Monday, September 21, 2015

Rebekah Roth's METHODICAL ILLUSION: Pros and Cons

by Jim Fetzer 

It has taken me some time to come out about Rebekah Roth and her book, METHODICAL ILLUSION (2015), which has now been supplemented by her second, METHODICAL DECEPTION (2015). I learned of her book six months or so ago from my friend, Dennis Cimino, who was the Navy's top electronics trouble shooter before he left and joined Raytheon. Rebekah had contacted him in an effort to gain his support for her work, where they spent some time (around six hours) in conversation.

Dennis told me that he had been bothered by some of the technical aspects of her account, including that turning off a plane's transponder (which emits a signal identifying the flight) does not take its blip off a radar screen (which is created by radio waves bouncing off an aluminum aircraft in the air). And he told me he was also concerned that she was maintaining that, were a plane taken over by a "flight termination system" (a remote control manager), then there would be no way for the crew to notify the FAA of a hijacking in progress. So he sent it to me and I read it instead.

A question on a talk show

A few weeks ago, I was on a talk show and a guest called in to ask about Rebekah Roth. Knowing that she did not have everything right, I replied that I had read her book and liked a lot of what she had to say (especially in her analysis of the purported "phone calls from passengers") but that she did not have everything right, that I had planned to compose a review of her book but had not done it yet, which I thought was a fair statement of my position about Rebakah. The next thing I knew, she had launched an attack on me from her facebook page as follows:

This was disconcerting, since she had not even bothered to determine what I had said about her work before attacking me. That suggested to me that she was not receptive to criticism, which is inevitable in 9/11 research. And I had pointed out when I replied to the question that, indeed, I had read her book.

My response to her attack

When I discovered she was attacking me, I took the opportunity to post some replies, which were all very professional and straightforward. Here is an example, where she responded by turning her page "PRIVATE" to make it impossible for me to continue to comment, which I found revealing by itself:

All the crash sites were fabricated or faked

I thought it was important to cite my interview with General Stubblebine, USA (ret.), because, given he was in charge of all US military intelligence during his career and agreed that all four 9/11 crash sites had been fabricated or faked (albeit in different ways), a crucial aspect of Rebekah's position is that all four of the planes were diverted to Westover, MA, Air Force Base, the location from which she claims the "passenger phone calls" were made, where some were killed before and some after making them:


That has caused me some concern over the prospect that she had taken "data points" that have been raised by students of 9/11--the faked phone calls, the fabricated "crash sites", and so on--in order to account for them--to "explain them away"--as part of a novel theory that reasserts the role of real planes on 9/11, where the evidence that I had reviewed with Gen. Stubblebine suggested planes were not involved. As Hollywood knows, it can be easier--often, much easier!--to fake events than to carry them out, especially when their performance would entail violations of laws of aerodynamics and of physics. 

"The Covert Report" Interview

A few days ago, Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset who was the liaison between the agency and Saddam Hussein, invited me and Dennis to come on her show and, in part, if we were willing, to address our issues with Rebekah Roth, where Susan was open about being one of Rebekah's supporters. We both liked the idea and went on her show on Friday, 19 September 2015. Here is Susan's summary with a link to the show, which makes our concerns about METHODICAL ILLUSION (2015) conspicuous and clear:
AERONAUTICS FRAUD ON 9/11 W/Dennis Cimino & Jim Fetzer covertreport | Sep 19, 2015 
Two awesome guests today, top Naval electronics troubleshooter, Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, provide a deep analysis of glaring deficiencies and outright mechanical inconsistencies of the airplane theories on 9/11. 
Whether the listening audience believes in holograms or drones in New York, these two experts prove why commercial airline jets played no role on 9/11, either at the Pentagon or at the World Trade Center. 
As Fetzer puts it, there are four faked crash sites on 9/11, using different means and methodologies, but all with the same result. Fetzer and Cimono have co-authored a series of articles on Veterans Today. This is a great show! Hope you will enjoy it! 
To listen to our interview with Susan Lindauer, click here: The Covert Report 19/09/2015

Rebekah was not a happy camper

My impression is that Rebekah was not pleased by our conversation with Susan Lindauer on Truth Frequency Radio and has apparently gone so far as to quit her own show on that network in protest. But that would seem to be another over-reaction, comparable to her attack on me for suggesting that "She doesn't have everything right!" As someone who had advanced theories of his own about 9/11, she cannot expect that her work will not be subjected to minute examination, where some will find her work impeccable and others may have certain reservations.

What I like the most about her research is that she has no hestitation in identifying Israel and the Mossad as key players in the 9/11 attacks. She addresses the key role played by the Gelatin Group, which was composed of Israeli "art students", who had (what appears to have been) complete access to the buildings and staged "performance art" on the outside of their structure. I am very much inclined to believe that they prepped the facades with explosives (or themite or nanothermite) to create the cut-out images of non-existent planes (faked using holograms) to convey the impression that they were real.

Richard Hall's 3-D Flight 175 Radar Study

Among the important points she brings out is that the Gelatin Group had boxes upon boxes of special fuses holders, which look very much as though they would have been appropriate to hold charges in place on the outside of the towers to create those cut-outs behind the smoke and haze that obfuscated what was going on--apart from those "points of light", Richard Hall has discussed in his fascinating study, where I have on occasion observed that this may be what George H.W. Bush was talking about when he refereed to "a thousand points of light":


There can be scant doubt that Rebekah has made a major contribution to 9/11 research by focusing attention on the role of Israel and the Mossad, especially in relation to the Gelatin Group. The kinds of questions her work raises about her include how someone who says she was a stewardess for 30 years could not know that turning off a transponder is not going to remove a blip from a radar screen and why she would suggest that, once a plane had been taken over by remote control, the pilots and crew would have no way to signal that their plane had been hijacked.

Figuring out the How, the Who and the Why

Dennis has a great deal of flight experience and, as he explained in our Friday interview with Susan Lindauer, her story of one of the planes coming in for landing at Westover AFB from 21,000' when it was only nine miles out and traveling eight miles a minute was unreasonable: it was not an approach that any pilot would have undertaken. And there is no way the FAA would have allowed P-tech to bypass all of the electronic methods the aircraft can use as duress signals or duress situation signaling capability. As Dennis is the first to acknowledge, after talking with her at length, he had decided not to read her book.


The image of the plane hit and the image of the gash occur in the temporal sequence of first/second, but the first did not CAUSE the second. This is an elementary fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Whatever other faults her work may display, Rebekah Roth has reignited a lot of interest in 9/11 and drawn new students to the case. It may take some time to distill the ultimate impact of her books, which appear intended to revive belief in the use of real planes on 9/11. The weight of the evidence is against that, but nonetheless we welcome her contributions to its study.


  1. Roth Does Excellently, While Fetzer Has Much To Answer For As Theorist

    It's important not to get bogged-down in minutiae. Fetzer's proper job and duty is to INDUCE (generalize) to the proper and necessary overall consp. theory entailing the genuine "outrageous" nature of it all--SATANISM, entailing extreme subjectivism. So what, Fetzer, do u have to say about this cultural satanism?--how does it fit in?

    Regarding Roth, perhaps she does give Fetzer a little too much credit and publicity--which Fetzer really LOVES for all the attn. he gets. But note Roth gives an out-standing perspective fm the flight attendant's view, and is capable of commenting in significant fashion.

    And Roth does excellently for researching as she does into the deep back-ground of these players--like Barbara Olson being Jew, her husband, Ted, being the lawyer for Jew spy, Jonathan Pollard.

    So Roth much deserves credit for her thoroughness for her perspective (a), and (b) for her general research, and then (c) for the emphasis and info about the Flight Termination System remote-control hi-jacking--this is HUGE issue.

    And don't forget: Fetzer has at least one serious weakness, aside fm his gross failure of induction and theorizing, that being his partiality for Pharisaist moralizing and "good-evil" subjectivism, providing premise and pretext for satanism, this along w. his weakness for cultural analysis regarding Christian philosophy embedded within Christian literature, Christ = TRUTH, Gosp. JOHN 14:6. So Fetzer has a good deal to answer for.

    1. This comment seems baseless and pointless. Morality does not require religion. I have elaborated criteria for assessing alternative theories of morality that are parallel to those for assessing alternative theories in science. To get some sense of what it's all about, see "Abortion Debate: A Muslim, A Catholic and An Agnostic",

    2. Typical Obfuscation, Evasion By Fetzer

      "I have elaborated criteria for assessing alternative theories of morality...." This is perfect example of the typical corrupt academic babble which dis-credits Fetzer. "Morality" is simply logic btwn means and ends. For to accomplish ends, one merely chooses most appropriate means which don't contradict ends.

      Importance of Christian philosophy is it sets the metaphysics for any ethics, the objective (Aristotelian) reality, basis of Christian TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), humans being sinners, incapable of salvation on their own, requiring God's grace, humans being creatures of will, necessarily following self-interest.

      So the problem is moralism/Pharisaism rejects science and objective reality, assuming subjectivism, pretext then for satanist extreme subjectivism, hubristic making oneself God the creator of reality (subjectivism).

      Fetzer's above comment then just demonstrates his penchant for obfuscation of otherwise simple issue--and note how he uses it for evasion of the satanist issue which he doesn't even mention in regard to the culture, context for the outrageous 9/11 consp.

    3. If any comment could more completely discredit its author, this one takes the cake! There are multiple alternative theories of morality, including:

      TRADITIONAL THEORIES: Emotivism, Family Values, Religious-based ethics, and cultural relativism;

      PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES: Ethical Egoism, Limited Utilitarianism, Classic Utilitarianism, and Deontological Moral Theory.

      I rather doubt that apsterian could even define them, much less figure how what criteria would be appropriate for determining which might be the most rationally defensible on objective criteria.

      He is a Christian zealot, who is morally on a par with Muslim zealots, Mormon zealots, Jewish zealots and other representatives of other religious who are unable to explain (on non-question begging grounds) why their brand of zealotry should be preferable to any other.

      He offers a stellar example of why understanding the nature of morality and the most rationally defensible conception of right vs. wrong cannot be determined on the basis of articles of faith, which are beliefs that are accepted independent of evidence and held to be true no matter what.

      And it is characteristic of zealots that those who impose rational standards and are unwilling to accept beliefs for which they have no evidence are accused of obfuscation, when the shoe is on the other foot. This is a nice case of projection.

    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    5. Jim you can't be wasting your time on this twaddle

    6. I have been reading this thread, and I am shaking my head in frustration. I am not an engineer or a flight attendant or a truth-er critic. I am a paralegal. Is it not apparent to anyone else that by divisive behavior such as is displayed here among those outraged at having our country, our perceptions, our legislature, and our constitution hi-jacked is exactly the effect the perpetrators want.

      The law works on an evidentiary basis. First it must be established that a crime has been committed. In this instance the crimes are myriad, we have mass Murder, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Treason to name a few. The suspects are identified by establishing motive, means and opportunity. Getting stuck on the means element is counter-productive. The facts are simple. Individuals in the highest positions in our government have colluded along with multinational corporate elite, to creat a climate of hysteria, confusion, fear and hatred in the populace in order to prevent 300 million American people from saying "Uh-Uh!" to the reformatting of our lives through the erosion of our Constitutional government, removing our rights to free speech, privacy, the bearing of arms, freedom from unreasonable (warrant-less) search and seizure, access to justice, and an active role in informed self-governance, among others. Their motive for doing it is to perpetuate and expand their power and economic gain without interference. Additionally the specific attack which was orchestrated served to completely eliminate the massive shake up that would have resulted from the investigation which was under way to track down the trillions missing from the Pentagon's books, which was announced by Rumsfield the day before the event. Every player and bit of evidence which would have proven the diabolical criminality rampant in our government was wiped out on 9/11, among other effects of massive benefit to key players and groups who seek an end game known as the "New World Order."

