up; then the coherency dominoes begin to fall until you are outright doublethinking, i.e., making no rational / empirical sense (whatareya, frickin’ blind?); unfortunately, though, others who trust your judgment may be pulled into your nonsensical notion(s). The negative effect on ‘truth’, then, is very similar to that of mole-engendered misdirection.

Point being, my theory is that once you got a bug up your ass about Jim Fetzer – for who knows what reason – you came off the rails, ‘lost the plot’ (as the Brits like to say). Quite frankly, doc, your head is now competing for space up there with that bug.

Back to parsing your gibberish.

Although Jim Fetzer ably discloses the flaws in your ‘thinking’ re the ‘space beam’ issue, let’s look even a bit closer; let’s examine your use of language:

‘There was no evidence for space beams at the WTC. Moreover, we soon found out that Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.’

That first sentence rings familiar. Where have I heard the like before? Right! NIST’s very own report on the destruction of the WTC! When they say there’s ‘no evidence of the use of explosives’! Remember that? Of course, we soon found out why there was no evidence: they hadn’t looked for it! And they hadn’t looked for it because ‘it would be a waste of time to look for something that isn’t there.’ Reasoning that’s so circular one could get dizzy just reading about it.

That’s some interesting plagiarism coming from a Truther, Doctor Ryan. (Assuming you really are one.)

How about the second sentence?

‘…Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.’

This too sounds familiar. Where have I heard the like? But hot damn, all over the MSM! Chris Matthews: ‘These conspiracy theorists don’t even have a complete theory about what happened on 9/11!’ Followed by, ‘Nutcases!’

How is what you are saying, Doctor Ryan, any different? If Fetzer’s colleagues cannot explain the physics (maybe supply a blueprint?) of the weapon then why listen to them? Your ‘voice’ and ‘logic’ are identical to that of the worst of the deep state prevaricators.


‘Was it because there was overwhelming evidence to support the space beams claim …[?]’

This sentence implies that Jim Fetzer claimed that there was overwhelming evidence for the use of ‘space beams’, which of course he never has.

By the way: I use scare quotes because, while Jim Fetzer nor Judy Woods – the engineer Jim has interviewed on the subject – have talked about 'directed energy' and 'weapons in space' (satellites), you prefer the phrase ‘space beams’ as easier to lampoon.

I ask myself why would you accent the term thus? ... Because ‘space beam’ sounds stupid and crazy, like it would go on a tabloid headline: ‘Aliens Destroyed the WTC With Space Beams!’ or the like. Isn’t that why you employ this phrase? Sure it is.

Doctor Ryan, how would you react if I wrote a hit piece on you, referring to super-thermite as ‘space dust’?


Doctor Ryan, in subtext you’re saying that there’s no evidence for the use of directed energy beams or any sort of advanced weaponry. Isn’t that right? Sure it is. Your meaning is obvious.

I don’t have a string of letters after my name but bear with me as I use my common sense to analyze this matter of advanced weaponry and 9/11; keep in mind that I’m just a science dilettante… Wait, I’m not even that. I’m actually just an aging surf bum down here in Mexico, living on cocoanut water and speared fish. So really, bear with me.

Not having an internet connection, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but isn’t it true, Doctor Ryan, that the amount of cement turned into microscopic dust by the controlled demolition of the WTC towers by the laws of physics cannot be reasonably explained by the use of thermitic material and/or conventional explosives?

There’s way too much energy involved in the solid matter-to-dust conversion. (In short: thermite could not have done it and the amount of conventional explosives needed would not be practical, plus there would entail too loud a ‘boom’.)

We’ve all seen the video interview of the firefighter describing how the towers were turned into dust – how the largest artifact he came across was ‘half of a telephone keypad – and it was about this big.’

As a scientist, Doctor Ryan, how do you explain that?

And you know what? It’s not just the cement-to-microscopic dust conversion that bothers me. It’s the human beings too. About 1,000 human bodies disappeared during that explosive event. Disappeared. Vaporized. Turned into wisps. (Like Flight 77, had it crashed into the Pentagon?)

Let me ask you something, Doctor Ryan: How could thermite or any sort of conventional explosives, or any combination thereof, make 150,000 pounds (1,000 humans of 150 pound average) of human flesh and bone disappear? Keeping in mind that they were randomly scattered all over the towers’ structure. (The ‘randomly scattered’ part is an important part of the mystery, isn’t it? Whatever process – according to you, a ‘normal’ explosion – it was that in effect atomized those humans could not have been directed at a localized area.)

And it occurs to me that most of them were wearing shoes...

You know how it works when a suicide bomber detonates his explosive vest? No? Well, I’ll tell you. There’s not much left of him. They often, not always, find his head, but if he’s wearing shoes they always find his feet, both of them. In his shoes.

If we suppose the use of conventional weapons-only on 9/11, then we’re miraculously missing 2,000 human feet.

