Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Jim Fetzer

With and Without Kevin Barrett


  1. The "Bonus Postscript MP3" appears to be a duplicate of the Hour 2 of the Kevin Barret show as the main audio archive here. It is with Kevin Barrett.

  2. My bad. The second half of the "bonus Postscript MP3" recording is new material without Kevin Barrett.

    I have to agree that I lose a little patience with Dr. Barrett though he does present his objections in a mild sincere way. Too bad he is sincerely wrong.

  3. If there's a reason for the presence of nano thermite it would be the arson and perhaps the cutting of steel members, certainly not factor X but it's still incriminating neither the less.

  4. Yes, if it's really there. But it cannot possibly explain the conversion of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust--and it has distracted students of 9/11 for five years now, when we should have been working on the real question of how all of this was done.

  5. The official story is a lie. That's the part that matters. And getting that fact to the public is what matters. All of the attempts to determine exactly how the towers fell and who was behind it, however well-intentioned, slows the progress of getting the essential part of this story out.

  6. "The official story is a lie. That's the part that matters. And getting that fact to the public is what matters."

    I agree. I think focusing on the size and nature of this deception showing how it was carefully planned and how deliberate false leads or "rabbit trails" were inserted throughout the official narrative is what is needed now. As to the who did it, I would appreciate a good article showing the neocon and Mossad connections.

    The 9-11 truth movement has been infiltrated and largely controlled since its beginnings, and done so in a very sophisticated way. I think keeping everyone focusing on exactly how the Towers and Building 7 were destroyed has been a big part of the infiltrators' strategy.

  7. Is it possible that we could all agree that thermite was used to cut the I-beams, I never thought thermite was used as an explosive but more to liquify steel, I beign an amateur can only parrot what I research but I could have sworn Nano-Thermite was clearly used as their were many photographs showing angle cuts on the steel and vide of molten metal poring out of the building before the collapse. That theory that nano thermite was used doesnt in the least bit take away from the Energy weapon or small nuke explanation. I would Imagine if you had to secretly set a high profile building up for Demolition it would take several tactics using different tools to pull it off so it isnt obvious that people were inside pre-wiring a building for demolition. Also working on many construction projects, Generally all metal I-beams are fireproofed, even on a remodel the contractor will re-spray the I beams with fire retardent. I would be willing to bet that the Ibeams in the trade center were treated with fire retardent as well. Also the Absestos in the Trade Center is also an excellent protection against heat. In the end everyone is on the same team. We all believe it was an inside job and our Government was clearly involved. I wonder if Dr.Barrett intentionally yanks your chain Jim, Ive listened to that one interview where you were trying to be serious and that Idiot Rolf Holmgren, who sounds like a burnt out hippie throwback, continuously interupted the interview with sarcastic comments like a regular horses ass, I can't stand Rolf! Anyhow I think you and others are definitely on to something by proving it wasn't the Nano Thermite that was the main explosive used in the demolition. As always Great Show/Articles/and Interviews!

  8. "Is it possible that we could all agree that thermite was used to cut the I-beams"


    It is irrelevant at this point.

    The main promoters of the thermite theory always avoided even saying that it may have been used as cutter charges. In fact, they avoided saying anything of substance about their evolving mysteious substance that had about 7 different names as time went on.

    To me, the agent (or "explosive") that turned heavy steel beams into fine dust doesn't need cutter charges. But I guess I am being too simplistic.

  9. The red-gray chips were discovered in the WTC dust because they were attached to iron-rich microspheres and were thus easily isolated from the dust by way of a magnet.

    Upon microscopic examination it was discovered that the bilayered chips consisted of an aluminothermic compound layer and an organic compound layer.

    Placed in a differential scanning calorimeter, the aluminothermic layer ignited at approx 490 degrees Celsius, releasing its energy very rapidly and producing molten iron. The organic compound layer deflagrates explosively at these high temperatures and could therefore, to my mind, feasibly account for (or produce) the high energy forces required to pulverize the reinforced concrete floors of the twin towers.