    7. The Patriot Act was written well before 9/11. It was waiting in the wings. The smoking gun is in the document "Rebuilding America's Defences" produced by the Project for a New American Century, in which it is noted that nothing but a "new Pearl Harbor" would allow for the drastic military and defense changes they wanted, to reach fruition rapidly.

      The potential for those we place in power to manipulate the populace through the enactment of "false flag" events is well documented and readily available through FOIA requests on Operation Northwoods, The Gulf of Tonka, and the sinking of The Maine to name just a few.

      In a court of law, if expert witnesses demonstrate that a specific scenario is just not physically possible, yet the legal action proceeds as if it were, then it is a given that the administrators of that action are either incompetent, operating under direction from an external source or in collusion with the perpetrators. The fact that the scenarios put forth are proven to be false yet are allowed to stand is sufficient evidence to establish wrong-doing. There are thousands of expert witnesses with A&E911 who have shown indisputably that the official version is patently false, period.

      -Official version is false.
      -Those standing at the helm of our elected government perpetrated the falsehood.
      -Therefore it is demonstrated that the truth is contrary to their interests.

      It doesn't matter what tools were used to pull off the crime. Motive, means and opportunity are proven and culpability is established. The specifics of the means can be revealed through the discovery process. No ones's speculations as to how they managed to pull it off has any effect on how they actually did pull it off.

      What is needed now is solidarity of purpose among those who know that the crime occurred in removing the guilty from the seats WE placed them in, and following the judicial process as The Constitution for The United States long ago established. Speculation and infighting as a result of variances in those speculations serves the perpetrators and removes all benefits from the victims.

      As long as we are busy pointing at each other, we are unable to point at them.

      Roth's insights are excellent in many ways, but there is no way to dispute the original broadcast which shows the realtime view of a round object approaching and striking the tower. Not a plane. Period.

    8. The ideology of any criminal is irrelevant to their commission of a crime. The beauty of America is that you can believe whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of your neighbor to believe whatever they want. That's what the people who killed Americans on 9/11 wanted to remove, freedom and tolerance. So far they're winning.

    9. excellent points!! very well said!! thank you

    10. Diana, can you tell me to see a "realtime view of a round abject approaching and striking the tower?" I have not seen this- would greatly appreciate. I will try to locate it on my own, but anyone who knows it, kindly email thanks!

    11. Watch this INTRIGUING rebuttal and see if you can remain so Rebekeh-Gung-Ho . . . I don't think so!

    12. You were doing brilliantly right up until the very end of your posts diana!

      If only the majority of 9/11 truthers thought like you and I we could be so much closer to getting the perps to stand trial.

      As you said, it matters little about what specific means were used to accomplish their 9/11 feat.

      The fact is, their feat was accomplished and everyone here knows that.

      Let's unite and do something about it!

      "...but there is no way to dispute the original broadcast which shows the realtime view of a round object approaching and striking the tower. Not a plane. Period."

      You saw a round object (as did Richard Hall, before he changed his mind). I saw a round object with wings, ie a plane.

      But as I said, it matters little in the grand scheme of things.

  2. Jim, As I've written several times before, you're the most analytical, reasonable, and sensible of all those working to expose government high profile coverups.

    Re long video posts: Keep in mind that a lot of us interested and critical readers of your columns and those of others have limitations.Hour plus long videos are turnoffs.
    Why can't the presenter summarize his/her comments in ten minutes and link to his longer presentation.

    Pissing matches between coverup critics are turnoffs. Investigators should avoid them. My impression is that you've been good about that. My impression is that you've had high priase for Dr. Judy Wood and others who are probably right in part but not completely. I've been impressed that you've been a rational critic, not a name caller.

    I've been reading about government ops for 50 years. Your analyses make more sense to me than do those of anyone(s) else.
    You've been a skilled investigator for decades. You've had your compelling say about every event.

    Consider acting as a neutral moderator/analyst for all the theorists about every high profile governemnt op.
    I've been thinking about this for a while. I believe that with your background, your ability to organize, evaluate, and think logically, and your general fairness to investigators, you could be a great synthesizer of alternate views.
    Perhaps with a little juggling and tact you could get the alternate media government ops critics to get back on the same page and work toward the same goals that you seem so focused on.


    1. Scope, Extent, Implications Of Fetzer's Failure

      Fetzer has some serious problems: (a) note a philosopher is supposed to be able to induce to appropriate general theory based upon the items and details of evidence--Fetzer is far too hung-up on these details, utterly failing for necessary induction.

      (b) Satanism (extreme subjectivism) then is OBVIOUS problem which numerous commentators have noted--just ck u-tube vids. So HOW has this subjectivism arisen and metastasized?--can it be that putrid moralism/Pharisaism which is at base of non-existent "good-evil" delusion which Fetzer helps to promote?

      (c) And observe the pathetic incompetence of Fetzer for simple analysis of Christian philosophy and TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) within Christian New Test. literature--which Christianity is so overthrown by present raging cultural satanism.

      For the 9/11 false-flag psy-ops was and still is OUTRAGEOUS consp., and it deserves the theory appropriate to it, a fully encompassing theory, which fully explains things--like the US Federal Reserve Bank legalized COUNTERFEITING scam, key component which gives satanists all their practical power, buying, bribing, and extorting practically all the politicians, judges, corp.s, public edjumacation--everything.

      So u see, Fetzer is such a failure, in so many ways, one must wonder if it isn't deliberate.

    2. While I share the goal endorsed by Unknown, he is not taking into account that the government has a host of agents working to subvert progress in the search for truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and more. Estimates run as high as 90% of those in the JFK community, for example. A&E911 and the Judy Wood DEW group deliberately restrict their focus to HOW while ignoring WHO and WHY. It is an appalling situation for truth seekers, but the stark reality of the situation on the ground, alas.

    3. I was a student at the College Of Aeronautics on 911. Later we were studying the 737 on the flight deck mockup and were discussing the Flight Termination System and its ability to take control away from the cockpit to a remote location. It's true and the crew would have little to do with controling the flight. The ATC would see the aircraft information disappear from his screen replaced by an un-named dot. I'm not to happy with the hologram concept. I thought perhaps that a localizer was placed in the towers and planes guided themselves right into them. Also like Wellstone, a portable localizer and glideslope transmitter in a small van could easily fool the navigation system and pilot of a B200. I give credit to all of you in the truth movement. Carl

    4. Carl, If you have an hypothesis that can account for the data related to the "hits" on the North and the South Tower, by all means, SHARE IT!

      (1) The "plane" is performing feats that no real plane could perform.

      (2) We have a radar track of a plane 1,200' to the right of the image;

      (3) The image disappears into the building with no loss in velocity and no collision effects;

      (4) it is also traveling an a speed that would be aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767 at that altitude;

      (5) No real plane--commercial, military, large, small--could pass its whole length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air.

      You may not be happy with holograms, but what alternative would you propose in its place? It is the hypotheses that, if truth, confers the highest probability on the available evidence, which means that it is the best supported. What do you propose in its place?

    5. I agree 100% that the planes were faked, but I think it's more likely that CGI was used to insert "planes" crashing into the two WTC towers, synchronized with the bomb-caused explosions. Faking the planes using CGI would probably have been easier than using holographic projection. I'm very leery of any 9/11 theory which depends on "secret technologies" like holographic projection or scalar waves. But I do think that small nuclear devices were used in the two main WTC towers, which would account for their almost total disintegration into dust, and the charred automobiles nearby. No scalar waves necessary.

      Keep in mind that there were no REAL witnesses who said they saw planes crashing into the buildings - never mind the paid "man-in-the-street" actors like "Harley T-shirt Guy," who had it all figured out only minutes after the event. Most REAL witnesses said they didn't see any planes, except later on TV, like the rest of the country.

      How they could have inserted CGI planes into supposedly "live" broadcasts is another question. But then, I'm pretty sure there were only two LIVE helicopter cameras that showed the south tower plane coming in and crashing. All of the other footage of the south tower plane was released later.

      And of those two LIVE helicopter camera angles of the south tower plane, one was apparently unauthorized, because it showed a silver "ball" coming in from the top right of the screen, rather than an airplane - very strange. That helicopter was warned to "back off" by someone on the female reporter's headset radio - you can hear her saying to the pilot after the explosion: "They're telling us to back off." I admit, though, that the silver "ball" may be proof that holographic projection WAS used, because if that LIVE camera angle was unauthorized, and if there were no planes, that footage would have shown nothing at all - instead it showed a strange silver ball coming in from the top right of screen. The silver ball may have appeared on that footage because they were viewing it from an unapproved angle, where the holographic projection didn't work properly.

      As for the only authorized LIVE camera angle showing the south tower plane coming in, it showed the plane's nose coming out the other side of the south tower, which none of the other, later released camera footage showed.

      Aside from those two LIVE helicopter camera angles, all of the other footage was released later, after the CGI planes had been quickly added in. This would also account for their unconvincing, cartoon-like quality.

      This scenario, of course, implies that the Zionist-owned media was fully complicit in 9/11, which was made obvious by paid actors like "Harley Guy" and by the BBC's female reporter, who said that WTC 7 had collapsed, when it was still standing in the background behind her.

    6. Roth's work is mainly taken from what is already out there- which is fine, we need a comprehensive encyclopedia on 911 in BOOK form. The Gelitin B material was not discovered by Roth- indeed it was broken by a guy named JONATHAN ELINOFF and he deserves the credit and should be named. Infact, nearly a decade ago he made the Israeli art student in WTC discovery and provided amazing photos to back it up. Pix of the Asian girls on Gel's team and several other excellent candids. Every single one of them (outside the NYT reprint) had been thoroughly scrubbed from the internet. Someone- Roth needs collaborate on this w/ him. Together the outcome would be stunning. The new item Roth brings is a HUGE one- and that is the dozens of boxes of detonator fuses labeled BB 18, and confirmation on airline hijack protocols.
      15 yrs out now, and the 911 perps HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. So much so, that Bush family is blatantly running for POTUS. (After brazenly facilitating the chad coup for his bro in 2000).
      Other Insiders need to step up- preferably military- and EXPOSE this before they pull the sequel, which could very well be our last chance.

    7. That there are witnesses who report having seen what they took to be "a plane" seems to me to point in the direction of the use of holograms, because CGI and video compositing--the only alternatives--would only provide images when the video was broadcast. There would have been nothing to see in the air approaching either tower. Since there seem to be quite a few witnesses, the case for the use of holograms appears to be strong.

  3. Well, Jim, I think Rebekah's overreaction is easy to understand! Why? The time tested etched in stone adage: DON'T DISAGREE AND ARGUE WITH A WOMAN!

  4. Jim, first of all I want to say that I appreciate your overall attitude of openness regarding understanding this subject. I do have a technical question as to whether anyone has calculated how long it might take for a load of fuel to travel across to the exit point of the "crash" scene, and secondly, since I am somewhat of a newbie to your explanations, have you included thoughts about Project Bluebeam/holograms in your hypotheses?

