By Jim Fetzer
The latest hysterical tirade from Pete Santilli during his interview with Morgan Reynolds on Friday, 18 January 2013, may qualify as the most irresponsible radio program in history.
It demonstrated beyond any doubt that Santilli has no scruples about defaming those of us who have been dedicating our lives to exposing the fabricated events of 9/11, going so far as to claim that I was involved in the death of Michael Zebuhr, a graduate student of Judy Wood, in St. Paul, MN, on Saturday, 18 March 2006; that I am a disinformation agent who is paid by the federal government; and that I, among many others, have been doing my best to suppress the existence of “free energy” technology.
There was more, but this gives you the general idea. The program can be accessed at American Freedom Radio, which has given him this podium. Here is his program on the 18th featuring Morgan Reynolds:
After listening to the show, Ben Collet, a long-time student of 9/11 who has hosted Judy Wood and John Hutchison as speakers on 9/11 in Seattle, WA, where they even stayed in his home during their visit there, wrote the following to Morgan Reynolds:
I think Ben got it right. Not only has Santilli committed an egregious slander by making allegations that are not only false but for which there is no evidence, but Morgan, who has to have known better, played along as if he were in complete agreement, which contradicts what he has written about the case in the past, when–I shall assume, to be most charitable–his cognitive faculties were less impaired:
I did not even know of Michael Zebuhr
Since that was published on Friday, 15 September 2006, has something happened in the meanwhile that might have changed his mind? What has occurred only offers further exoneration of me in relation to Michael Zebuhr’s death, including that two suspects were arrested and convicted. They confessed to the crime. I had not even known of Michael Zebuhr until Judy called to tell me he had been killed. I made inquiries of the St. Paul police at the time, who assured me it was a mugging, as I have explained:
I also tried to call Morgan, but there was no answer, so I wrote to him, asking several crucial questions:
What in God’s name is going on? Do you think I had something to do with Michael Zebur’s (sic) death? You know I then resided in Duluth, which is 125 miles north of St. Paul. I contacted the police about it (twice) and was assured that there was no connection to Scholars. I had not even heard of him before he was mugged and killed. Aren’t you the same guy I featured on my show just a few weeks ago debating agnosticism/atheism?What has become of you? And don’t you recognize slander when you hear it? Is THIS the REAL MORGAN REYNOLDS? Egad, man. This is completely stunning and very serious shit. I can’t believe you have aligned yourself with this guy, who has nothing truthful to say about me–or others, for that matter. What’s going on with you, Morgan? Don’t be shy. Spell it out. Have you gone over to The Dark Side? I am dumbfounded.
I was confident that, even after I explained the most basic elements of the case–including that I did not reside “in the neighborhood”, where he may have inferred, because I was on the faculty of the University of Minnesota, that I was on the St. Paul or the Minneapolis campus, when I was actually in Duluth–he would insist that he was right and that my close proximity to the location of his death was significant,
He not only begs the question by assuming (taking for granted) Zebuhr’s death was “an assassination”, while the police and the prosecutors determined that it had been a mugging gone bad, but he assumed that it occurred “within miles of Fetzer’s home”, when I was residing 125 miles north of the scene of the crime. I called the detective handling the case twice and was assured it was not related to Scholars.
What possible reason would there be for his finding “it very interesting & coincidental” that I resided in close proximity to the murder when I did not, that I took no interest in his death when I did, or that I am an expert in commission of assassinations when I apply scientific reasoning to their study? None of this makes any sense other than as a desperate attempt to trash my character on fabricated grounds.
I have no idea what has overcome Morgan. Surely he knows that the assailants confessed. There is a very good blog about his death, which everyone should read. Here is a radio talk show host who is accusing me of murder, when he has no idea what he is talking about–nor does he appear to care. He even thinks I am an expert in the commission of assassinations! I ask, How incredibly dumb is that?
If I am a “psy op”, I am a catastrophe
Of course, I am not the only prominent member of the 9/11 Truth community upon whom Pete Santilli has trained his fire: Alex Jones and Richard Gage are targets, too. While I have some differences with them both–Alex cannot tolerate any discussion of “no planes”, the contention that none of those “Big Boeings” actually crashed on 9/11; and Gage has remained overly committed to nanothermite as having played a major role in the destruction of the Twin Towers–it has become apparent to me that Santilli’s goal is to bring about the demolition of the 9/11 Truth movement by attacking its most outspoken leaders. And he is using Judy Wood as his battering ram, based upon fabricated claims and reckless allegations.
His major bones of contention against me (which are supposed to prove his case of me being some kind of “super op”) are principally two: first, that I have suppressed information of “free energy technology” by doing everything I can to keep the public from awareness of Judy Wood’s research; and second, as his prime illustration, that I created a fabricated 5-star review of her book, Where Did the Towers Go? (2010). In this latest interview with Morgan Reynolds, he said I had baited readers by giving it 5 stars only to subject the book to repeated attacks in the discussion thread. He correctly observes that there are more than 2,000 comments on my review, not her book, falsely claiming that they are attacking her, when the vast majority–at least 2/3, I would guess–are attacks by Judy and her followers upon me!