  10. My biggest issue is that Dr Barrett asks Jim the question, albeit off-air 'where does the thermitic material come from?'. Jim correctly replies to the effect -'this is a legal matter.' ...Why should we believe that such people of the calibre of Dr S Jones is incapable of 'salting' the WTC dust samples to demonstrate the presence of thermite/thermate/supernanonthermate/whatever? Dr. Jones has shown his true colours in 1989 in Heavy Watergate when he pre-empted Pons/Fleishman. Just research 'Fire From Ice; searching for the truth behind the cold fusion furore' by Dr. Eugene Mallove and ask why Dr. Stephen E. Jones is referenced on 200+ pages. D'ya think the guy might have something to hide????

  11. It's all BS. Jim is looking to scientifically explain the mechanisms behind a computer generated collapse sequence, which has been designed and presented specifically to encourage debate and conflict. jim also refuses to seriously investigate the real indications that very few if any real people died on 9/11, most victims being computer generated entities with no basis in reality. I am not a professor, and I am aware of these realities. I think you might need to have communications with your veterans today fellow columnist stewart ogilby.

    So far and no further. I am worried. I have learned an awful lot from your shows.

  12. Mr. Ogilby has clearly drunk the Simon Shack Cool Aid. Mr. O. uses almost the exact if not the exact phrases to describe 9-11 as a "made-for-TV Hollywood movie." That is fine and I personally think there is much to be said in favor of Simon Shacks "theories" but when objective studies and analysis can be done and are not done, Shack and Ogilby ought to just stop challenging everyone else to do that work when the burden of proof is on them.

    Dr. Fetzer has applied his expert reasoning and analysis skills to the video fakery at WTC and Simon Shack is one of the main ones, if not the first one, to suggest video fakery of the planes at the WTC.

    Here are Simon Shack's claims...
    "the news media aired an entirely pre-fabricated “made-for-TV Hollywood movie “ – complete with “airplane crashes” and “pyroclastic, top-down tower collapses”. Not only did we see computer-animated images of planes striking the towers – the collapses themselves were as digitally crafted as the Empire State Building seen collapsing (TOP-DOWN!) in the 1996 blockbuster Independence Day."
    "The collapse imagery – all of it – as well as the images showing people jumping from the towers – has by now been proven fake (digitally animated) in every imaginable way. Unfortunately, the bulk of the 9/11 “truth movement” has been hoodwinked into holding these phony, collapse animations as “proof of controlled demolition.”

    In reality, the towers were of course demolished (although most likely behind a smokescreen) – but there simply is no photographic record of those brief events. Electronic jamming devices routinely used in modern warfare were most likely in place as an extra “safety-measure” to impede any private cameras from capturing the morning’s events on film..."

    So Simon Shack says that the video of the top down "collapses" are total video fakery, and that the buildings were demoslished but most probably "behind a smoke screen." So I guess the "smoke" we saw was at first just faked TV video "smoke", but then some unfilmed real smoke was generated and behind that real smoke the demolition took place.

    Shack says there are no real videos of the Twin Towers being destroyed because all videos were blocked from operation. (Shack does not say he limits his comments to the Twin Towers, but he apparently does.) I know for a fact that the video of the WTC 7 coming down because that main video was taken by a local "truther", Jeff Kantoff, from his hotel room, so the video blocker technology must have been turned off by the time WTC 7 came down.

    (I have heard that Simon Shack has poor or minimal video analysis skills. Ace Baker has much better skills but there are people out there who have very high levels of video analysis skills but they have not joined the 9-11 truth seekers yet.)

  13. Forgot to mention that Simon Shack also claims...

    "On the strength of what we know today, there is simply no more rational reason to believe that anyone died under the 9/11 “attacks” (In fact, only 405 people in the entire state of New York are listed as deceased in the official death records of that day)."


    "no more rational reason to believe that anyone died under the 9/11 “attacks” "

    So Shack at least seems to be claiming, those his language is imprecise, that not one person who was in either of the Twin Towers (excluding first reponders - firemen etc) died or was killed as a result of what happened to the building(s) they were in.