    1. I was unfamiliar with "Project Bluebeam", which is a plan to project religious holographic images around the world. Here is some of what I have found about it:

      "Holography is based on very nearly identical signals combining to produce and image, or hologram, with depth perception. This is equally applicable to acoustic (ELF, VLF, LF) waves as it is to optical phenomena.

      "Specifically, the "show" will consist of laser projections of multiple holographic images to different parts of the planet, each receiving different images according to the predominating regional religious faith. Not a single area will be excluded. With computer animation and sound effects appearing to come from the depths of space, astonished followers of the various creeds will witness their own returned Messiah in spectacularly convincing lifelike realness.

      "The various images of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, etc., will merge into ONE after "correct explanation" of the mysteries, prophecies and revelations are disclosed."

      With regard to the possible use of holograms on 9/11, I have laid out the case several places (including in my interview with Gen. Stubblebine above), where I also have a page from a military manual (which I present during the interview) that displays an "Airborne Holographic Projector", which appears to have been used in New York on 9/11.

    2. Around Sept 25, 2001 I had a conversation with a military family member in NYC whose military vet son does a lot of DARPA-type contracts w/ DOD. THAT is where I first heard that the planes were steered into the buildings using remote control devices. Claimed the operation was based from a naval ship off Staten Island in NYC harbor. Dov Zakheims' co has been known & named in that role for long before Roth arrived- like almost since the beginning. Since its getting to the TWO DECADE mark since this charade? An entirely NEW generation has grown up who will have to be reeducated on all of the minutae. As time passes, the commitment to solve and prosecute will dissipate. Lets put our petty differences aside and PUT THE PERPS ON DEATH ROW! Time is running out!

  5. Holograms don't leave behind aircraft wreckage.

    1. The only "aircraft wreckage" was planted. I would have thought that everyone serious about this understood that by now. There is NO "bona fide" wreckage.

  6. I have over the years agreed more with Jim than any other truther.


    1. Fetzer Has Serious Problems

      U should ck my criticisms of Fetzer: (a) his recitation of details isn't bad or inaccurate, but (b) he FAILS for the necessary INDUCTION and theory entailing these details--which is his proper job as philosophical, don't forget. Observe Chris Bollyn does far better job, aside fm the thermite issue, for the overall theory, pt-ing out the zionists at every strategic spot.

      (c) Thus I pt. out the overall cultural satanism (extreme subjectivism) which is necessarily at the bottom of the "outrageous" 9/11 consp., the very sort theory which George W. Bush attempted to preclude in his speech, pt. being that it truly is "outrageous" conspiracy, deserving appropriate theory properly and accurately entailing the real "outrageous" nature of it all.

      (d) Thus I seriously suggest Fetzer is counter-productive for his mystic, conflicting, and subjectivist premises for the moralism he typically pushes as the academic hack he really is, when u stop to look-see--typical of the "gate-keeper."

    2. After review of Fetzer's critique of Rebekah Roth's research and perspective on the zio-israeli-jew 9-11 operation; I am now convinced that Fetzer is indeed a zio-israeli-jew shill. He failed to mention the israeli-jew company that was in control of virtually all radar monitors on 9-11 manipulating the display with video editing software that did indeed erase aircraft radar signatures. Roth has mentioned this fact from the beginning, totally ignored by the Fetz to shill Roth's research which points to the zio-israeli-jew cabal everywhere, with respect to the 9-11 kill operation.

    3. This is silly. If I overlooked something, that does not make me "a zio-israeli-jew shill". In fact, I have been among the only members of the 9/11 community to finger the Mossad as playing the key role in 9/11. Neither A&E911 nor Judy Wood even talk about who was responsible and why--much less even mention the role of Israel in all of this.

    4. Jim, your intention to set these critics on the road is admirable but you are wasting your time. They are trolls to take up time and energy

    5. Jim, which points to them being "controlled opposition" It's their MO and must be assumed that all "opposition" is controlled or they are still looking for a way to get in and control it. It seems to me Rebekah protests like a person with an unnamed truth to protect but that's a guess. The fact she names Mossad is really no big deal since many have. It is a way to co-opt still unco-opted resistance. It is bait to then dis-info after the hook has caught her prey. Her need to demean you on her page and immediately block you when you notice it and respectfully challenge her is another sign. You remove ppl from the discussion that will undermine your misdirection
      Interesting stuff!

  7. The problem with the holograms explanation is that you're simply never going to convince the vast majority, even though it is technically in the realm of possibility, and as outlandish as it may sound it actually does account for some anomalies if one accepts it. Certainly Professor you've made your case and laid out certain arguments, but as you saw when you appeared on the BBC program, or when you appeared on Fox, the controlled mainstream will simply focus on the most contentious points in order to discredit all the most important information that implicates the Who and the Why. Which to my mind is considerably more important than the HOW.

    Personally, my own research over the years led me to draw very similar conclusions to what Rebekkah Roth has been saying. I do think Dov Zakheim's Systems Planning Corporation was a critical aspect of the operation.

    At the same time I'm not a physicist or an engineer, so I can't explain why those planes seemed to pass through the towers like a knife through butter. It's certainly anomalous and contrary to how we think those impacts should've appeared if we accept that the planes are real. But there other possibilites.

    I totally accept that there was a certain amount of fakery on 9/11. Anything from conveniently discovered passports to fake passenger recordings, and just an incredible amount of disinformation thanks to the controlled media. But in my opinion we need MUCH stronger evidence regarding holograms, CGI and the like.

    I wish all the 9/11 truth community would coalesce around the things we all agree on and let the contentious points fly because this division has long hampered the ultimate goal of 9/11 truth which is to expose the lies on such a scale as to rewrite the correct history of this tragic yet world changing event and bring every one of those conspirators to justice.


    1. Satanist, Subjectivist Take-Over Of Culture Getting By On Pretext Of Moralism

      The "hologram" issue is mere diversion, and it's not significant. Fetzer's GROSS failure is in INDUCTION to the large context, especially for the cultural satanism (extreme subjectivism) which satanism is observed by many others too, as in "hip-hop" music and entertainment, all run by Jews (subjectivists--see

      Other instances of gross subjectivism, the premise and foundation for satanism, is in our legal establishment by which Gen. Petraeus, among others too, is crucified for nat. security violations which are dwarfed by hitlery Clinton. There are many other instances of selective prosecutions too, as in the huge banking corruption which is actually destroying the currency, economy, and civilization.

      Fetzer FAILS most miserably as the academic hack he is pushing subjectivist ethics as he does which dis-credits any possible attempt by Fetzer to analyze this cultural satanism (extreme subjectivism).

      So the problem is NOT so much in the accounting for details and items regarding truly "outrageous" 9/11 consp. and disaster--it's for the lacking in large-scale, inductive theorizing for 9/11 and explaining the Jew-satanic strangle-hold over our once Christian culture which featured the objective reality as basis for civilization, law, science, now over-ridden by subjectivist moralism/Pharisaism, which subjectivism Fetzer is spokesman for as academic hack he really is, effectively a gate-keeper.

    2. Sky777, OK. Set convincing the public aside. What explanation can better account for the data, such as:

      (1) the plane in the videos was traveling faster than aeronautically possible at that altitude;

      (2) it makes an impossible entry with no loss in velocity and no collision effects whatever;

      (3) there is no debris beneath the facade beneath the "impact points" for the North and South Towers;

      (4) there is a planted engine at Church & Murray, which would have been needless had a real plane really crashed;

      (5) a landing gear has more recently been found wedged between two buildings, with a piece of rope that had been used to guide it into place still attached;

      (6) Richard Hall has discovered radar record for a plane approaching the South Tower at the time, but it's 1,200' to the right of the recorded images;

      (7) he proposes that the image was projected from the real plane, the sound of which was taken to be the sound of the projected image;

      (8) this can account for the excessive speed, the impossible entry, and the planted engine and landing gear;

      (9) no other hypothesis can account for the data, including the radar record of a real plane 1,200' to the right of the image projected.

      I am open to alternative explanations, but as I have explained before, this appears to be the only hypothesis that can account for all of the data.

    3. Thanks for your reply Professor.

      I'm rather reluctant to share this one, but nonetheless interested to know whether you've seen this webpage before?

    4. This is an anonymous attack on many very good people by those who want to invert the truth and make falsehoods worthy of belief. I am glad you pointed it out to me, but this is only one of many baseless attacks by perps on truth seekers.

  8. I am waiting on Methodical Deception, I received an email from Amazon that it shipped today. C'mon Jim. You wrote: " her story of one of the planes coming in for landing at Westover AFB from 21,000' when it was only nine miles out and traveling eight miles an hour was not reasonable". Not reasonable, how about impossible, this kind of rhetoric is petty. Why not make an appt. with Rebekah to sit down on the air and go over things like adults. You are supposed to be on the same side and yet you seem to be orchestrating a squabble over ridiculous statements as the sited one above. Put the interview ahead for at least a week so that you can sober up and have an intelligent discussion.

    1. Listening to the interview with Susan Lindauer, I noticed that my closing comments--during which I invited Rebekah to come on my two-hour video show, "The Real Deal"--didn't make it on the air.

      Anyone in contact with her is welcome to tell her that I have extended this invitation. We could ask Dennis to join us and do what we can to iron out our differences. That is something I would like to do.

  9. "her story of one of the planes coming in for landing at Westover AFB from 21,000' when it was only nine miles out and traveling eight miles an hour was unreasonable: it was not an approach that any pilot would have undertaken." She NEVER EVER said that

    1. No, the critique of her claims on this point are those of Dennis Cimino, to whom I defer given his superior background and experience with regard to electronics and flight.

    2. Yes, I understand it was Cimino and he is wrong..She never said that...easily checked. I do not see why you and Rebekah can't put this behind you. Forget the personal attack that was misguided and you know how that happens as controversial as you have been. Your work is exemplary and you have been attacked. You know how the provocateurs work. Get together, please

    3. As you will see from my most recent comment here, I actually invited Rebekah to come on my two-hour video show, "The Real Deal", and hash things out.

      We could invite Dennis to join us and do what we can to lay these differences to rest. She says a lot of interesting things about the "phone calls" and who was responsible and why, which I like.

    4. Dennis Cimino may be the best at spotting bullshit of anyone I have known in my life. So I take him seriously when he has reservations about Roth after speaking with her for six hours.

  10. The referenced jet, Fl.175, was flying very low, hence, no radar coverage. To refute Cimino's blind contention, since HE rejects the hypothesis. Rebekah says this over and over again.

    1. The flight never steeply dove in for a landing, it made its approach from 15-20 miles west of Westover, over Otis, MA. which Rebekah clearly states.

    2. Well, if we got something wrong, that's our mistake. But Rebekah makes several that cause both of us to question whether she has the background she claims.

    3. From this and other comments you have posted below, you appear to be slovenly in relation to serious questions and research.

      Rebekah claims that turning of the transponder makes the plane no longer visible to radar. As I explain, that is ridiculous and indefensible.

      A transponder sends out an identifying signal; radar detects radio waves bouncing off aircraft in flight. The first does not interfere with the second.

      This is one of her most disturbing claims, since it raises questions about her competence as an airline stewardess. An experience stewardess would not commit such a blatant blunder.