Apparently, Santilli thinks he can make any claim at all out of whole cloth–such has that my home was only a few miles from where Michael Zebuhr was shot, when I actually was living in Duluth, 125 miles to the north; or that there are 2,000 comments attacking Judy Wood, when the vast majority are her followers attacking me! The situation is beyond absurd. He seems to believe that, merely by asserting something to be true, that makes it true! He is so reckless in disregarding truth that he did not even bother to confirm where I was living at the time before he alleged my involvement in someone’s murder! And he must believe that no one is going to look at the discussion thread on my review and count the relative number of attacks on me vs. Judy Wood, which include quite a few from Pete Santilli himself!
What would be signs that I was a “psy op”, if that were indeed the case? Well, surely it would be most unlikely that I would be devoting myself during my retirement (after 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning) exposing governmental corruption at the highest levels and in the most important cases, such as JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, and the plane crash that took the life of US Senator Paul Wellstone and gave control of the Senate to the Republicans to invade Iraq. And yet, as anyone who has been following my career as a journalist here at Veterans Today, that is what I do both here and on Press TV, where the latest example is “Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths Pete Santilli, by contrast, spends all of his time, not advancing 9/11 Truth, but attacking those of us who are.
Even my first political speech, which was presented during a “Ron Paul Freedom Rally” on the grass in front of the Capitol on 15 April 2008 was exposing the neo-con agenda and the role of Israel in 9/11. So why in God’s name would anyone allege that I am some kind of “op”? He employs one ad hominem after another, talks over me repeatedly, will not give me a chance to speak, yells and screams that I am not answering questions that I have already answered, attributes to me “psy op” techniques that he is using RIGHT ON THE SHOW! He is not alone in working to undermine the 9/11 Truth movement, where Michael Shermer is another example; but his tactics–of using Judy Wood as a battering ram–is new and distinctive. I would agree with him about this point, however, namely: one of us IS a “psy op”.
The Santilli/Wood/Sunstein Gambit
Ask yourself, what kind of behavior would you expect from someone who actually was an op? If they were following Cass Sunstein’s program of “cognitive infiltration”, whereby 9/11 Truth organizations are infiltrated with specialists who can work to undermine them and defeat their research programs, perhaps an excellent cover would be that of an internet radio program host who proclaims IN WORD BUT NOT IN DEED that he is out to expose those who are misleading the movement. If he had the resources, he might find a way to create a program with lots of advertising and lots of promotions to create the persona of a dedicated “9/11 Truth seeker”. He might want to make out the most articulate and influential leaders of the movement–such as Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and Jim Fetzer–and do whatever he can to attack, berate and pillory them, especially using false and fabricated accusations.
If that sounds familiar, then consider the benefits to this kind of infiltration that could be derived from an unholy alliance with a woman who believes she has been discounted, someone with certain forms of paranoid delusions, who believes she is on a mission to bring truth to the 9/11 community–but that the 9/11 community has been subverted by leaders who want to suppress the information she presents. It makes for a powerful package, but it might be difficult to sell for anyone who actually knows the history of the movement and the relationships between that woman and the current target on his list. Because of all the prominent members of the 9/11 community, I (Jim Fetzer) have been the most supportive of Judy Wood and her research of any member of the movement. So it might be necessary to revise history just a smidgeon for the sake of accomplishing the objectives of the cognitive infiltration movement
The indications that Santilli may be projecting by calling me “an op” are multiple and varied, where the most blatant proof–and it appears to me to be conclusive–is that, when I appeared as the guest on his show on Friday, 5 January 2013, he talked over me, would hardly let me squeeze a word in edgewise and even had one of his own shills call in (suggesting his show is “a shill within a shill”), but then–most astonishingly–when he posted the same show on his own web site (Episode #310), he added an elaborate ad hominem attack at the beginning and altered the quality of my audio file, so it sounded as if I was calling in from a pay phone in Singapore! Listening to it now, I also notice that he cut out the first caller, who was Mark from Houston. This is about as blatant as it gets in “amateur disinfo ops”:
This Santilli guy has such resources that his shows are converted into YouTubes. Here is the revised version posted there, which makes him out to be “the Caped Crusader” and me “Darth Vader”! See if you can discover how many “psy op” techniques Pete Santilli uses in the introduction to the show alone!
Kevin Barrett, who is as rational and objective as any member of the 9/11 Truth movement, was so taken aback by Santilli’s interview with me that he made an extraordinary blog denouncing it as follows:
He and I would do an interview on his show, where Pete Santilli even called in–and had one of his shills call as well, the same pattern he had displayed when I was featured on his show. Listen here:
Displaying his characteristic dispositions toward reason and rationality, Pete Santilli promptly replied,
I am all for “free-energy technology”–if it exists!