    That is also another rather large claim, but if other people do not do the work of proving that claim, then those other people are not rational. That's my take on it.

    (All quotes of Simon Shack were taken from...

    When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie

  14. You obviously have not been through any of the extensive and ongoing follow -on collective research (Simon is a main contributor, but by no means the only one!) which has only served to strenghthen and re-inforce all of the assertions of SeptemberClues.

    The building 7 collapse footage has, time and again, been proven fake (proof scattered throughout this thread).

    This really is getting old. This clear and indesputable evidence has been available for 2+ years, and yet ALL the leading lights of 9/11 conspiracy (pretend to?)remain blissfully ignorant of this now incontrovertible reality.

    Similar tale regarding the masses of poorly photoshopped and error ridden victim photographs, along with the clumsily backstopped victim histories and obvious memorial concocted/false testimony.
    Over and over, we see the same pattern with the 9/11 victims. And when the logic is pushed, it makes perfect sense that most, of the listed 9/11 victims are completely fabricated identities.

    All the missing posters were produced, up and in place and posted throughout NY, within 48 hours of 9/11.
    This aspect stinks to high heaven.

    The 3000 (fake)victims were an integral component of the massive confidence trick that was the massive fakery extravaganza that was 9/11.

    And why people, who are much smarter and have invested much more time investigating 9/11 than I, are not cottoning on (or have not longsince cottoned on) is very worrying (yet not so surprising anymore.)

    I have great regard for Jim, but he needs to show clearly that he isn't just another updated version of stephen jones, dylan avery etc., by taking the real and pressing issues I have broached here extremely seriously.

  15. Dr. Fetzer is the ONLY 9-11 researcher who has thoroughly and professionally brought the video fakery at the Towers as well as the fake planes and fake hijackers and fake passengers into legitimacy. He has done what the cluesforum has not done and the only thing that matters in establishing these aspects of 9-11 truth.

    Dr. Fetzer's last four articles on VeteransToday has nailed these areas of his research, and we are totally indebted to his efforts, and the efforts of Dean Hartwell and Dennis Cimino and Joshua Blakeney and others who have co-authored those four articles or otherwise contributed or participated.

    As for "the 3000" Tower VicSims, again CluesForum has not bothered to collect and catalog the members findings in well designed database and study. I cannot understand why you, pshea, seem to castigate others for not doing your work, or more specifically, Simon Shack's burden of proof. Objective professionally assembled data regarding the tower VicSims is indespensable, just as the same kind of quality data on every other aspect of 9-11.

    Dr. Fetzer has spent the last ten years of his life, and the first precious years of his well earned retirement doing the major part of the scholarly work on 9-11 truth and he has done it all for free in the interest of truth.

    So, pshea, take your challenges and dares and negative comments somewhere else, please.

  16. This is not my work.

    These are fundamental avenues of 9/11 research.
    And any serious investigator should have longsince been all over these aspects. Exposing victim fraud is the key to bringing down the 9/11 fraud.
    But let's all wait for SimonShack to put together a nice and neat little package before we bother our collective arses looking into this issue of issues.

    As I have expressed, I have great regard for Jim, and sincerely hope that he takes the extents and scope of 9/11 fakery to where it most definitely needs to go.

    I will not take my positive comments elsewhere, even if it doesn't please you. I have listened to every one of Jim's shows. I have learned a great deal and am very grateful.

    I am asking Jim to step it up is all, and
    consider just how ubiquitous fakery really is
    regarding 9/11.
    Jim and the rest of us, I'm sure, want the truth, warts and all. Well the CG collapse footage and fake victims are some pretty damn big warts to miss/ignore!

    You see everything that Jim has written in the excellent VT articles, I have been well aware of for well over a year, and I am not a 9/11 researcher/investigator.
    It is frustrating that these investigations seems to be proceeding so slowly, while the world around us declines so very, very quickly.


    Proof of collapse footage video fakery.