    4. Again with attacks...jeez, you don't know me and I am not an expert at any of this. She says low altitude is responsible for radar stealth, transponder is cut by the system used to take over flight and it cuts all communication, She says this. You are jumping the gun led by Cimino

    5. "Slovenly" is childishly beneath you. Please, I say nothing in posts below...they are all in response to the other poster. Grow up, you are way better than that

    6. Look. The evidence shows that none of those 9/11 planes crashed, which means that no passengers aboard them died in crashes that did not take place.

      We already knew the phone calls had been faked from A.K. Dewdney and David Ray Griffin. And we have a mountain of proof that the "hits" in New York were done using some form of video fakery.

      My first impression of her book was that he had taken the data points--no crashes, no phone calls, faking the sites and all that--and come up with a story that RESTORES the planes and passengers as elements of the events of 9/11.

      Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day. And the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005.

      So how could planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11? And how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?

      Something is wrong here--and this is merely my first attempt to deal with it, which was precipitated by her attack on me for mild remark on a talk show when I was asked about her work.

      But she makes a couple of blunders that strike me as very strange for a 30-year stewardess to made (the transponder/radar blunder and the flight termination system/crew incapacity to signal the plane was hijacked), which are crucial to her account but wrong.

    7. Still believe it is all a misunderstanding, matters not who precipitated said misunderstanding. Your a great investigator and I know this episode can be buried in the dust. Your last comment in particular is a non issue because that is definitely a misunderstanding of what she says. Maybe book and many interviews have diverted but her interviews definitely don't say what you believe. (the transponder/radar blunder and the flight termination system/crew incapacity to signal the plane was hijacked) This in particular is opposed to what she has been saying in latest interviews.

    8. I forwarded your comment on the omission at the end of the Lindauer interview.

  11. The thing about Rebekkah is that she really seemed like a nice person the few times I've listened to her doing interviews, but this attack on Jim Fetzer is rather perpexling, and I'd definitely say that she's in the wrong here, not Professor Fetzer.

    I get the impression from her "drunk professor" comment that maybe someone misinformed her: "That Fetzer, watch out from him. He's a bad guy! And a drunk!".

    1. Her response, was a response to repeated attacks to her credibility. She has been remarkably civil, minus the above comment. They are for the most part on the same page but to shrug her off as Cimino did and as Fetzer followed is an unfair treatment of her voluminous work. Cimino's contention that he talked to her for 6 hours and then tossed her in the bin is ludicrous. That alone casts his motives under the spotlight. Government shill

    2. Sky777, I 100% agree with your first post. These differences need to be hashed out in person and not by hearsay and third person means. Real time conversation is the only way it works, In person preferably, but Skype works. Even telephone misses reactions.

    3. ...and by repeated attacks, I mean overall not just Jim Fetzer. Rebekah has been under Face Book, e-mail and Twitter Shill and Troll attacks for some time and I am sure her hectic schedule of interviews and book signings runs one into the other. I can see a very real area for confusion to arise

    4. Rebekah is a very nice person, she just doesn't suffer fools. She worked for thirty plus years as a flight attendant. Think about that for a minute. She dealt with 10's of thousands of Bozo's asking stupid questions, spilling drinks, pushing the light for a flight attendant for no good reason, on & on but still was professional and polite. Curt and to the point in her responses, but polite even to the undeserving. Then along comes Jim who works at the same online radio program with Rebekah and starts to question her evidence without reading her book. I.m.o, Jim's the sort that doesn't want to share the lime-light with someone who knows a subject better than he, I'm sorry to say. Who can blame her for giving Jim an insult which if the truth were known is probably true. Rebekah knows Jim better than we do and she doesn't lie.

    5. Z-boy, where do you come up with this rubbish? (1) I have read her book and said so when I was asked about it. (2) I do not "work at the same online radio program (sic)" as Rebekah. (3) I welcome people who know more than I do, because then I can learn something from them.

      I have engaged in collaborative research on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more BECAUSE I know my own limitations. Rebecka does not.

      Why would you think she knows me at all? She and I have had no contact and she did not even bother to learn what I had said before attacking me.

    6. I think Rebekah's contributions to this vital subject are very critical; however, she responded typically as most women would: attack the male who does not completely agree with her. She is a wonderful woman and obviously a terrific researcher, but, in the final analysis she is a woman. And you (i.e., the male) is not to argue and disagree with the female. That's going to get you in trouble.

    7. She did not even bother to ascertain what I had said and attacked me as "a drunk professor" without any possible reason than a malicious attempt to impugn my expression of mild reservation. That she would stoop to this BY ITSELF discredits her qualities as a student of 9/11. If she flies of the handle and makes up false charges against me for remarking that I do not think she has it all right, what else does she have wrong? This is a question about her integrity.

    8. Why Skeptictom would assert,

      "to shrug her off as Cimino did and as Fetzer followed is an unfair treatment of her voluminous work. Cimino's contention that he talked to her for 6 hours and then tossed her in the bin is ludicrous. That alone casts his motives under the spotlight. Government shill"

      is bizarre in the extreme. Dennis is an expert on flight and communications and spent SIX HOURS with her discussing these things over the phone.

      I have been restrained and even welcoming of her to the research community, where anyone would make their share of mistakes. But Rebekah does not adopt that posture but instead proclaims (on the back of METHODICAL DECEPTION), that she "has establisher herself as the foremost authority on 9/11"!

      That's rather breathtaking for two relatively easy reads in the FICTION category, which is (by the way) emphasized on the copyright page. Tell that to David Ray Griffin, for example, who has ten or more NON-FICTION studies in excruciating detail.

      Notice how, by calling it fiction, she absolves herself of any responsibility for citing sources and references. Compared to Griffin's massive compilation of facts and evidence, she has given us a "puff piece"--intriguing but NOT PROVEN.

    9. Dr. Fetzer, you tell me, if radar is transmitted via Frequency, is it totally improbable that the Flight Termination System can somehow interrupt the Radar (Frequency) as well as the onboard communications systems . To say the FAA would never allow something is pretty naive (and I know you are not) in this Day and age, government alphabet agencies have been corrupted to the core, and when desired do unconscionable things(EPA-Monsanto, FDA-Big Pharma). As to my assertion, I believe the 6 hour conversation with Cimino occurred but from all I have heard her say on the subject, I do not believe she said something so catastrophic as to have her theory totally rejected in such a harsh manner. That is all I asserted, I did not reject his contention that a conversation occured. I still believe you are all on the same page nit picking details, that is fine. As for the personal attacks, I do not know enough to comment except to say those types of attacks never help. I continue to follow your work and hope all the in fighting on such important matters will come to an end. There is too much at stake.

    10. It's not just "improbable", it's absurd. There is nothing about a flight termination system that would take the image of a plane off a radar screen. The image is created by bouncing radio waves off objects in the air. The FTS is a method of taking control of the plane from the pilots. Even then, there are alternative ways for the crew to let the ground know what's going on. Listen to Dennis in the interview with Susan Lindauer. He makes both points clear. There should be no doubt about it.

    11. Gratuitous hyperbole aside, I stand "checkmated" on Stealth Technology at this point in our scientific infancy. Touche Dr. Fetzer


  12. Fetzer's Incompetent Grasp For Theory, Cultural Context Of 9/11 Outrage

    Fetzer: let me now briefly take-up ur challenge given at above, Sept. 22, at 6:13 AM, entailing--

    "TRADITIONAL THEORIES: Emotivism, Family Values, Religious-based ethics, and cultural relativism;

    "PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES: Ethical Egoism, Limited Utilitarianism, Classic Utilitarianism, and Deontological Moral Theory."


    For note the problem is the present raging, rampant, dominant cultural SATANISM (extreme subjectivism) which has been noted by many observers in "hip-hop" music and law, to name just a couple of afflicted areas. For it's within this general satanist culture that 9/11 occurred and is now submerged for confusion and distraction.

    My pt. is Christian culture, founded on worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) necessarily implies the objective reality which so well opposed and defeated this satanism now dominant, raging, and rampant.

    Problem then w. ur pretended ethical knowledge is it seems to endorse a range of disparate and even conflicting theories, as u give above, u not having the courage to champion a coherent system of ur own knowledge.

    Pt. then is dear Christian PHILOSOPHY (embedded within the allegoric New Test. literature) follows the implicit objectivity, which objectivity then necessarily conflicts w. subjectivist, arbitrary, and mystic altruism of Benthamite utilitarianism, of whatever flavor, and the Kantian "deontology."

    And it's the very muddled and compromised sort of "philosophy" as urs, Fetzer, gov.-subsidized and -sponsored, that has rationalized and ushered-in the present, dominant cultural satanism which gives context and cover then for the "outrageous" 9/11 consp. and disaster.

    And that's why u, Fetzer, are incapable of providing theoretic context for the "outrageous" 9/11 consp. and disaster, as u champion the very pretext of satanic extreme subjectivism by means of ur own subjectivism, basis of ur incompetent and grossly compromised grasp of ethics as we see. Q.E.D.

    1. Fetzer Has Failed Miserably--Get A Clue

      "[F]lipped you in debate"?--what's that supposed to mean? And we have a debate going right now, and we see how Fetzer does--evading and mis-representing the issues as presented--and continuing to FAIL.

      What's ur problem?--don't u see I bring up simple concept, SATANISM (extreme subjectivism), well-noted and -verified by other observers, which has so horrifically taken-over our culture? And isn't it logical to pt. out Fetzer's muddled, incompetent "philosophy" for his failure of inductive logic and theorizing on this truly outrageous 9/11 conspiracy?

      Isn't it true Christian culture has been overthrown in the stead of this gross, dread satanism now rampant, raging, and dominant?--has Fetzer adequately addressed this simple issue?

      U shouldn't suck-up to Fetzer as u do, as it only encourages him for his continued evasions and obfuscation. For the root of this satanism is very much in Fetzer's own muddled and incompetent subjectivism for his moralism/Pharisaism as well as the general satanic overthrow of original leading Christianity which upheld TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), above all, and objectivity which had kept satanism in ck.

      Fetzer's "truths" amount to mere quibbling and details, while his mistakes and failures are major and quite significant, failing grossly and horrendously to consider the general cultural satanist context for this "outrageous" 9/11 consp. and disaster, and it's BECAUSE he accepts the basic satanist subjectivist premise(s). Get a clue, for goodness sake.

    2. Z-Boy, I appreciate this qualification of earlier posts, but I am still taken aback by her vicious assault on me for simply remarking in response to a question that, while I liked a lot of what she had to say, I did not think she had everything right.

      Saying she has some things wrong is not the same as saying she has everything wrong, which is clearly not the case. She is very open about the role of Israel and the Mossad, which I like. But I am troubled that she attacked me without even bothering to learn what I had or had not said.

      How do you account for this? She went out of her way to assail me (1) for having not read her book, when I made it clear at the time that I had read it; (2) for being "a drunk retired professor", when I am a retired professor but never "a drunk"; and (3) for my purported lack of knowledge of FAA protocols. Where did that come from?

  13. We all agree that 911 was a false flag event. We disagree on the methods and the deceptions. All we have are our theories and we should find the common ground and peer review each other. I still have yet to read up on the hologram concept. I did see the image of the second plane passing in front of a pillar? when it should have been behind it. That was strange. But what of the camera man filming the firefighters on the street when the first plane hit? And what of the flash before impact. And what of the puff of debris exiting the engines? Anyway its the next false flag that worries me. An EMP over Manhattan or a small mid-west city nuked. And still - in the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Carl

    1. Quit Mystifying What Is Simple, Obvious

      U're straining, obsessing, and diverting upon mere minutiae. "It's Jews, stupid" -Edgar Steele

      And the inductive conclusion--which Fetzer so strangely avoids--cannot be falsified, everything considered. U have all evidence u need.