As a physicist, do you believe in miracles, Doctor Ryan? No? Then some sort of advanced weaponry was probably used on 9/11.

Still on the subject of ‘space beams’ (again, your terminology): At the end of the paragraph I’ve been dealing with you snidely ask this presumably rhetorical question:

‘…[will] the use of space beams at the WTC… make a huge impact in achieving justice for the victims? Your implied answer: No!

Now you bring in the victim’s families, in subtext accusing Jim Fetzer of insensitivity. Maybe some readers might think to themselves, ‘What a brute that Fetzer is for not caring about justice for the victims!’ That was your purpose in mentioning them, wasn’t it? Sure it was.

I mention this because of who inspired me to look into the advanced weaponry possibility – yes, I had looked into it before reading your drivel.

Bob McIlvaine. In the course of making my film Bob and I sat and talked for a couple of hours. Bob is a serious researcher, especially regarding the WTC. And in case you don’t know, Bob is searching for justice for his son, Bobby. Bobby is one of the victims you refer to in your rhetoric.

It was Bob McIlvaine who informed me of the too-much-energy problem; that the physical effects observed at the WTC cannot be explained via a thermite / conventional explosive event. His summation of the possible use of some sort of advanced weapon (possibly ‘directed energy’) was this: ‘I certainly don’t rule it out.’

Neither do I. How about you, Doctor Ryan? Are you going to let stand your implication that Bob McIlvaine, like Jim Fetzer, is a ‘space beam’ fool?

Just one more issue: I’ve wasted enough of my valuable surf bum time with you, Doctor Ryan.

You refer to Jim Fetzer’s JFK research as ‘dubious’. Although there is a lot of competition for the top spot, this is perhaps your most ignorant assertion. (I’m certain there are legions out there who would disagree.)

Let me tell you something, Doctor Ryan: I could write my own book on the subject of what I know directly or indirectly based on Jim Fetzer’s JFK research. (I’ve written three books, so book writing is a subject about which I know whereof I speak.)

One example: If not for Jim Fetzer’s JFK research I would not know that the JFK autopsy photographs and X-rays were faked. Did you know that they were faked? Since you refer to Jim Fetzer’s JFK research as ‘dubious’, I have to assume not. I’d bet a valued possession not.

It follows, then, that you don’t know that the truth of this fakery (if I may coin a bizarre phrase) is all you really need to know about the JFK assassination; meaning to know who, in the larger sense, ‘did it’.

It further follows, then, that you don’t know that those faked autopsy photographs and X-rays are directly connected to the events you profess to be an expert on; those of 9/11/01.

You don’t know these things (facts and their implications) because your mind is not properly configured to see, much less comprehend, the larger context of complex events -- the Big Picture – and how chains of causation really work. (This is obvious from your Pentagon buffoonery.)

The world you profess to study, the world of the deep state and how that world works, is actually quite beyond you. It’s for this reason that you don’t mention John O’Neill in your ‘in-depth’ research; or, for that matter, it’s for this reason that you are ignoring the truth about O’Neill, even though it has been pointed out to you (by me). Your denial is showing, Doctor Ryan.

If not for Jim Fetzer’s ‘dubious’ JFK research – and I am picking this other example from a very long list – I would also not know that the mental image we all have of the assassination – the alleged ‘home movie’ called the Zapruder Film – is no more a true representation of the event than would be a cartoon animation. If not for Jim Fetzer’s research, I would not know that those images are lies. (Did you know this?)

But by implications I also mean the following: When, via Jim Fetzer, I came to fully realize the extent to which the Zapruder film had been edited and re-edited, with state-of-the-art (for 1963) techniques and processes, I looked for implications. Going down that road, I found that the person who was behind the purchase of the ‘original’ camera film – it remained untouched / unfaked for only a matter of hours after being shot – for Life Magazine was a man named C.D. Jackson. Further research revealed that C.D. Jackson was not only a CIA asset, but a full-blown CIA agent – and a heavy-weight at that, since the Agency’s very founding in 1947.

In brief: C.D. Jackson ran Life for most of the 1960s. His real job during this time, however, was not to run Life. His job, along with the jobs of virtually (that word again) every major media figure of the time was to lie to the American people.

These inarguable facts – which I know thanks to Jim Fetzer – and their implications led me to intense research on the media / intel agencies hub that creates and sustains the illusions and the denial/doublethink of the zeitgeist.

But my point is that Jim Fetzer’s JFK research directly opened up ‘The Big Picture’ I am trying to sketchily describe, by connecting 1963 to 2001.

A related issue, Doctor Ryan: You bring up when Jim Fetzer first appeared on the 9/11 truth scene, citing 2005 as the year, as if this were still another negative Jim Fetzer factor. That you would do this, Doctor, is a perfect example of your failure – and I’ll switch tired metaphors here – to see the forest for the trees. You do not understand that Jim Fetzer’s 9/11 work is a part of his long-standing, seamless search for truth, which goes back decades.