No doubt, one of the reasons Santilli had to garble what I was saying in response to his verbal assault during his show is that I explained how absurd it was for him to suggest that I was “covering up” the research of Judy Wood, when I was the only leading figure in the 9/11 Truth movement who was doing everything I could to promote and publicize her work: I featured her 15 times on my own radio shows, beginning on 11 November 2006, which led to the separation of Steven Jones and me in Scholars for 9/11 Truth; I published a chapter by her in The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007); I featured her as my principal speaker during The Madison Conference, giving her an unprecedented 3-hours to speak; I published a 5-star review of her book on amazon.com; and even invited her to speak at The Vancouver Hearings.
Because I explained this during my first opportunity to speak, he had to muffle my words; otherwise, his commentary comes across as completely absurd. He claims in his introduction that I knew that he was going to ask me about the 43 propositions (she calls them “fact”) found on pages 480-483. But I have devoted hours and hours to their discussion during a series of interviews with Chuck Boldwyn on “The Real Deal”, where you can access those discussions by going toradiofetzer.blogspot.com and doing a search on “Chuck Boldwyn”. He insists I have been covering up the presence of a hurricane near New York City on 9/11, which, when I first learned of it, I suggested on the air was probably what Judy took to be the source of energy for the DEWs used to demolish the Twin Towers; but she contacted me almost immediately telling me I was wrong, that this was not her position and that I was misrepresenting her.
He offers a brainwashing introduction, garbles my voice, talks over me, distorts what I am trying to say and generally does everything he can to discredit me without allowing me to speak unimpeded. I think a part of Judy’s bizarre alliance with this guy is because, in my 5-star review, I offered a qualification:
That I was correct in my assessment was demonstrated during The Vancouver Hearings, when the dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey were discussed, which included Barium and Strontium, Thorium and Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Ytrium, Chromium and Tritium, which are indications that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a nuclear event. She likes to boast that nothing in “the book” has been refuted, but the claims she makes about nukes on pages 121-122 have been refuted. Listen very carefully to this call by Brian Staveley to her last September on “Late Night in the Midlands”:
A real scientist would welcome new data and alternative hypotheses, but Judy suppresses them. While she has the credentials to claim she is “a scientist” (actually, an engineer), she displays massive denial and lack of willingness to engaged in objective, scientific exchange. Scientists are those who observe and adhere to the standards of science, where she had shown herself to be closed-minded and aloof. A real scientist would be open to new evidence and eager to discuss it, but that has not been the case with Judy Wood, who declares her book to be “the final word”–one more reason she has now become the leader of a pseudo-scientific cult.
Indeed, one of the oddities of Judy’s position is her focus on WHAT HAPPENED as opposed to HOW IT WAS DONE or WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE. This attitude appears to be part and parcel of her denials that she has any “theory” about what happened, which makes the significance of her work very much open to question. As Ben Collet has observed in the comments on my review, photos, debris and such only become “evidence” in relation to an hypothesis or theory, without which they may count as features or facts, but where none of the contents of her book qualifies as “evidence” absence an appeal to theory.
There are, of course, professional shills who are paid to troll and post false and distorted remarks that advance the Cass Sunstein agenda. And at the very least, his hysterical and irrational ravings convey the impression that anyone associated with 9/11 Truth is a lunatic. So it seems to be a “win/win” for Santilli. Where does this lead? I happen to know and like the program director at American Freedom Radio, Danny Romano, who was the first to invite me to host a show of my own then on the Republic Broadcasting Network. So I have been a long-time fan of Danny and certainly bear him no ill-will:
I have heard nothing back. Possibly nothing is going to change. I have noticed that “The Pete Santilli Show” is the first listed on the AFR archives. He appears to have lots of money. Most of those of us who have devoted ourselves to bringing 9/11 Truth to the public have very limited resources. Something is very wrong with Pete Santilli–where his association with Judy has to qualify as among the most bizarre developments in research on 9/11. If there is justice in this world, his show will not long endure.
I asked a social psychologist to listen to Pete Santilli’s interview with me–and this is what he sent in response:
Jim, did you see this recent News Release?“All major conspiracies are in fact linked, directly or indirectly, to major weather events. The leading so-called 9/11 researchers have gone to great lengths to conceal this little known fact and, if you will stay with me here, I am going to expose it. Now just stay with me as I take you through this point by point.It is now obvious that the main cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers on 911 was the Hurricane close by. It is absolutely disgusting that all the top so-called 9/11 researchers neglected to tell me this so that I could solve this crime of the century. I had to find this out by myself and was able to do so just recently after years of digging.I am furious with all these so-called 9/11 truthers who are merely cover-up artists and I won’t put up with their crap anymore. I am dedicating the rest of my talk show to exposing and ruining these so-called 9/11 truthers.”Pete Smuttilli, World Famous Talk Show Host, Los Angeles, CA (1-14-2013)
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a journalist and an editor with Veterans Today. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]