Sunday, July 02, 2006

Partial Transcript of Fetzer on Colmes

Update: The transcript is now complete. Thanks to Gravy of the JREF forums for taking on the last ten minutes of the program!

I put together a transcript of the first 25 minutes plus of the appearance by Jimmy Fetzer on the Alan Colmes show last week. James and I have already taken a couple runs at this stunning performance by the apparent spokesman of the 9-11 Truth Movement. It's simply a stunning appearance by the leader of the "Scholars", who comes off as a nutbar to make Flavor Flave look sensible.

To make this long text more readable, I won't indent or otherwise highlight the text:

(0:00-0:42) Intro

Colmes: I want to welcome James Fetzer, he is a co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, I thank you very much Dr Fetzer for coming on the program. We had a very short time on Hannity and Colmes, certainly not enough to get into the things we really should be talking about here, so I really appreciate your coming on this show.

Fetzer: Well, Alan, I want to thank you for having me on. This is very generous of you and much appreciated.

Colmes: I appreciate that as well. We, uh, I said some things on Hannity and Colmes and I felt we gave the impression that universities are somehow teaching this; they’re not, this is a group of scholars like yourself, this is not in the curriculum of universities as I understand it, correct?

Fetzer: Well, there aren’t any courses; it’s the kind of thing that’s uh, discussed in many courses, but to have an actual course on it, you need a syllabus, readings, exams and all that, I’ve learned actually since you had me on that there is a course for freshmen taught at Harvard, if my information is right, by a fellow named Ernest May, who interestingly was an advisor to the 9-11 Commission during its investigation. And what’s intriguing about that, Alan, if it may not have crossed the minds of some of your colleagues, is that the government’s own position is a conspiracy theory. You’ve got 19 guys using boxcutters, to hijack all these airplanes under control (unintelligible)

Colmes: You’re saying they’re the real conspiracy theorists, that’s interesting.

Fetzer: Yeah, the government’s own theory is a conspiracy theory.

Colmes: Let me just establish for our audience, you are a history and philosophy PhD, you’ve been a commissioned officer in the US Marine Corps, you’ve been a department chair at the University of Minnesota, you’re not what one might say, some crazy wack job—well, you might be, but you know we all are.

Fetzer: That’s right.

Colmes: My point is that you are a distinguished scholar, so it’s interesting that you are saying some of the same things that others, who are sometimes deemed, uh, perhaps not as intellectually accomplished as you are saying.

Fetzer: Yes. You’re right, I mean I’ve published 27 books on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and mentality, I have founded an international journal, I’ve founded a an international society, I founded an international library, I have done quite a few things, Alan, which put me in a category where I don’t think there’s a lot of question about my scholarly credentials.


(2:50)
Colmes: You also said, now, let’s get to the heart of it, because on Hannity and Colmes the other night, you said, “The country appears to have been hijacked, not by a group of 19 Islamic fundamentalists under the control of a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, but by a gang of neoconservatives right here in front of our own very eyes, who’ve used special effects and propaganda to deceive us, please explain.

Fetzer: That’s absolutely right, Alan, I mean, all of these events, everything the government has told us, about 9-11, turns out to be a provably false. Now, I’ve organized an organization that has now, over three hundred members, we’ve been investigating different aspects, on our own time, on our own research, on our own dollar. We have found that the twin towers cannot have been brought down even by the combined impact of the aircraft and those fires. Those fires were really quite modest; turns out the steel that was used to construct those buildings was certified by Underwriters’ Laboratory up to 2000 degrees for six hours, the fires that were going on there were oxygen deprived as indicated by the billowing black clouds. Underwriters’ Laboratory estimated they averaged only about 500 degrees a temperature far too low to cause the steel to even weaken—

Colmes: You know, we could get into all the technical aspects of this, including how much the steel could take, whether or not the buildings could withstand that, what actually caused them to come down, you say controlled demolition. What I find most hard to understand though, and this is where I think, does it strain credulity to believe that so-called respectable people we elect, to run our country, are behind an effort to allow this kind of tragedy and mayhem?

Fetzer: Yeah, but Alan, we didn’t elect them, they stole that election, they’ve stole the election in Florida in 2000; Georgia was manipulated by electronic voting machines in 2002, ah, 2004, Ohio was a complete catastrophe. If you haven’t been looking into these things, you’ve been derelict in your duty, because these were thefts of elections right before our very eyes.

Colmes: But what you’re saying is Dick Cheney, who served in other administrations, you’re saying he was complicit—

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes:--in the bringing down of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and he in fact, knew what was going on, was at the command center at the time it took place.