In one of my books I describe a surfing incident that occurred many years ago here in Mexico; it’s actually an incident that repeats itself with variations quite often – in the surf lineup and in life in general – and which directly relates to your behavior.

I refer to pecking order, a concept that I sense is important to you, although, via denial, you would haughtily dismiss as far beneath you.

If I’m sitting in the surf lineup next to some kid – he could be 15 years old or 30, no matter, he’s a kid to me – and a wave looms, one which we both theoretically should have access to, odds are I’ll take it and warn the other surfer off with a look (two on a wave is a no-no).

What my look says, and it somehow almost always gets through to the other surfer, is this: ‘Back off, kid, I was riding Pipeline when you were pooping in your diapers.’

My look is a demand for the respect that I’m due, via my history.

In case you’re not getting my drift, Doctor Ryan: Back off, kid, because ‘truth-wise’ Jim Fetzer was riding Pipeline when you were pooping in your diapers.

P.S. In the interest of the ‘truth’ of how the demolition of the WTC was carried out, I suggest that researchers take into account the matter of John O’Neill. Since Kevin Ryan does not see fit to deal with this issue in his ‘extensive’ analysis, I’ll supply a link directly to that part of my essay:


Those who would read the essay in its entirety can go here:


Allan Weisbecker is a novelist, screenwriter, memorist, and surfer, who has taken an interest in 9/11 and JFK. He is the author of the "cheerfully immoral novel”, Cosmic Banditos, of the memoir, In Search of Captain Zero: A Surfer’s Road Trip Beyond the End of the Road, and of Can't You Get Along With Anyone? A Writer's Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer's Paradise. He currently resides in Mexico while completing his latest film, “Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a Mad Man”.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

7/7 Inquest: Was someone afraid to reveal the causes of deaths?

7/7 Inquest: Was someone afraid to reveal the causes of deaths?
26 February 2011

Nicholas Kollerstrom

It is quite startling to realise that a special room had been set up to receive the dead of the 7 July 2005 bombings in a temporary morgue built on army land, the contract for which (see Note [1] below) arrived on the contractor’s desk on 6 July 2005, the day before the massacres.

All the bodies of the dead were taken and placed in cold-storage there.

Not until the Inquest, five years later, did startled lawyers acting on behalf of the victim-families get to hear, that NO POST MORTEMS had been performed on the dead.

Let us repeat this astonishing statement, the better to realise our own astounded bafflement:


Let’s listen to the bewildered comment from pathologist Dr. Awani Choudhary, one of the first doctors on the scene from the BMA at Tavistock Square, who testified to the Inquest about his attempts to save the life of Gladys Wundowa:

"I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere … So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprised…
Q. Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, they don’t –
A. I… I’m absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I’m absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.
Q. Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.
A. Sorry.
Q. … we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter."
(20 January 2011, 63:22- 65:6)

No, of course not. 52 dead and no post-mortems, nothing to worry about.




The lawyer acting for the families expressed shock and outrage at the fact that ‘cause of death’ had not been definitely confirmed. Would their clients have to put up with ‘brief, neutral and factual’ statements over this most basic of issues? The Telegraph reported from the Inquest:

‘But the bereaved families said the coroner should be allowed to go into much greater detail about how the deaths came about. They do not want a ”sterile” conclusion that their loved ones were unlawfully killed that fails to rule on whether the security agencies could have prevented the atrocities or whether the emergency services could have saved more lives, their lawyers said.

‘Patrick O’Connor, QC, for the relatives, told the inquest in a legal argument hearing: ”Of course the bereaved interested persons would be very disappointed. But the public may well be quite astonished if that were the position and we were literally kept to the kind of one, one-and-a-half, two sentence verdict in the inquisition that is suggested by some.”

‘He added, ”The statue of Justice is very often depicted blindfolded, but never gagged.” (18 February 2011)

An Inquest without any post-mortems? By way of to trying to remedy this situation, the Inquest turned to the MOD. Why should it be their business? They had to construct a model to show the probable fatal injuries and likely causes of death for those with no obviously fatal external injuries. Colonel Mahoney, Defence Professor of Anaesthesia and Critical Care at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, spent a couple of days at the Inquest explaining the situation, whereby ‘virtual Underground carriages’ had been constructed as models, but it all seemed rather vague:

"Q. But your approach must, overall, be read subject to a number of caveats?
A. Yes.
Q. Firstly, as you mentioned, there was no invasive post-mortem in any case.
A. Yes.
Q. Secondly, the X-ray examination was limited, as you’ve just said, to fluoroscopy? (see Note [2] below)
A. Yes.
Q. Thirdly, although you have photographic evidence, in some cases the photographs were difficult to interpret, for reasons I won’t explore with you?
A. Yes."
(31 January 2011, 5:3-17)

Still Clueless about the Explosions

Colonel Mahoney was faced with not only an absence of post-mortems, but also with a weird absence of a coherent theory about the explosive that had been used … We saw how earlier in February the Government’s explosives experts at the Inquest had to tiptoe around the fact that none of them would endorse the government’s peroxide-and-black pepper story. Asked to prepare a report for the Inquest, Colonel Mahoney did so. We note a couple of remarks he made there, from comments he had heard from Clifford Todd, the forensic expert.