      For note: Jews are most organized, "connected" satanists (subjectivists, whence they hubristically claim to create reality), and given this sublime organization, they naturally dominate, rule, and command the more individualist, nihilistic gentile subjectivists even though Jews seem out-numbered.

    2. apsterian, I read Fetzer's reply to me. The gist of his reply was that he was attacked and it seems that is what concerns him most. Yes, I was 'sucking up' to him. I have no audience, he does. I foolishly thought that he might put away his insignificant hurt feelings for the cause you so aptly describe. I no longer consider him to be helpful in this cause. Let's no longer argue with him, debate with him, or as I did, plead with him in the hope that he would help. It has become plain that he won't.

      To me Rebekah Roth's research and books really are ground breaking. She has connected all of the dots and exposed a great many new dots which she also connected. Any objectively thinking person that reads or listens to her can no longer hide behind cognitive dissonance. To me this is groundbreaking and surely a sea change if promoted to the masses.

      I reread your previous posts and the post below this reply. You are striking the root of the matter and I agree with all that you say. Imo, to achieve what you so well define requires a new Pearl Harbor to bring Americans to their hitherto dulled reactions concerning the very real satanist tribe that seeks to destroy all of us. It is hard for most Americans to wrap their minds around this fact. Again imo, exposing the hard truth of 9/11 to Americans, is the key to their understanding the underlying cause of 9/11 which you have so well described. It may be more difficult for Americans to accept the truth than it was for them seeing buildings collapsing and to grudgingly accept the official story. If Americans do begin to understand the real underlying problem, there will -hopefully- be a ground swell of such proportions that it will humble the satanic tribe and perhaps the devil himself. All we can do is to keep on trying to expose his lies to the people with people such as Rebekah Roth at the helm. May God help us all to do His work.

    3. No, Z-boy. Reread the article. I was WELCOMING Rebekah Roth as a member of the 9/11 Truth community. I was not "flipping her off". What I was doing was ASKING YOU to explain why SHE made this bizarre attack on ME without even bothering to ascertain what I had said. THAT WAS INEXCUSABLE. I was inviting you to give this more thought. WHY DID SHE DO THAT?

    4. Don't worry too much about it Jim, I believe that I gave you what I believe is her reason/reasons.

    5. On the basis of a single slender novel (which she and her publisher EMPHASIZE bears no basis to any real persons or events on the copyright page), she asserts herself to be "the foremost authority on 9/11" -- and without citing a single source for any of her claims.

      If the rest of her conduct were not reprehensible enough, this is beyond belief! David Ray Griffin, for example, has at least ten (10) substantial and copiously documented books on 9/11, which most would agree qualify him as "the foremost authority on 9/11".

      Rebekah doesn't make the "Honorable Mention" list for what she has done thus far. She has not cited a single source for anything she says and her book, METHODICAL ILLUSION, does not even include a bibliography. IT IS A WORK OF FICTION.

    6. Jim, can you give me the Monika-Rebekah linkage. Googling didn't have anything on it. Where did you get this claim from?

      I was a friend of Monika's for awhile and I found it beyond belief that she was a loyal republican all the while in a 911 truth group. She ended up blocking me


  14. HOW Can Fetzer Fail So Horribly?

    Observe the slam-dunk nature of satanist conspiracy within the satanic circumstances:

    (1) Definition of satanism, extreme subjectivism, is easily done and demonstrable, subjectivist making himself God the creator. And it's not mere "zealotry" as Fetzer falsely claims.

    (2) The instances and existence of satanism within the culture are widely observed (see u-tube), "hip-hop" music, selective prosecutions of whistle-blowers and bankers, homosexual executive, married to a transsexual, making law in contempt of Const. and Congress, etc.

    (3) Question then is who are leading, most organized subjectivists?--Jews, and not merely zionists, easily demonstrated; see and for expo.

    (4) What's practical instrument for imposition of satanism?--that legalized COUNTERFEITING, criminal scam known as "central-banking," buying, extorting, assassinating all/any politicians, judges, the public edjumacation, the corp.s, including the "Jews-media," and esp. the establishment "Christian" churches, etc.

    Thus the evidence and details are so eminently present for the conclusion which is NOT falsified, perfectly proven, but Fetzer, the trained, consummate, academic hack, quails and fails--on the excuse of moralism/Pharisaism.

    "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes (A.C. Doyle)

    It wasn't and couldn't have been mooooslims, Eskimos, Bushmen, Hottentots, or Pygmies who did 9/11; it could ONLY have been that one group who hold themselves above criticism.

    Thus Fetzer so horribly and miserably FAILS as philosophical and scientist, keeping people's attn. so strictly on minutiae, refusing to observe the blatant inductive evidence for the necessary general theory which explains everything, including the "outrageous" 9/11 consp. so well, so accurately, so thoroughly, and so informatively.

    How is Fetzer NOT acting as most infernal, subversive gate-keeper?

  15. If the planes hitting the towers were holographic projections, that doesn't disprove Rebekah's claim that some real planes were diverted to an Air Force base.

    If Rebekah doesn't understand how radar works, that doesn't prove she was not a flight attendant. Maybe she just meant that the transponder code disappears from the radar screen when the transponder is turned off. The radar blip is still there. (Why would flight attendants need to know about radar anyway? They're not air traffic controllers!)

    Maybe the flights in question were tampered with so there was no way to notify ground control that they were hijacked.

    All people who are involved in exposing the truth about 9/11 should cooperate with each other, and stop trying to rain on each other's parade. Probably nobody has all the answers yet. 9/11 was a covert operation, after all!

    1. Dear Professor Fetzer,

      I wanted to amend my above post, but didn't want another "deleted comment". lol.

      What i hoped to convey was my sincere thanks to you for your not removing posts that you don't agree with or may even consider offensive. It takes a true educator to allow this.

      That being the case, I again ask you in fairness to rethink your position. I believe that we are all on the same page here with only trivial matters separating us. We very much need to unite.

      Best Regards,


  16. Her attitude, one should think, would be very serious. It's not at all. Last night I came across an article (but didn't have the time to read it then) which said that her name is actually Rothstein. However, after an hour searching for the article today, I was unable to find it. Whatever her name, the more her book gets talked about, the greater the subsequent effect. That is to say, when it gets discredited, and it surely will, as you are succeeding in doing in part as truth-seeking journalist, the gist of what she says, that Jews were the perpetrators of 9/11 will be pooh-poohed. Than the Jews will have achieved their purpose. Ten years from now, no doubt, Jews will be portrayed as would-be heroes if only they hadn't been stymied somehow.


    1. Ever hrd of the FTS (flight termination system)?--that's what's significant, esp. now fm Rebekah Roth. U're just full of excrement: the "gist" of her expo is the info she gives fm the flight-attendant's pt. of view, this giving weight and substance to her outstanding commentary. That Jews are anti-human monsters and mass-murderers in control of a corrupt US society has been known by many for many, many yrs now--how many Jews are on US Sup. ct.?--how does that happen, etc.? U make no sense.

  17. With all due respect, I believe that both Prof. Fetzer and Rebekah Roth overestimate the involvement of Israel and Mossad in 9/11. I will explain where I agree and where I disagree.
    1) Yes, many likely dual citizens were involved in WTC security and ownership and PNAC.
    2) Yes, Israel has benefited from the anti-Muslim sentiment and Middle Eastern wars.
    3) Yes, Holocaust is a myth.

    4) The "dancing Israelis" and Israelis driving vans with explosives around NYC on 9/11, the vans with the WTC attack painted on the side, and the Israeli art students -- these all have the signs of a deliberate setup because the evidence is too glaring. This orgy of evidence is too good to be true. Rational people, such as Mossad agents, would not incriminate themselves so openly and carelessly. My view is that the vans with explosives attributed to Israelis and "dancing Israelis" are the CIA's doing, yet another diversion from the real masterminds and biggest beneficiaries (CIA and JCS mainly).
    5) Although Isreal has benefited from 9/11, the weight of evidence suggests that Israel does not control the CIA and JCS, nor do international bankers, many of whom are Jewish. In my view, Israel and international bankers are minor partners not the bosses of the CIA and JCS. In fact, the latter two organizations have a long history of excluding and disliking Jews. Nobody benefited more from 9/11 than the Pentagon and CIA (even if we consider only the 2.3 trillion of disappeared transactions before 9/11 and disregard the trillions spent on wars after 9/11).
    6) Not all American news media are pro-Israel or controlled by Jews. I can cite the example of CNN, which is strongly disliked by my Jewish acquaintances because it often criticizes Israel.
    7) Very rich people, many of whom are Jews, do not control the Pentagon and CIA. These organizations probably have many of their own underground billionaires, who will never be detected by the editors of the Forbes magazine. More importantly, nobody can control an organization that can assassinate anyone anywhere with complete deniability. If Larry Silverstein tried to give an order to one of those guys, he would probably die of natural causes the next day.

    1. "It's Jews, Stupid": Foremost satanists

      U are simply pathetically ignorant of that criminal enterprise known as central-banking by which they literally legally COUNTERFEIT the "money supply," printing-up practically all the currency they need to totally monopolizing, buying, owning, and controlling everyone and everybody. See for expo on this criminal banking; also see

      These criminals, posing as "bankers," own and control all the establishment mass-media--this is proven and demonstrable.

      Problem is u don't know what u're talking about, horrendously ignorant as u are about money and banking.

      Judaism = satanism (extreme subjectivism); see and Talmud teaches Jews war against humanity, thus making Jews topmost, foremost criminals.

      So u make no sense buddy, pretending as u do there's someone else, aside fm Jews, the topmost satanists.

    2. Real Christianity Could Still Save USA, West

      Of course, it isn't as if Jews are only sinners--all mankind are sinners. Pt. then is as cultures go through CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, the evermore subjectivist/satanistic -oriented corrupt culture becomes victim to Jew masterminds taking-over--as we see presently in the West and affecting the whole world too, as the central-banking exerts its effects.

      The classic instance in history of such cultural decline is Roman empire. 4th cent. Christian revolution revived the empire briefly, but it wasn't enough to save the empire fm descent into mysticism/subjectivism, evidently.

      Can anything save the present Western world?--only another Christian, anti-satanic, anti-subjectivistic turn of the culture. People would have to abandon and throw away their addiction to self-righteousness and "moralist virtue," such as it's understood according to fallacious, non-existent "good-evil," if that's possible.

      In practical terms, salvation of what's left of modern-era culture would mean returning to gold-standard economy, and states-rights, local-government ideals in accord w. original American Declaration of Independence.

      Presently, fiat-Dollar standard is collapsing, and the top masterminds want to muddy the waters for their escape by means of ginning-up warfare. People must unite on grounds of original Christian Ideal of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) and the OBJECTIVE (Aristotelian) reality.

    3. Anonymous: You need to work on further research. Who was the comptroller at the Pentagon on 9/11? CNN is owned by a Jew.

  18. "A thousand points of light" as mentioned in Jim's article has caused speculation across the board especially with students of conspiracy theories. What did Bush mean by this slogan, comment, or message? It is quite clear that when he announced, "Order out of chaos", that that meant the business of destruction in the sense of completeness, however, how does chaos ensue? A thousand "points" to me may mean targeted facilities, important infrastructure, and engineering constructs, etc. In the recent presentation two months after the great Hoover Dam exhibition in which it appears that CERN is involved and that their technology and ideals were projected on the downstream face of the dam, that what was shown on the Empire State building may provide a clue as to what a thousand points of light to the global elites suggest.