  18. According to one of the CluesForum admins, Simon Shack has been asked by Dr. Fetzer to be a guest on Fetzer's radio show -- but Shack, so far, has declined the offer. As much as I am impressed by the CluesForum discoveries of key parts of the 9/11 fraud, this reluctance on Shack's part to promote and defend his forum's work in a different venue is puzzling. Perhaps he wants to avoid the disgusting, "hissy-fit" debacle that resulted when he DID participate in an on-line discussion with the head of the only other significant website that DOES support exposing 9/11's massive video-and-victim fraud, Phil Jayhan. It is also rather curious that Mr. Jayhan HAS been a guest on Dr. Fetzer's show, twice, but allegedly was later informed that no more return invitations will ever be forthcoming. Perhaps Clare Kuehn could help us sort out these odd goings on.

    1. This is untrue and a mis-characterization Andy Time, whoever you are. As it stands right now, I wouldn't go on Jim Fetzers show if you paid me. Jim Fetzer and Philip DeGenova, the one who attempted to criminally extort me, both work together. That is why Fetzer refused to kick DeGenova out of his email group while at the same time trying to provoke me to anger. Please do not speak on my behalf unless you have the facts straight Andy. I have never even spoken to you, so any information you have or think you have is third hand information.

      Had Jim Fetzer wanted to show he had any integrity whatsoever, he would have simply expelled Philip DeGenova from his email group. (he did no such thing) But instead did things to provoke my anger. As I said above, it is obvious Philip DeGenova and Jim Fetzer both work together.

      Phil Jayhan

  19. Thank you, Andy Tyme, for filling us end on some obvious missing pieces of this puzzle.

    I was around on Killtown's forum when Simon Shack and HoiPilloi introduced thier pdf paper and "theory" about VicSims at the Towers. These two people were on the forum and were combative in tone to anyone who questioned their theory.
    On the CluesForum, one of the posters posted a video, which may or may not be wholly supported by Simon S.

    911 ACTORS

    In that video, in second half I guess, there is a group photo composit of the faces of all the top names in the 9-11 truth movement. Dr. Fetzer's face is there. All of them are pointed to as "Actors". So Simon Shack, even though invited by Dr. Fetzer to be on his show, may have a bias against Dr. Fetzer and may think of Dr. F. as an actor.

    I am still sorting this out myself and would love to see a proper treatment of the VicSims "hypothesis" but Simon Shack and cohorts seem adamant in not doing their part in getting a good scholarly inquiry going.

    I cannot say for sure, of course, at this point, but I am beginning to think that Simon Shack may an operative of what Dr. E. Michael Jones calls the "Jewish revolutionary spirit" and Shack's contrariness may be to some degree in retaliation for Dr. Fetzer implicating the neocons and those of the Jewish revolutionary spirit as the perpetrators of 9-11.

  20. Jeannon (and to all)-
    Rather than prattle on with refuting "Simon says this" and "Simon says that" it is much more important to elucidate what CAN and IS proven by the video comparisons. Beyond the obvious fact that various feeds were cross-controlled, i.e. Fox using video feeds from CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, there is something else more nefarious, as pointed out on Simon's "Foxed Out" vids: it is apparent - to me, at least - that only certain news broadcasters were allowed to know the "script," as provided to them by intel/govt. forces. Fox Feature Anchor, Jim Ryan, is doing to telecast vioce-over for BOTH Fox AND CNN! This tells me that whoever was in the studio at CNN and at Fox were NOT privy to the "two planes" and the "terrorist" scripts until cued by Ryan's description.

    Now, our task should, perhaps, be to identify which tv talking heads were used as primary speakers to the American public - which people usurped those who were or who were normally in the studios.

    Put together with the use of faux shots of the towers, "planes," etc. we may be, then, close to completing the media-side picture for 9.11.01.

  21. Addendum-
    To boil down my previous comment to a succinct question: Which television network talking heads were used to control the desired 9.11 narrative?