His report alluded to ‘Mr Todd’s opinion that the devices were consistent with the use of high explosives.’ In no way can peroxide and black pepper be called a high explosive. Secondly, he found ‘There is little evidence from Mr Todd’s evidence to suggest that the devices produced a significant heat output.’ (‘Blast waves and their effect on the Human Body’, pp.18 & 19) Any peroxide bomb with back pepper as a base is a thermal bomb, because the heat comes from the rapid oxidation of the pepper. The more home-made the bomb the more it is going to be ‘thermal’ ie produce heat. Only the high-blast expertly made explosives of the military will yield a pure blast without heat.

Thus Colonel Mahoney’s report nullifies the Inquest’s silly joke about peroxide and black pepper – it points back to the first theories about the 7/7 blast, which emerged in the week after the event, when the real experts were averring that a military explosive had been used. Colonel Mahoney is the author of several books on this topic: Lady Justice Hallett alluded to ‘the area in which you are most expert: namely, the effects of explosive devices.’ (31 January 2011, 66:3-4)

What Happened to the Bodies?

Why did the families have to wait for a week or sometimes even more, before they learned of the fate of their lost ones? A study by Jenny Edkins (University of Wales, Aberystwyth, author of ‘Trauma and the Memory of Politics’) about the way 7/7 victims were treated) explained, ‘This paper is motivated by a concern, an anger even, at the way in which people were treated by the authorities in the aftermath of the London bombings of July 2005. In particular, communication with those searching for missing relatives or friends was one-way or nonexistent. This treatment, it seems to me, provides an example of what Michael Dillon has called “governing terror…”’

‘Families were plunged into a world of Disaster Victim Identification Forms, Police Liaison Officers, and stonewalling by officials…. In the aftermath of the explosions on the London underground and in Tavistock Square in Bloomsbury on Thursday, 7 July 2005, relatives of the missing were kept waiting for up to or over a week for information about where their sons and daughters, friends and family members might be.’

We cite five examples:

* Marie Fatayi-Williams was only allowed to see her son Anthony’s body on July 14th a week later . A police officer was standing around. She had to make a great deal of fuss to obtain this, and she kept being advised against it. She tells this in her book, For the love of Anthony. She is never given the body, she cannot bury her own son.

* A film by Benedetta Ciaccia’s former boyfriend, Raj Babbra, called ’7/7 – Life Without Benedetta’, has her father and mother, speaking in Italian (in Part 3 at 3:58, with only a bit of it subtitled), say: ‘It’s an awful thing to lose your child … let alone not being able to see her dead … they didn’t show her to me … I was advised not to see her … we were told it was better to remember her the way she used to be.’ They never even got to see her body.

* John Taylor, 60, whose 24-year-old daughter Carrie died in the Aldgate blast, described how it took 10 days for he and his wife to discover that their child had died.

* In A Song for Jenny by Julie Nicholson (2010), the Reverend Julie Nicholson asks a policeman why it was taking so very long before she heard about her daughter Jenny (p. 287), her book gives the wierd reply: ‘He confirmed four hundred body parts had been recovered and sent to a specialised laboratory in Bosnia for ID, which could take several weeks.’ – no comment! She was dissuaded from wanting to see her daughter’s body, but she insisted. She knew it was her daughter Jenny (she wrote) because of the hands.

* Relatives of Samantha and Lee, a couple who both died as a result of the bombings, did not get a formal identification of Samantha until 16 July, nine days after she gave her full name to her rescuer at Russell Square. The parents complained, ‘We were never asked if we could or would like to see her or be with her. We do not know where her body was kept.’ Asked Jenny Edkins, ‘Why was it not possible for this family to be with the body? Why was the information that she was dead withheld from them?’

The default position may have been, that families did not see the bodies of the deceased. Whatever was going on, the protocol seems quite macabre. Alison Anderson and Robert McNeil were the experts in body identification who organised the mortuary after the July 2005 London bombings, and they had worked for the United Nations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why did the families need to wait for so long? Why was there a military company coping with the bodies? We can only wonder what was written on the death certificates, as next to nothing seems to have been ascertained about how they died.

J7 have written what is arguably their most brilliant piece yet on this topic, and let’s quote here from it:

So, assumptions are piled upon presumptions and houses of cards are built on shifting sands. These are the openly-stated unknown unknowns from which the bereaved families are meant to learn how they lost their loved ones.