    "A thousand points of light" as mentioned in Jim's article has caused speculation across the board especially with students of conspiracy theories. What did Bush mean by this slogan, comment, or message? It is quite clear that when he announced, "Order out of chaos", that that meant the business of destruction in the sense of completeness, however, how does chaos ensue? A thousand "points" to me may mean targeted facilities, important infrastructure, and engineering constructs, etc. In the recent presentation two months after the great Hoover Dam exhibition in which it appears that CERN is involved and that their technology and ideals were projected on the downstream face of the dam as a message, that what was shown on the Empire State building may provide a clue as to what a thousand points of light to the global elites suggest.

    The "thousand points of light" may have been shown to us with this demonstration:



  19. Anonymous, you said "Rational people, such as Mossad agents, would not incriminate themselves so openly and carelessly." What you say is a good example of our problem. I'm German American and you are probably the same. We just can't believe that any group of people would act differently than we do. We -no longer me- seem to think that just because a seemingly modern society with a nuclear arsenal must have rational people at its top. They don't bro. These rabid dogs -most them are anyway- are approx. one step away - in their minds - from where a Christian child's blood is being drained by their satanist priests. I could give you links, but its late and I'm tired. They are clever but not wise. Their undeserved hubris and our -no longer me- going along with it, gives them license to display what in previous generations was hidden. They are indeed ridiculous in their actions which should be obvious to you. I'll stop my rant in the hope that you will splash cold water on your face and take another look. I'm just saying, don't ever underestimate the evil of the tribe.

  20. Thirteen plus years post the 9-11 event, an unknown “expert” on planes and passengers comes out of nowhere with a New York Times best seller book that has the underlying premise and message that actual commercial airliners with passengers crashed at the four sites on 9-11. At this point it is sad that there are so many 9-11 truth seekers who take this person at face value and who say we all ought to just get along.

    1. ^ Are you speaking about Rebekah Roth?

    2. Jeannon, No, she claims they were flown to an air base, Westover in Massachusetts, where all four landed and some of their passengers were gassed on the planes and others were forced to make the fabricated phone calls.

      This looks to me like an ingenious attempt to take the discoveries of (a) faked phone calls, (b) fake crash sites, (c) fake hijackers and (d) proof of Israeli involvement into a fictional account that restores the planes and passengers as real.

      I think your gut reaction is right and that others, such as Z-boy (who abandons me when I ask why she launched such a vicious attack on me for a response to a question on a talk show, where she does not even bother to find out what I said), are the least bit more gullible than you.

    3. I see. She accepts the four commercial airliners and flights and passengers, but does not accept that they crashed at the four sites. I think you and others have revealed much factual information that, aside from crash site data, that the planes, the flights and alleged flight paths, and passengers give us strong reasons to question even her basic assumptions about the "planes: and "passengers."

      I listened to her one time about six months ago being interviewed by John Stadtmiller and had to turn it off after about twenty minutes as her game was clear to me.

      This best seller book years after the event from an expert out of nowhere appears to be a recurrent strategy in relation to many false events of the last two decades. This strategy always retains key elements of the official story and the rest is designed to confuse, deceive and divert attention away from what the official story actually claims, that is, what we went to war for and the reason we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    4. re: "to confuse, deceive and divert attention away from what the official story actually claims, that is, what we went to war for and the reason we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

      No, Rebekah does nothing of the kind. She calls this a false flag event. She demonstrates that the story of Arabs with box cutters is preposterous. She agrees that hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas were murdered.


  21. If "Rebekah" was telling the "bombshell" truth, her book would not be promoted and called a "best seller" by the New York Times and she would have shown herself to be a part of the 9-11 truth seeking "community" long before now. Do not be fooled by her words or her the position she claims to stand for. That is all part of the act.

    Rebekah is not the real deal. She is working for the same people who plotted and planned the Big Lie of 9-11 and an insult to those who have worked hard over the years to expose the 9-11 deed of darkness..

    1. Roth's Info About FTS Is Stimulating, Incisive, FATAL To Conspirators

      "Bombshell" would seem to be Rebekah's confirmation of the Flight Termination System (FTS) by which planes could not have been "guided" into the bldgs., etc., without ZOG's assent and deliberate collusion. And I wonder what Cimino has to say about this FTS.

      Otherwise, it's all quibbling over mere details and tid-bits: we KNOW who was behind this, ZOG and Jew world order--it wasn't Eskimos. We can eliminate everyone else, too: Pygmies, Ubangis, and Hottentots. Was it Mooooslims?--impossible, everything considered--COULD ONLY BE JEWS.

      "Once u've eliminated the impossible, the remainder, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes (A.C. Doyle). Task now is to doing something meaningful about it.

      Hence rationalist, real, anti-semitic Christianity must be activated and effected against ZOG's willing dupes and useful idiots, first among the Judeo-Christians, and all/any who defend/sympathize with Jews, foremost Satanists.

      For that's what were up against: a deliberate satanistic conspiracy, this satanism consisting of extreme subjectivism which is taught to the people in increments by means of the captured, Jew-friendly "Christian" establishment, the Jew-controlled mass-media, and Jew-controlled public edjumacation, including academic hacks like Fetzer who pretend there's non-existent, anti-Christ "good-evil" Pharisaism, known as Pelagian heresy, and which Fetzer merely styles in form of Benthamist and Kantianist subjectivism/mysticism.

      This satanism then is activated, effected, and enforced by means of criminal enterprise of "central-banking," legalized COUNTERFEITING, the primary satanist instrument fueling everything else within the corrupt culture in "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, now hijacked by satanists, led by Jews, foremost, sublime, and consummate subjectivists (see Fetzer refuses to observe and verify due to his programmed moralism/Pharisaism which renders him blind and useless for the large analysis, as we see, Fetzer submerged within and obsessed w. mere minutiae.

      Rebekah Roth provides excellent, fresh details well worth consideration/analysis, brilliantly backing-up Chris Bollyn's general theory, aside fm the "Thermite" error (, which is mere detail.

    2. re: "If 'Rebekah' was telling the 'bombshell' truth, her book would not be promoted and called a 'best seller' by the New York Times"

      Really? I did a search of The Times for the name "Rebekah Roth." Result: not found. So, give us a link to any article in The Times about Rebekah Roth!

    3. Jeannon, I value your opinion tremendously because you have been so perceptive across a broad range of complicated issues in the past. Here is another of her interviews (this time with Chip Tatum). If you can bear the experience, I would be grateful for any additional observations you might have to make on Rebekah and her modus operandi:

    4. There is something odd right off the bat when she trivializes the date provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics as thought it were nothing but a marketing gimmick for the airline industry. If you think about it, the government needs to have a reliable data bank about flights, their schedules, their departure and arrival times and such. While they may be USED by airlines to promote their records for on-time arrivals and departures, for example, that flight is missing indicates that it was not scheduled that day, which means that she is attempting to dismiss the absence of Flights 11 and 77 from the BTS data records for 9/11. And that suggests to me perhaps more than any other indication yet that her role is to restore public belief in the existence of the planes and of the passengers, without which there was no warrant or any justification for the "war on terror", as I explained in #100 and #103 of "The Real Deal". On the BTS, see, for example, its statement about its dedication to the scientific integrity of its data and its statistics,

    5. Random thoughts on listening to Chip Tatum’s interview of Rebekah Roth.

      Roth explains her coming to the 9-11 truth scene so very late as that she was like most people who at first thought something about the official story being told sounded very wrong to her but she just decided to put it aside or put it in the back of her mind.

      She made a remark about “retired professors” “who really didn’t know the airline business” and their faulty 9-11 truth ideas. She said she had to “weed through some really weird nonsensical conspiracies”, this probably being another swipe at the “retired professors” who don’t have a clue about the airline industry.

      There is some indication that Rebekah Roth is a strong supporter of Dr. Judy Wood’s ideas. How strong a supporter and the nature of the relationship of these two entities, I do not know, but this might explain Roth’s ad hominems against Dr. Fetzer but also a special dislike by Roth of all things Fetzer.

      Roth makes a big deal about her 30 years experience as an “airline professional” and her extensive regular training sessions with the FAA.

      Roth also makes a big deal of her saving all the newspaper articles and news and writings on CIA etc and geopolitical matters over the years to help her with her writing endeavors. Again, message is she is a knowledgeable “expert.”

      According to Rebekah…
      BTS [Bureau of Transportation Statistics] data base was created in the 1990s just for the passengers. Apparently people, presumably like misguided 9-11 truth researchers, who read those statistics and saw where Flights 11 and 77 were not even recorded as flights at all just “didn’t know what she knows” about that data base just being relatively unimportant marketing type database, and of course again alluding to her superior inside knowledge of how the airline industry works.

      She also suggests the BTS numbers were often and padded for various reasons and that flight numbers associated with accidents or whereon “terrorist attacks supposedly occurred” were retired and that may be why those Flight numbers somehow got taken off the BTS data set. She treats the entire BTS data as sort of a joke among the insiders and is of light importance and low validity/accuracy of data. [But not of such light importance to Gerard Holmgren who was possibly murdered because of his discovering and taking seriously the lack of BTS recording of Flights 11 and 77.]

      A few asides here …

      McGann made good comment about we really do not even know if Rebekah Roth is her real name or much of anything at all about who she is and what her background is. This inability to search out and verify new players on the 9-11 truth scene is typical throughout my years of study of 9-11 since 9-11-01.

      The name, Rebekah Roth, naturally strikes many as the Jewish name that it is.

      All I can say is that Roth is working for the anti-truth faction of 9-11 research. And the plotters or perps or whatever you want to call them are now more and more injecting the “Zionist / Jew” ideas into the mix. They actually appear to be pointing us toward the Zionists-did-it idea but the pointing as usual is done in a dishonest and crooked way so as to confuse and frustrate.

      The two main areas of inquiry that are of most importance to the perpetrators to hide in various sophisticated ways are the truth that there were no commercial airline crashes at any of the four sites on 9-11 and the role played by Zionists at the top levels of the U S government at the time of the event. Continually and to this day, the perps are putting out new misinfo and disinfo videos, books, and articles and they all contain many methodical illusions.

      Rebekah Roth is what we now refer to as a “crisis actor.” She lays it on pretty heavily throughout this interview and makes me “run for the Tums”, that is, she causes me acute dyspepsia.

  22. Uncle Fetzer,when the hell are you going to get around to reading "wtc7lies" by Mark Roberts,a lowly tour guide from Manhattan who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that #7 wasn't blown up,laser beamed,Judy Woodenized,etc.?
    How smart could a guy be if her ignores so much open source evidence like the oral testimonies IN THEIR ENTIRETY?

    1. If u're so smart, why don't u sum it all up for us?--if u can't, then how do u persuade anyone to waste his time to reading something u can't even evaluate urself?

