Friday, October 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
I feel bad that I have thoroughly enjoyed Prof Fetzer's work for years and the only time I comment is in the negative. That said, one small criticism in many years is not that bad and it is the ONLY time I feel Jim has ever put a foot wrong. As, IMO, THE pre-eminent 911 scholar, I am disappointed that Jim did not pick Lindauer up on her belief in actual, real hijackers on 911. That someone so apparently well informed and an alleged 'insider' could be guilty of such a basic fundamental error frankly throws everything she says into disrepute.
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion. Thank you for all the amazing work Prof Fetzer.
eamonnc, I agree with you if I did not, in this case, say enough to make it obvious that she has lost her way in relation to 9/11 and its causes and effects. I had thought I had gently nudged her in the right direction. After the show, I sent her links to
ReplyDelete“20 reasons the ‘official account’ is wrong”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/
“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of plots within plots”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/
and “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/03/the-bbcs-instrument-of-911-misinformation/
Throughout, I had the impression that she was more than the least bit naive. Perhaps that is her persona as an intel op and that is why she has been successful in the past. I would like to think she would study the case more carefully.
YEs, eamonnc, that is why I stopped listening to her a long time ago. There are many guests on alternative news shows who have that same fatal flaw. Another tell-tale sign to me that someone does not yet get it, or they get it but intend to pretend otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI also have a big problem with Sibel Edmond's work. It seems to validate the idea that Osama Bin Ladin did 9-11.
I have become quite sensitive to certain words. Collapse is one of them. Another is "attack." Usually attack is understood as something that happens from the outside, so the use of that word weakens the truth that 9-11 was performed from the inside on the inside.
I too can't figure out if she's cointel or naive. Either way I guess she's done her job of confusing the issue. I suppose it's one of the dangers of allowing all related on the show no matter what their viewpoint.
ReplyDelete