NOTE [1]: Military site for the Bodies

It is also quite startling to realise that a special room had been set up to receive the dead – starting work on 6 July 2005, the day before the 7/7 massacres. Here is a statement about what happened on that day, and where the bodies went:

Based in Northamptonshire in the UK, the company [De Boer] had already completed several contracts for the Metropolitan Police …The De Boer team spent months visiting permanent mortuaries and attending meetings with London Resilience to suggest a suitable structure and interior design… Six months later on July 6, 2005, a document arrived at De Boer’s UK headquarters finalising what had been agreed for a future crisis response. Within 24 hours the plan was being realised .and implemented with the creation of a temporary mortuary in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company near Moorgate Underground Station in central London.’ (source, ‘London’s Response to 7/7’ David Donegan Office of the Strategic Health Authorities at NHS, in www.crisisresponsejournal.com no longer online, held in J7 archives and quoted here)

Good timing or what? Thus an ‘emergency mortuary’ was established on a Military site in the City of London – its contract for the work received on the day before the catastrophe. Not only did this military site receive all of the bodies (and it claimed to start receiving them on the morning of 8th July), but it set up ancillary sites adjacent to the four blast sites on the morning of July 7th: ‘Outside of the mortuary De Boer also provided structures and furniture at each of the Underground Stations affected, and refrigeration facilities at the site of the bus bombing.’

The De Boer company managed it so well that, in recognition, its project manager was invited to meet Tony Blair at Downing Street. It was felt that, at such very short notice – after all, they only got the job on July 6th – they had done a fine job. Concerning the swift freezing of the bus bomb victim bodies, while I was researching ‘Terror On The Tube’, I could only see two or three corpses lying around in all of the photographs of that bus wreck. So I guess the De Boer team must have removed them swiftly.

We are also reminded of the big FEMA vans that arrived to clear up the damage in New York at Ground Zero on 9/11 (Federal Emergency Management Agency): they were proud of how quickly they arrived, in fact they arrived (by a similar sinister precognition) on Monday evening, the day before the very surprising 9/11 event.

NOTE [2]: Fluroscopy

The ‘fluoroscopy’ method was described as ‘a limited form of X-ray,’ which showed embedded bits of metal etc. Thus, ‘Primary surveys of whole bodies in unopened body-bags were undertaken using fluoroscopy by teams of two radiographers and a pathologist. The aim of the primary survey was to establish the nature of the contents of the bag,..’ (Forensic Radiography: Response to the London Suicide Bombings on 7 July 2005, Mark D. Viner)

Nicholas Kollerstrom is an historian of science who has authored multiple books, now including TERROR ON THE TUBE (2009) about the events of 7/7. He maintains a web site at http://terroronthetube.co.uk

Friday, March 11, 2011

An Open Response to an "Open Letter" from Eric Larsen

An Open Response to an "Open Letter" from Eric Larsen

Jim Fetzer

Eric Larsen widely disseminated a letter enthusiastically endorsing
Judy Wood's book, which mistakenly conveyed to me the impression that
he, the editor and publisher of The Oliver Arts and Open Press, had
published WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010) by Judy Wood, Ph.D.
The book is actually self-published and not from Larsen's company. In
his zest to attack anyone who has been critical of Judy, he published
an "OPEN LETTER TO PATRIOTSQUESTION911", a marvelous web
site featuring photos, biosketches, and statements about 9/11 from
thousands of experts and scholars across different disciplines. He
was protesting that Judy Wood is not among those listed among those
currently included under "architects and engineers", of which I was
unaware until I received a copy of his OPEN LETTER. I wrote to him
to explain that I supported Judy and had long strongly supported her:


As I explained in my voice mail message, I am a huge fan
of Judy Wood. I have her book, which I have just started
to read. And I am recommending it at every opportunity. I
have recommended it at the Deep Politics Forum, the Above
Top Secret forum, and on several lists where I participate
that discuss 9/11 research. This is an important book. I
featured her at my Madison conference in 2007 and gave her
THREE HOURS to present her material, which is unprecedented
in my experience for a speaker at any meeting I know about.

Here is an example of something I posted to a 9/11 thread:

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:19:55 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: DEW
To: "Jack & Sue White" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: "Clare Kuehn" , "Thomas Potter"
, "Morgan O. Reynolds" , "ace
baker" , "Alex LLoyd" ,
brucerideout@yahoo.com,"John Lear" , ueritemarg@gmail.com,
coffinman@ntlworld.com, dhendrickson3@wi.rr.com, politicstahl@hotmail.com,
camjnbp@aol.com, "spiney kelly", "Amy Sasser"
, "The Webfairy" , "sandy rose"

Excellent, Jack. I am starting to read Judy Wood's new book, WHERE DID
THE TOWERS GO? (2010), and, even though I am very familiar with her work, I am leaning something new on almost every page. I think it is important that we spend a lot of time on this new resource and discuss it extensively here. It is loaded with photos, diagrams, studies and extremely well-done.