    2. You don't have to be especially smart to understand the easy stuff,A-man.
      The firemen testify ad nauseum that the building was in a long slow process of weakening.It had a bulge where Tower One smashed into it,the fires hadn't had any water applied and creaks and groans were heard.The building was in a compromised situation and everyone down there knew it.There were raging fires and it was most certainly hit,just not with a jumbo jet.
      A perimeter was created by 3 P.M. and the unsurprising (to the fireman) collapse occurred a t 5:21 that day.
      Those things aren't happening if it was a controlled demolition.
      Read the paper and save yourself from years of total embarrassment.
      Avoid the demolition cult AND the goofy "Fetzer Has Some Exciting Exotic Impossible Theory Because He's So Much Smarter Than Everyone" tar pit.

    3. Oh,I forgot to mention the hairy gorilla sitting on your Hitlerian shoulder,Apsterschnook:no,the Jew didn't confess,that's just your fellow neo-Nazis absurd lie about Larry Silverstein remembering that the FDNY created a perimeter and pulled everyone back and away from a gigantic building about to collapse on their heads like the other two towers.
      Which it did.

    4. Jew Revealed

      Ho ho ho--okay, now we know who/what u are--the usual Jewwy liar, dis-info agent, and prop.-pusher. And don't forget, it doesn't take "nazi" to be anti-semitic--all humanity is anti-semitic as u Jews actually admit in ur filthy, satanic Talmud (see For if Jews are anti-human, then humans are anti-semitic by definition, right? Thanks for ur info, Jew.

    5. More mush from the wimp.
      And the usual non-answer when provided with the nutritious beef stew that your loopy mind is in desperate need of.

      I'm German-Irish,Mr.Woltz and I don't admire any of your Nazi pictures.

      Why don't you just hang yourself with that Nazi flag of yours.Think of it,you could "pull" yourself at the same time and be coming and going at the same time.The happy ending for a controlled demolition cult sap.

    6. Dear Christianity: Most Successful Anti-Semitism Of All Time

      Jew: u need to learn about INDUCTIVE LOGIC--if it talks, walks, acts, thinks like Jew, then that's the conclusion which now needs to be dis-proven which u don't do. Further, if u were Jew, u wouldn't hesitate to lie, right?--such are Jews. Didn't u know real Christianity is all the anti-semitic one needs be?--most successful anti-semitism of all history, Christian TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) against Jew lies (JOHN 8:44). Tell us more lies, Jew, ho ho ho ho

    7. Jesus thinks you're a jerk!

    8. ^ You nailed him apstd And as to Jim, Rebekah doesn't need him and neither do we, unless you want do unravel the Paul McCartney mystery. I.m.o., Jim's out in left field on that one too.

    9. Z-Boy, what has become of you? You started out as a reasonably objective and responsible commentator then somewhere along the line fell off the deep end. What happened to you?

      And if you think I have something wrong about this or any other issue, including the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, why don't you be very specific about what I have said, why I have said it, what you think I have wrong and how you know? Is that asking too much?

    10. Fetzer Pretends His Failure Isn't Plain And Essentially Expostulated

      Fetzer: u're just a Jew-serving hack and gate-keeper. I've explained ur problems actually quite extensively: (a) U fail for inductive logic to satanic (extreme subjectivism) conspiracy, as u're subject to such subjectivism, urself, and the moralist fallacy. (b) U fail to appreciate Christian philosophy, refusing even to acknowledging such Christian philosophy and implications.

    11. Wait,let me get this straight:Uncle Fetzer actually believes that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by Billy Shears?!?
      The cement headed professor holds all four spots up on the Mount Rushmore of Wrong.
      Just who is paying this nutjob's freight?

    12. Have you ever looked at the case? Why do so many think they have a reasonable position without even bothering to consider the evidence? Check out AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which has four chapters about the apparent death and replacement of Paul, which seems to have occurred in late 1966. The man who calls himself "Paul" thereafter is taller, has a larger cranium of a different shape, better teeth and a larger palate, as a study by Italian forensic scientists (which is also a chapter of the book) established in 2009. So you can continue to congratulate yourself on your ignorance or you can consider the evidence for yourself. I have no doubt which you will choose.

  23. As per Albert Pike, here we are watching the opening salvos of WW3. First the towers, then the overthrow of Isamic States, then a refugee crisis into eastern europe which is just starting and will get much much worse. European countries will be forced to close thier borders. The hordes will revolt. In the USA there is more room and les of an influx. There will need to be a flash point like say terrorists wipe out the internet. Everything stops. The cities will empy out into the country devouring everything with millions and millions of refugees. A new world capitol will be built near the new temple and death and israel will reign --- at least for a time. Carl

    1. Agreed. Now what do thinking, caring people do in this morass?

  24. It may be that Rebekah is right about all her facts or wrong about a few of them. Whatever, there ain't no and's, if's, or but's about it--the Powers That Be in the USA and Israel did the dirty deed. More intriguing to me than Rebekah's novels is her true identity. There is no credible reason that she has not revealed any specific information about herself that can be verified. In fact, we know nothing about her. She has not revealed the airline for whom she claims to have worked. We don't even know whether Rebekah Roth is her real name (and she has not been asked whether that name is non de plume by any of her interviewers, elsewise it would be on the Web).
    Wouldn’t it be nice to hear her articulate her purpose for writing her two novels? (Non-fiction books would have served the fledgling writer so much better, creating a clamor for further investigation.) Was her purpose for writing merely to make some shekels? Was it to make her fellow Jews out to be the pathological mass murderers that they are, responsible for a rash of wars in the Middle East which have subsequently followed? I doubt it! Maybe it was to vindicate the Arabs whom were falsely accused? Not likely!
    In one of her interviews she said she was glued to her TV for a week or so after 9/11, yet she failed to hear Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center, say to the NYC fire chief “let’s pull it,” and down went Building 7 in typical demolition fashion!
    Perhaps she was actually commissioned by the very satanic perpetrators of the crime, whose intent would be to muddy the waters, so to speak, so Americans would be even more confused as to what actually happened that infamous day. In any case, until we know more about Rebekah, no doubt a Bible believer, for she boasts that this is how her name is Biblically spelt, we should hold off any judgment of her. She might actually be a saint, loved roundly by her husband, her children, and her pets if she has any.

    1. Doesn't it occur to u Rebekah's info about FTS (flight termination system) is BOMBSHELL all by itself?--doesn't matter who she is.

      Aren't u just pushing a diversion?--aren't u just full of excrement, making no sense? U want to know personal info about Rebekah as u're just nosy, right? U can't figure-out why Rebekah doesn't want to divulge anymore info than necessary?--u're just not too bright--that's all there is to it.

    2. TD, I think you raise some important questions that deserve answers. Dennis determined that she lives in Langley, which is disturbing by itself. Jeannon has observed that she drops down from the sky with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The declaimers about her work as a work of fiction are stronger than any others I have seen. Her attacks on me for raising a few points of mild criticism are way over the top--and insofar as she made no effort to determine what I had said before assailing me, raise questions about her commitment to research. Z-boy seems to think my feelings are hurt, but they aren't hurt at all: I have been attacked thousands of times. The point I am making that Z-boy seems to miss is that, if she is the brilliant student she claims, why didn't she take the time to verify what I had said BEFORE she attacked me? This causes me great concern about who she really is and what she is really about.

  25. James, I have to be anonymous cause I don't know how to be anything else in this forum. But I am a new contributor. You and I have appeared together in a homespun forum... hint.
    Once again you have proven the depth of your scholarship, and quality of your reasoned debate.
    I am astounded but not surprised by "apsterian's" barrage of fundamentalist inspired nonsense, always starting with a single sentence ad hominum opener. How you have the patience and time to grace your readers with your thorough responses, I will never know, but I for one am grateful. I am particularly fond of geniuses.
    I think it is time to look at a big picture. We now know that Duff/Foote is some sort of controlled op. But to what end?
    If you continue to look at VT, it is carrying on it's "Israel is bad" schtick, but completely glossing over the corporate agendas of deception; false flag shootings and bombings, vaccine damage, geoengineering, phony voting machines and the existence of spectacular new energy technologies.
    Along with this Rebeccah person (who I have no intention of reading, I will leave that to you) I think there is a pattern emerging.
    I think the Khazarian Mob is going to throw Israel under the bus.
    If it can all be blamed on that one tiny country and it's current crop of zealots and mad men, we can all be distracted from the continued corporate theft of ... well... everything!
    Israel, I believe, is the macrocosm patsy and it's people are in danger. Whether "they" succeed or not, it seems that this current writer with her willingness to blame mossad and Israel, along with Duff/Foote and Dean's purge of anything really meaningful except more "Satanist/Christian," "bad Israel" booga booga, I think we can assume their plan is to patsy that one small part of their enterprise, claim the "bad guys have been caught" and go on with their debt slavery, austerity and sovereign asset confiscations.
    That's my two cents. See you in another homespun program I hope.
    Remember, you may be an atheist, but at least one angel is watching you.
    Your biggest fan

    1. Fetzer Suck-Up Refuted

      ""[A]psterian's" barrage of fundamentalist inspired nonsense" is just another lie, as is plain fm simple observing the evidence. Christianity, worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above any/all else, follows fm the literature within which is distinct, implicit philosophy, as I've noted, upholding the objective (Aristotelian, God-created) reality, necessary foundation/criterion of truth--against Jew lies (JOHN 8:44) founded upon subjectivism and the Jew "midrash" (interpretation) of original Torah according to their "Oral law tradition" (Gosp. MATT 15:6), which midrash Christ rejected, for which truth Pharisees conspired to kill Christ--affirmed in their Talmud (see which truth resurrects as at Easter. Christianity is philosophy put in allegoric, literary form.

      And my criticism of Fetzer is clear and precise: (a) he FAILS for inductive logic to the large, necessary theory, the satanic conspiracy, satanism being simply extreme subjectivism, (b) Fetzer failing specifically for his own subjectivism/mysticism and insistence upon non-existent "good-evil," Fetzer invoking the dis-credited Bentham and Kant, among others, for his muddled ethical premises. (c) Fetzer also fails miserably for adequate appreciation of basic Christian literature and philosophy, refusing even to acknowledge the Christian philosophy.

    2. Yes, there is a saying, "A victor's friend is the last victim." Criminal collaborators will be toast too.

    3. I'm a "Fetzer suck up!" according to Apsterian.
      How exciting!
      I couldn't be insulted by a more bizarre fellow.
      Have you ever noticed that stupid idiots like apsterian always resort to ad hominum? (Yes apsterian that was a joke you won't get).
      This Bozo uses ad hominum's as little headlines before his strange diatribes. Cute.
      Look whoever you are, your writing is so disjointed and unintelligible as to make you almost not fun to respond to. But... you did pick on me specifically so I can't help it!
      Absolutely nothing you have ever said disparagingly about James has ever made the slightest sense, and I read them all (in order to enjoy James riposte though, not because you are cogent).
      Because you quote one book exclusively, some version of the bible, you seem to think you are an authority on "christianity." The Christ Consciousness has taken many forms that are far superior to that bizarre and hypocritical book, such as A Course In Miracles.
      The things Christ teaches such as forgiveness and the deep and abiding Love of God are never mentioned in your rants.
      It is not "Jews" that are a problem, it is the horrific culture of extreme "Judaism" that is dangerous. Just as the extreme culture of "christianity" has been the most destructive and murderous force in the planet's history.
      People are of God, it's abominable cultures that entrap them that are the true "satan" in this world. Like extreme capitalism, male genital mutilation, usury, greed, the crusades, slavery; all things that have been done in the name of every extreme religion.
      You really come across as a nut job, aspertame or whatever your name is.
      But notice that Dr. Fetzer not only allows your nut-jobbery on his forum, but patiently tries to respond to it, as if you were a sensible debater who cared about anything like reason or truth.
      That is where he shows his quality, and your lack of same becomes thoroughly apparent.
      Fetzer's suck-uppy little angel.