  22. .........................
    Clare asked me to post this for her (because she is unable to post):

    Dearest pshea,

    In the Vicsims show, as you would be aware, I did talk of the theories of September Clues about how many died. I specifically addressed their concept that NO deaths (or only a handful) were real. I talked of how they came to that conclusion, and also how they tend to over-state their case, for instance about "fakery", meaning initially that they thought there were doctoring AND misleading uses of editing in ALL video of the event (as Jim has defined fakery to Rob Balsamo here: ).

    But September Clues has now taken a more narrow view of most of the video: that it was all doctored, visually.

    Just so, they also now take the most extreme view about the Vicsims: that all victims were fake entirely, because of the rarity of people's showing up in the Social Security Death Index ( and archived here by Jim ) and because of the rarity of people's using the Victim Fund.

    Unfortunately, though it's possible in principle that there were no deaths, I think instead some persons were in the buildings. The reason is that we have a bizarre, possibly micro-nuke bomb and/or interferometry of wave weapons -- loosel described as DEWs -- used in NYC that day, and people might well have been turned to near-nothing in such a scenario.

    I am unsure of the real number of deaths, but clearly most were padded names.

    Thank you for your comments and appreciation.

    Clare Kuehn

  23. Some of these comments are rather fascinating. As for Phil Jayhan, I did feature him on the show (twice) and found that, subsequently, he was trashing me for not promoting his findings. But I am not convinced and his attacks on me were "over the top". I have not precluded having him on again, but the abuse he heaped on me did not affect me positively.

    Jeannon has quotes from Simon Shack that are rather striking. I seem to recall inviting him on the show, but he declined. I definitely recall that I just invited him to speak in Vancouver, but he had a conflict. I think he was a trail-blazer on may issues, but, as in the case of Phil Jayhan, I find some of his claims to be a bit of stretch. He might be right, but I am not convinced.

    So to pshea, I can only say that I am doing the best that I can. I can't go out on a limb if I am not convinced that it can support the weight I would impose upon it. I have organized The Vancouver Hearings to compensate for shortcomings with The Toronto Hearings, as you can read for yourself at I never ceases to amaze me how willing we are to jump to conclusions. Let's see what the conference will bring in the way of better understanding.

    1. This is entirely untrue. The biggest problem I have with Jim Fetzer is after a show or two, can't remember now, a person from Jim Fetzers email group was threatening to smear me as a pedophile unless he got what he wanted. In essence he was attempting to criminally extort me. I ended up being forced to make criminal complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the McHenry County Sheriffs office. This mans name was Philip DeGenova. When I informed Fetzer about this, Fetzer did nothing. He did not eradicate DeGenova from his email group. "Birds of feather flock together." It would have been too unseemly for a threat and criminal extortion to come from Fetzer, so he has one of those in his little email group do it instead.

      What is truly odd about this is shortly before this I made the mistake of saying something bad about Jack White, a good friend of Fetzers, and Fetzer crawled up my ass and told me to stop it or I would not be allowed to post in the group.

      The fact that Fetzer would not ban DeGenova tells me all I need to know about Fetzer and his creepy email group.
      Fetzer even asked for the emails from DeGenova, which I sent to him and he did nothing.

      I will tell all of you this much, had a person on my forums attempted to criminally extort Jim Fetzer by smearing him as a pedophile to get what he wanted, I would have immediately, on principle, banned such a person/criminal.

      But not Jim Fetzer. Fetzer was glad to see me go and DeGenova remain. In Fetzers words, THAT is "over the top" in my opinion, and criminal in my opinion. Jim Fetzer aided and abetted Philip DeGenova.

      I sent Jim Fetzer the proof he asked for and he still did nothing. I was forced to make criminal complaints to the FBI and the McHenry county sheriffs office.

      I believe that entire episode tells us everything we need to know about Jim Fetzer and his character.

      Phil Jayhan

  24. Dr. Fetzer, thank you very much indeed for posting Clare's cogent comments on this thread and for posting your own as well!

    I have been an appreciative follower of your parapolitical research for many years, and more recently I have on occasion tried to comment on your behalf when the fakery zealots (at both the Clues and Roll forums) have spoken of you with suspicion and/or contempt.