Quoting "Jack & Sue White" :

Excerpt from a DEW article bookmarked years ago. Notice the reference
. . .

So I want you to understand that I am NOT an enemy of
Judy Wood. Nor have I ever been. It has dumbfounded
me how some of Judy's supporters have come after me,
hammer and tong, as though I were not among her very
strongest supporters. They have acted as though they
were the members of a cult, which is rather absurd.
See, for example, the comments about this blog of mine,
where I republished the color photo section from the
same book in which one of Judy's first articles appeared:


In any case, I write to invite you to be my featured
guest on "The Real Deal", an internet radio program
that is broadcast from 5-7 PM/CT on revereradio.net.
We would have four 25-minute segments for discussion
with five minute breaks. We need to connect via Skype
or by your calling me at (608) 344-4996 five minutes
before the show is scheduled to begin, which would be
at 5:55 PM/ET. Let me know if this works for you. It
will be archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Best wishes--and congratulations on publishing this!


Subsequently, I read his letter more carefully and noticed a paragraph in
which I was being attacked personally for real or alleged offenses against
Judy. This struck me as most unfortunate, since in addition to publishing
her work and presenting her as my premiere speaker at the Madison conference, I had also featured her on my earlier radio shows fifteen (15) times or so. I therefore regarded it as important to set the record straight about these issues and wrote to correct them:

Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:50:51 -0600 [03/07/2011 02:50:51 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: eric@oliveropenpress.com, jwjfk@flash.net, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: lisajudy@nctv.com, econrn@suddenlink.net, Jsleaphart@cs.com, ralph@jusbelli.com
Subject: My response to your "OPEN LETTER" . . . (with attachments)

Eric Larsen, Publisher

Mr. Larsen,

Saturday, I noticed assertions you have made in your "OPEN LETTER"
(copied below) that are baseless in fact and reckless in character.
I am attaching an email to Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and Jerry
Leaphart, where you, Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd, and Jack White
are copied. (Mr. Winterrowd seems to have made it his mission to
disseminate this letter as widely and as publicly as possible: I
have personally now received no less than FIVE (5) copies from him!)
This is an informal response to your assertions about me to set the
record straight. I thus invite your attention to this paragraph:

"Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after the
Supreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidence
the aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 were
these photographs "newly released"with the claim that they had
never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of
Dr. Wood's RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they already
been posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she prepared
the legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzer
to be used for a photo section in his book only to have him give
credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even
worse example of the distortion the "truth movement" is capable of,
Dr. Fetzer, with the "new" release of the aerial images, treated
them publically as images being seen by him for the first time."

This is an allusion to the color-photo section of a book published
by Open Court Press under its Catfeet Press logo. It is entitled,
includes a chapter by Judy Wood, "A Refutation of the Official
Collapse Theory", pp. 83-100, which, to the best of my knowledge,
is the first time her work on 9/11 had been published in a bound
paper book apart from her web site studies at http://drjudywood.com.

It was preceded by a color-photo section by Jack White, which is
"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation", pp.
75-82. Jack, as I believe you now know, prepared it based upon
his own extensive research about 9/11, with the exception of a
photo of the bathtub, which I suggested he copy from one found
on Judy's site. So far as I know, Judy does not hold copyright
to any of these. I republished it on Tuesday, 26 January 2010,


The last sentence of the subject paragraph appears to be directed
at another blog of mine, "New 9/11 Photos Released", which I posted
on Wednesday, 10 February 2010. That blog may be found at this URL:


Among the many places these photographs were published, I linked to
this one in the first sentence of my second blog of 10 February 2010:


where you will note that the first words of the caption to the first
photo is "This previously unreleased photo taken Sept. 11, 2001, by
the New York City Police Department . . ." (see attached). And, of
course, if you were to google, "New 9/11 Photos Released", you would
find that other news sources identified them similarly (see attached).

Based upon the information provided here, I trust you understand that
the claims made in the paragraph you distributed about me are false
and unwarranted. Since you observe that you wrote this letter a year
before you sent it out, did it cross your mind that it might be a good
idea to have checked with me first? Given Judy's appearance on Ralph's
show last night, I sincerely hope that you can rein her in from making
more of these distorted attacks upon me, which range from fabricating a
YouTube falsely attributing to me the views of Phil Jayhan right up to
the false denial that she ever talked about "space beams" or a "space
based" DEW, which she did during an interview with me on 11 November
2006. It has become the most infamous in the history of 9/11 research
and I predict that you will be hearing more about it in time to come,
not from me but those offended by her suggestion that Steve made it up.

With appreciation,


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:15:01 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" ,
Cc: "Alan Miller" , "Dr.
Steven Jones" , "Steven Jones"
, "Gage Richard" ,
"Kevin Ryan"

Ralph, I have already responded to this. You don't need to send it
over and over again. I agree with your and Eric's request. Thanks!