    4. Well, I'm sure Fetzer is happy and gratified he's got such as u for a fan--what would he do without u, eh? But seriously, u need to find-out about Judaism = satanism, pure and simple. There's no "extreme" Judaism any more than there's extreme psychopathology or extreme satanism. See and to find-out the real facts.

    5. Anonymous, I think your points about Veterans Today are well-founded. They and I parted ways over my publishing about JADE HELM and Gordon Duff's opposition, which led to his deleting all 150 articles I had published there since 2011! I have published about him here and elsewhere, including

    6. Jesus Harold Christ,Fetzer parting ways with VT is like Curly quitting the Three Stooges and saying "those guys are nuts".
      You must be bitter and nostalgic because you had a veritable modern day Three Stooges with you,Barrett and nutty Duff over at that cesspool.

  26. Apsterian,

    It's one thing to accept that 9/11 was done by the Mossad, it is another to demonize every jewish person on the planet. You'd be no different than people who demonize all muslims because they believe muslims extremists did 9/11.

    1. U obviously can't read, can't think, aren't very bright, and are so lazy u don't think u have to back-up what u say. All u have to do is find-out about what Judaism is, what it preaches, sources for which I've duly given numerous times. No decent person would admit he/she is Jew, anymore than they'd say they're psychopaths, satanists, or Christ-killers. 9/11 is just ANOTHER crime committed by these monsters who pretend to being human, called Jews, not just "zionists."

    2. Ironically, you're the one who comes off as a psychopath.

    3. Yeah, and u're one who comes off as Jew liar, right?

    4. While the proof of Israeli involvement in 9/11 is simply overwhelming--see "Israel did 9/11--All the proof in the world!", for example--I deplore the anti-Jewish comments some are posting here. I would have thought it was unnecessary to say so, but some are abusing the privilege of commenting on these issues here.


    5. Fetzer: Flunkey For Jew Murderers, Conspirators

      Oh, u "deplore," eh? Fetzer: get a clue; Jews are Talmudists which Talmud bids Jews wage war against gentiles--"the best of the gentiles, kill him." Talmud says it's ok to lie to and murder gentiles, the only proviso being it must benefit Jews. See for best Talmudic expo. Also, see

      Fetzer: that's ur problem as academic hack; u're trained and inured to sucking-up to oppressors, the Jews, not just "zionists" or "Israelis," AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES U SUCH disgusting, odious, contemptible "GATE-KEEPER," buddy.

      Who did 9/11?--that satanic conspiracy led by Jews, not just "Israelis," "zionists," and "neo-cons," who further work along w. their gentile suck-alongs and "useful idiots" which includes u, Fetzer, acting as gate-keeper for "9/11 truth" (including JFK, present problems in Syria, etc.), failing for the necessary inductive logic, and theory entailing SUBJECTIVISM, the root of the fatal problem of US and Western society which allows these Jews their place, master-minding the problems, always benefitting the upper-level Jews, now determined upon "population-reduction" (AGENDA-21), among the other problems.

      Thus Jews make use of SUBJECTIVISM, basis of their lies (Gosp. JOHN 8:44) Fetzer, something u refuse to facing-up to, rendering u not only gate-keeping nuisance, at the least, but actually subversive, in all truth. So just as real problem is Jews, one observes Jew murderers and conspirators couldn't work and succeed without their dupes like u, Fetzer.

      Thus Jews are the most active element, murderers and destroyers of any corrupt society, but that society is corrupt precisely because of such as u, Fetzer, one who slavishly sucks-up to Jew murderers and destroyers. Such then is "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler--demonstrated before our very eyes.

  27. How on the planet Earth can anyone take Uncle Fetzer seriously when he is so grotesquely wrong about his Sacred Tower 7?
    For all of you seekers and truly inquisitive:it is beyond dispute that #7 fell from impacts and fires.The recollections of the FDNY concerning the gradual deterioration and compromising of that building proves neatly,cleanly and in an uncomplicated way that the tower was in a slow motion process of collapsing and eventually a global collapse occurred at 5:21.
    We know it's more exciting and sexy to think otherwise but there is no possibility that the building was a controlled demolition.

    Your welcome

    1. I have yet to hear any serious student of 9/11 deny that WTC-7 was taken down in a classic controlled demolition. For someone to contest that at this point in time suggests to me they have an agenda other than truth. See, for example, "This is an orange" on YouTube. Or the case of Danny Jowenko, who was an leading expert on controlled demolitions. I hate to conclude that there are any shills or trolls at work here, but I find it more and more difficult to resist that conclusion.

    2. Jew Shills And Trolls: Some More Clever Than Others

      Fetzer: the above Jew at 7:49 pm, the 27th, is very same Jew of above at September 25, 2015 at 3:55 AM. "Troll" is just someone u don't like, a hostile commenter who often is un-reasoning and un-reasonable. "Shill" is one who pushes an agenda, often in deceptive manner, without disclosing motivation.

      We know "fires" couldn't burn long or hot enough to be threat to the steel structure of WT7, and the "impacts" were not terribly significant either for structural compromise. Some Jew shills are smarter or more clever than others; this one here obviously isn't too clever.

    3. "We know..." You're a real hoot,tiger!

      Check the oral testimonies that speak of the huge ten floor hole gouged out of the south face of your Sacred Tower 7 that day.
      Are the FDNY lying? Are they in on the conspiracy?
      If we had a nickel for every instant expert on buildings and their behavior we'd have enough to pay Uncle Fetzer's diaper tab.
      Your life is a complete waste of time.When you snap out of it eventually you will be sickened by the fool you've made of yourself at insane asylums like this.
      If you had any balls you'd be out stealing for a living.

    4. Plus,Danny Jowenko was murdered,right Mr. Fetzer?
      The irony is that you're the shill,the shill for insane waste of time nonsense which misleads gullible newbies and preaches to fellow boobs.

      You are aware that Jowenko was shown a clip without sound and went for the bait that the lying cultist put into the mouse trap?
      I didn't think so.
      More likely,he was probably on the same disinfo pay schedule guys like you have been for years now.
      "Serious student",is that code words for "controlled demolition cultist"?
      You really are a special case,aren't you! My teen aged son would give you such a pasting in a televised debate that you would be licking your wounds for the rest of your life
      Paul Fucking McCartney is dead,that's about your speed,dingbat.

    5. WOW! Some of these comments are off the charts. That WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition may be THE MOST OBVIOUS FACT about 9/11 of them all. Danny Jowenko was an expert on controlled demolitions. Shown video the WTC-7 (without its identification as having been destroyed on 9/11), he observed that it was OBVIOUSLY a professional controlled demolition. When told it went down on 9/11, he was dumbfounded. That anyone should continue to deny the obvious is dumbfounding to me--but then it reflects either the extent of their cognitive incompetence or their dedication to disseminating false information. I should not be surprised.

    6. If there's a worse bullshit artist than you,Fetzer the Disinfo Specialist,I'll crawl across the ring and say that you're The Man!
      If you ever want to have a debate on public access television you just let me know,you miserable greasy worm.
      Your absolutely nutty Lovelace charade is a regular riot!!
      You should be ashamed of your ridiculous nonsense.

  28. Building 7 with out a doubt was a Controlled Demolition.

    1. I thought it laughable when the one poster called it a "slow motion" collapse.

    2. You're right,that was ill spoken.Slow motion weakening and eventual collapse.There,fixed it for you,space cadet.

      Check out the oral testimonies.The firemen were right there,all day,and have no reason to lie,unlike your sources,your cheesy dishonest videos and insane,money grubbing cult leaders.
      Uncle Fetzer is virtually worthless and besides being a certifiable lunatic is probably a disinfo agent tasked with taking saps like you down leafy lane.

    3. A lot of assumptions there pal. Firstly if you had read my posts you'd have seen that I disagree with the Professor on some contentious points. Albeit respectfully.

      I don't resort to branding people disinformation agents merely for having a different view. I even shared a link with the Professor that contains many scathing attacks on his positions and his character, and attacks on John Lear as well (another I have interacted with). Like you, the website "take our world back" claims Jim Fetzer is a disinfo agent. If you try to find out whose website it is you can't because it's anonymous. A noteworthy point that Jim Fetzer brought up in his reply.

      Interestingly, even that anonymous attacker disagrees with you on WTC 7.

      Don't know which sources or "cheesy videos" you're referring to since I've posted none. But I can tell you A&E included a number of firefighters and other witnesses in their documentaries who say the exact opposite.

      WTC 7, just like the other buildings, was a controlled demolition. Office fires and bits of debris don't bring down a steel high rise. Just as the twin towers were not brought down by airplanes or office fires.

      Look up all the witnesses who say they heard and felt explosions from the lower levels prior to any hint of a plane crash.

      Really, with building 7 all you have to do is look at the video. The collapse was not the result of a "gradual weakening". Anyone who buys into that is a sucker for NIST.

    4. They censor everything we clobber you with,what else is new.
      I'm sick of demolishing the controlled emolition doozies.
      Go plonk yourself,Fetzer,you miserable lying bastard.
      I'll never darken your door again.Why bother,I've utterly destroyed you.

    5. If only you would act in accord with your words . . . .

    6. Fear not,doofus,I have better things to do than belabor your sorry butt all over the arena.
      You'll go down in infamy,that's for sure.

  29. Dr. Fetzer, have you explored the unmanned aerial vehicle possibility, there is a video enhancement still taken from a FOIA release that sure gives the impression of a UAV. Either a holographic representation of a commercial airliner or a CGI image would have served to hide the UAV from the folks at home. Were the flight dynamics deemed impossible for an airliner within the capabilities of a Global Hawk?

    Please check your email accounts, ref artwork

  30. Whomever/whatever that posts under the "anonymous" label is rather disconcerting. Are there multiple personalities involved? Surely one persona cannot be responsible for the myriad of wide ranging, coherent, incoherent, and inconsistent posts on this blog subject.

  31. Bye the way, Field McConnell had Miss Roth sorted 2 weeks ago: Also, Miss roth's eyeware and hairstyle are noticeably hypnotic. Therefore ; what can we learn from her AGENDA?

  32. I don't know enough about 9/11 to know if holograms were used but there is a guy called Mark Pilkington who wrote a book and a dvd called the Mirage Men about how the military uses disinformation agents to get the public to believe in UFOs. Anyway in the book he or another witness (can't remember for sure) witnessed a hologram company's huge trucks at a military base that they weren't supposed to see. So they do use this kind of technology to dupe the public for sure.

  33. Surely holograms don't carry passports of hijackers. I know of no hologram that could carry anything as light as even a paperclip, yet those passports made it through the gauntlet. The talk of no planes hitting buildings is a continued and unsuccessful assault by a trojan truther movement that tries to continually corrupt the narrative, and it should not be listened to.

  34. So passports survived the crash or is it more likely they went planted?

  35. So passports survived the crash or is it more likely they went planted?

  36. Can a hologram make a building sway? Watch:

    1. I'm the same guy that posted the video. By the way I do believe the attacks were an inside job, I'm awaken since 2006 and I share it every chance I get.

  37. The government was able to fake 9/11 and Sandy Hook (LOL) but not able to prevent you and your kind from exposing them. Interesting.

  38. This comment has been removed by the author.