    Please don't let their periodic outbursts of rudeness and paranoia get under your (leatherneck-toughened) skin! For the most part, these intense-and-driven folk are either one or two generations behind you in age, lack your vast knowledge of conspiratorial history, and also lack your seasoned and rigorous command of the scientific method. And to put it bluntly, please try to understand why they are doubly uncertain of your integrity. It is because you are a veteran of TWO cultures (the U.S. military and mainstream academia) with shameful track records in covering up painful truths about the major "public mysteries" (assassinations, wars, moon shots, etc.) that continue to bedevil our national conscience and purpose.

    Yet these otherwise exceedingly savvy, hot-shot (and sometimes reckless) young researchers of the Internet Age, despite their bitter (and often cross-purposed) rivalry between forums, HAVE COLLECTIVELY FASHIONED WHAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT KEYS TO DECODING THE 9/11 PUZZLE.

    To wit: many of the "victims" are fictional creations, as are many of the stills and videos, and quite a few of the "witnesses" and "media professionals" who described the event were either paid or otherwise compelled to LIE.

    For the present, the nasty feud between the Shack and Jayhan clans continues unabated over just how far the fakery extends -- but both factions certainly do agree, and just keep piling on the proof, that it's pretty substantial. And that includes the apparent, CoIntelPro-style, intel-agency creation of a whole range of "truther" groups and the op-control of several high-profile "truth spokesmen".

    Even if you find it impossibly hard to forgive those intemperate aspersions (on the Clues and Roll forums) that have sometimes suggested that YOU ALSO are fronting for the dark side, I fervently hope you will still give strong credence to, and devote close study of, the ever-mounting evidence of massive 9/11 image/identity fraud and media/government complicity.

    'Cause that's the Real Deal.

    1. It was pretty damn rude of Fetzer to harbor the criminal extortionist, Philip DeGenova in his email group. He asked for proof and got it. And did nothing. That's the reason for my rudeness to Jim Fetzer.

    2. Also, it is fairly obvious Fetzer has not interest in any of our research about the hollow towers, even though our research answers all of the questions about the ridiculous theories of mini nukes and DEW weapons. We have proven our research 7 times till Sunday.

      I have never been treated as rudely by any other radio host as I was Jim Fetzer. So to hear him crow about my own rudeness is laughable.

  25. That the factions in the 9.11 research community mirror those of the JFK research community is no accident. Here we have multiple "groups" fighting over the quantity of 9.11 fakery, rather than finding the common ground on which they can agree, and moving on. Like the JFK assassination, the many people perusing 9.11 have outed the govt.'s version of that day's events for what they are - a sham.

    So, with 49 years of JFK road travelled we see the same petty arguing and the same obfuscations by slick provocateurs leading, as always, to more arguments, more confusion, and, in the end more apathy by many people who might have wanted to embark on research of their own.

    It seems, sadly, the 9.11 research community has learned nothing in the way of lessons from the 49 year-old JFK research community.

    If attacked from a, "what do we all know" position and expand from there and VALUE the attention to detail and scientific rigor of critical thinkers like Jim, we would be much further down the road. By now, again, with the aforementioned lessons to be gleaned from the JFK community, we should, after 11 years, have established baselines for, and long into the research into WHO, HOW (i.e. what components of our society/citizenry, military, and intel agencies were manipulated, co-opted, or in line with the PTB, and were active before, during, and after 9.11) and WHY.

    Instead, we continue to bicker with each other over subject matter that is little more than that distinctly American exercise in crowing about whose balls - ovaries, too - are bigger. Whoo-hoo!............. Burf.

  26. Bickering and petty arguments can bring clarity and maybe are a necessary and useful part of the process. I better see now who and what should be ignored.

  27. Any Islam sympathizer is to be distrusted on the grounds of first logical approximations, which even Fetzer employs on the basis of his (laughable) raw Deontological ethics! Is (antithetical) religious-neutrality really an option? Contact me, Dr. Fetzer, for a spicy interview.