Just for the record, I am a huge fan of the work of Judy Wood and I
completely support her reinstatement on patriotsquestion911.com. I
cannot imagine why she would have been taken off Alan's admirable
web site. I am reading and recommending Judy's new book, WHERE DID
THE TOWERS GO?, and, even though I am very familiar with her work,
I am learning something new on virtually every page. So know that
I am in agreement with you about this, and I support your request.

Best wishes,


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Quoting "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" :
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500

To: Alan Miller
From: Eric Larsen
Cc: Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan


I composed this letter almost a year ago but held off sending it in
the hopes that, by waiting, I could send it on the occasion of the
publication of Dr. Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go?
That occasion has now arrived at last. Dr. Wood's book has been published and is now available to readers the world around, making this the real moment of truth. The question now, for every person in any way associated with the 9/11 movement, is whether that person is in fact interested in exposing the truth or, on the other hand, in continuing to cover it up. The publication of Dr. Wood's book is a momentous event, an event of
incalculable importance to the entire world. It is time, now, for me to send you this letter.

Eric Larsen

February 17, 2011


March 1, 2010

Dear Alan Miller,

I've noticed that Dr. Judy Wood isn't any longer listed or cited on
"Patriots Question 9/11." Why is this? I know that earlier she was
on the list of professors as well as the list of engineers. What

In my own view, Dr. Wood's being omitted is like dropping
Shakespeare from an anthology of Elizabethan literature. Alone among
the most highly visible of 9/11 analysts, Dr. Wood is the one
truth-seeker who sticks precisely and only with one thing, and that
one thing is the truth about what physically happened on 9/11
insofar as it can be known through the scientific study of all— not
some, but all— of the available empirical, observable evidence that
pertains solely to the "what" of what happened on that day. Dr. Wood
purposely stays clear of any forays into politics, innuendo,
guesswork, or supposition. She will have nothing whatsoever to do
with the question of "who 'did' it". That question, in her view, is
meaningless until the scientifically true "what" of what happened is
known. This "what" is what she sets out—successfullly—to show. That
is, she does not say that "9/11 was an inside job" because that fact
has not been scientifically established. Her focus is solely on the
empirical, measurable, and observable study of evidence of any
relevant kind—from analysis, measurement, and study of the "remains"
of the WTC buildings through analysis of the seismic record of that
day's events, study of anomalies in the earth's magnetic field at
the times of the destructions, and even study of the field effects
of the massive hurricane off the east coast of the U.S. on that day
(and especially of that storm's field effects in relation to the
enormous high pressure cell that was simultaneously approaching NYC
from the west).

Dr. Wood's study, research, and analysis reveal, among many other
things, that the WTC buildings did not collapse, explode, or
implode, but that they DISAPPEARED into dust. Multitudes of evidence
prove her case, but that hasn't kept 9/11 pseudo-truth seekers from
ridiculing her by smear, innuendo, name-calling, neglect, and
disinformation in whatever ways they are able. With courage,
strength, and a scientifically-based factuality, Dr. Wood has
experienced more malicious contumely, more smears and fraudulent
attacks than any other single member of the scientific, political,
philosophical, or historical 9/11 truth-seeking community. Yet Dr.
Wood has continued to stand up for the truth. Those who choose not
to accept the evidence-based conclusions of Dr. Wood's studies, or
who, perhaps, are either afraid OR "afraid" to accept them, take the
fool's option of ridiculing them, or, equally often, of most, most
blatantly ignoring both those results AND Dr. Wood's efforts in
determining them. The 9/11 truth community greeted Dr. Wood's
Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007) with scorn,
despite her being the first person to confront NIST formally about
their fraudulent report of the demise of the WTC towers. It was as
if the fraud of the NIST report, a report whose integrity was
absolutely essential if the official story were to be undergirded,
was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 community.

Dr. Wood's federal qui tam case, filed 4/25/2007 against the
contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) for science fraud also received virtually no notice or
indication of interest other than ridicule from the 9/11 truth
community. Again, it was as if the federal case being brought by Dr.
Wood against the NIST contractors for science fraud (in its
Congressionally-mandated task that it determine how and why the WTC
buildings were destroyed)—as if this entire and absolutely centrall
question was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 truth community.
That case, further, was itself improperly dismissed as those hearing
it treated the case— incorrectly— as if it paralleled the views of the
general 9/11 truth movement. Those determining whether the case
would be allowed to go forward incorrectly assumed, for example,
that Dr. Wood (a) blamed the US military (which she does not); (b)
they incorrectly assumed that Dr. Wood held the view that there was
"substantial evidence that all three buildings collapsed from
explosive devices" and that this view was "at the heart of the Wood .
. . litigation" (entirely incorrect); and (c) they incorrectly
assumed that Dr. Wood claimed "that the towers were struck by high
powered energy beams [from space]" (things that are not in any way
her position). All of these issues were addressed, although to no
avail, in the Motion for Reconsideration:


And now the case—due who knows how much to the ridicule and lack oof
support from the truth community —has been denied a Writ of a
Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, meaning that the
Court will not hear it or allow the factual evidence to be presented
in a courtroom, and therefore that the case is dead. How can it be
that this is not seen by the 9/11 truth community as an exceedingly
enormous defeat? Yet virtually no mention whatsoever of the Supreme
Court'™s rejection of the case has been forthcoming. It causes me to
question the entire purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" (as well as
the purpose of your Patriots Question 9/11 website). Anyone who read
the document submitted to the United States Supreme Court (available
on Dr. Wood's website) should be appalled by what has taken place.
The Court of Appeals essentially stated in a footnote of its written
decision that it knew that the law applied to Dr. Wood's case, but
that the court was ignoring the law in order to dismiss her case.

In fact, the evidence of science fraud submitted by Dr. Wood is
irrefutable. NIST itself admitted to Dr. Wood that its report was a
fraud. And not one of the contractors hired by NIST denied her
allegations. Then the Court of Appeals ignored the law in order to
dismiss the case. What could conceivably explain the lack of
interest or response by the 9/11 community? This travesty of
justice, the unfounded and prejudicial derailing of Dr. Wood's case,
should be of significant concern to the entire constitutional
republic. If laws are ignored for ease of dismissing cases, then we
are no longer living in a constitutional republic. We are living no
longer in a republic of laws, but in a state where factions of any
kind can usurp power through ignoring or pre-empting laws, however
ancient they may be, or however firmly embedded in the nation's
founding documents.

Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case in April 2007. Since that
time the "9/11 truth movement" has grown, with your own Patriots
Question 9/11 website now reporting "1,060+ Engineers and
Architects." Especially in light of the collection of so many
engineers and architects, I find it troubling that, to this day, Dr.
Wood is the only engineer, architect, or person of any profession to
have filed a federal qui tam case challenging the science fraud in
NIST's report of what destroyed the WTC towers. Those who truly
wanted "a new and independent investigation" into what caused the
destruction of the WTC should have enthusiastically supported what
she did. Such as federal case as she attempted to bring WOULD ITSELF
HAVE RESULTED IN a new investigation. There it was, a genuine
opportunity for achieving what so many people have been claiming all
along to want above all. But now the opportunity has been destroyed
by the essentially unaccountable court system as well as the lack of
interest in accountability by the so called "truth movement." All
those who scorned Dr. Wood's work and failed so notably to support
her qui tam case may have done so at the expense of this nation.

Wood sacrificed her career when she spoke out about 9/11. But
instead of praising her heroism, many in the "official-truth
movement" have accused her of being an agent or "COINTELPRO" or
disinformation agent. Such accusations can easily be dispelled by
noting that it is a crime to defraud the government and it is
treason if done so by a government agent (see the Smith-Mundt Act).
A government agent submitting disinformation to another government
agency would amount to the government attacking itself in a
psychological operation. Perhaps this explains why no one has
submitted "thermite evidence" to NIST. Perhaps this explains why no
one has submitted "thermite evidence" in a federal qui tam case.

Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after the
Supreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidence
the aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 were
these photographs "newly released" with the claim that they had
never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of
Dr. Wood's RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they already
been posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she prepared
the legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzer
to be used for a photo section in his book —only to have him give
credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even
worse example of the distortion the "truth movement" is capable of,
Dr. Fetzer, with the "new" release of the aerial images, treated
them publicly as images being seen by him for the first time.

I have never met Dr. Wood, but I have been aware of her work and
have corresponded with her for many years. For the past six of those
years, she has been working on a book, due out this year, that will
present her work and its results in totality. I know the book very
well, since— in consideration of my qualifications as essayist,
writer, novelist and author, retired professor of writing,
publisher, editor, and 9/11 truth-seeker myself—I have edited it in
its entirety two times, once chapter by chapter and then again when
the book was pulled together into its entirety. In my own view, Dr.
Wood's book will prove, in a great number of ways, to be very
possibly the most important book yet to have been published in the
21st century.

So strongly do I feel about the extraordinary importance of Dr.
Wood's research, and about its incalculable superiority to the
research—and the "conclusions"—of any and all others in the 9/11
truth movement, that if she isn't reinstated on the "Patriots for
9/11 Truth" site in acknowledgment of what she has done for this
country, I will ask you—and in fact ask you here and now, should Dr.
Wood not be reinstated— also to remove me, my picture, my biography,
and my 9/11-related comments from the site entirely. Those who do
not support Dr. Wood's work are not patriots. It may be concluded
that those who do not support Dr. Wood's work have an unpatriotic
agenda that I do not want to be associated with.

My best to you, and my gratitude for your attention,

Eric Larsen