Fetzer: Yes. We have testimony from Norman Mineta to that effect, and did you know this, Alan, the night before, on Thursday night, I explained that on your show and the next morning he resigns.

Colmes: Well, are you suggesting that Norm Mineta resigned because of your appearance on Hannity and Colmes?

Fetzer: I’m suggesting Norman Mineta resigned because the administration didn’t want him in a public position where he’d have to respond to questions from reporters. By having him resign he becomes a private citizen and he’s no longer obligated to respond to public inquiries.

Colmes: What are you claiming Norm Mineta did? What was his involvement?

Fetzer: He was there as a witness. You remember what I explained, he was there in this underground bunker, and observed a young aide coming up to Cheney and saying, “Sir, it’s 50 miles out; sir, it’s 30 miles out; sir, it’s 10 miles out; sir, do the orders still stand?” Cheney turned on him, nearly bit off his head, said, “Of course the orders still stand, have you hear anything different?” The order can only have been to not to be not shoot the plane down. The obvious thing to do would be to shoot the plane down, cause then you use a—

Colmes: Well, what evidence do you have though that this conversation took place?

Fetzer: We got it recorded, Alan. Go on down to st911dotorg, you can find several versions of Mineta’s testimony, it’s recorded, it’s a matter of public record. He presented it to the 9-11 Commission, but it was so startling and so undermined their themes that they didn’t even publish it in their 9-11 Commission Report.

Colmes: What specifically are you saying Dick Cheney did, what was his level of involvement in this? Was he part of planning an attack on the United States?

Fetzer: I have no doubt of that. It’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense. Okay, you’ve got people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Meyers, Larry Silverstein, Mayor Giuliani—you’ve gotta look at each of their roles. Larry Silverstein, in New York, actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.

Colmes: Wasn’t he the landlord? Why would he want that to happen?

Fetzer: Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were prepositioned explosives in World Trade Center 7—

Colmes: What would be Larry Silverstein’s interest in destroying his own building?

Fetzer: He had insured it for $3.5 billion against a terrorist attack six weeks previous.

Colmes: So he’s in on this?

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes: Cheney’s in on this.

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes: Is President Bush in on it?

Fetzer: Well, it’s hard to say with President Bush, the guy’s a bit of a dim bulb, you don’t want him to know too much, he’s liable to let it spill out, so I think Bush is more manipulated than he is—he might, you know, wind up in the role of an unindicted co-conspirator, but Alan, listen, you’ve gotta understand, I can prove all of these things, it’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense and in many cases we have direct evidence, we have Silverstein’s admission that he directed that the building be pulled. That was at 5:20 in the afternoon, it had been hit by no aircraft, it had only very modest fires, that was an extremely robustly built building—

Colmes: What were those airplanes that we saw going into those buildings?

Fetzer: I’m just talking about 7, Alan. You’re not separating 1 and 2 from 7.

Colmes: But I understand—no, I’m talking about the two, big, towers. What were those planes?

(7:56)

Fetzer: You know that Frank DiMartini was the construction manager for the World Trade Center said that the intricate lattice structure, there were 47 core columns, extended the entire height of the building, created a very sophisticated load redistribution capability, he said if planes hit the building it would be analogous to sticking a pencil through mosquito netting.

Colmes: Well, planes did hit the building, right?

Fetzer: Yeah, of course!

Colmes: Who was in them?

Fetzer: Well, that’s a very interesting question, who was in them. We can explain a lot, without being able to explain everything. My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

Colmes: You mean they weren’t the real planes that took off from JFK (sic)? Or Logan Airport?

Fetzer: The real planes from JFK (sic) are something of a mystery, Alan. Let me tell you something, just a couple of things about them, okay? By Federal Law, the National Transportation Safety Board is obligated to conduct an investigation of any crash of a commercial airliner, in this case, there were allegedly four, the NTSB has investigated none of them. Zero.

(9:00)

Colmes: But we know there were actual passengers on those planes who died.

Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.

Colmes: Are you saying there were not passengers on those planes?

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.

Colmes: Now you’re talking about the hijackers, but the passengers there were actual passengers on those planes, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were passengers somewhere, but whether there were actual passengers on the planes as they were impacting the building is an interesting question. Everything was pulverized, Alan. All the concrete on the office floors was pulverized, all the office furniture was pulverized,

Colmes: No, but there are passenger records of people on those flights.

Fetzer: And they don’t include any hijackers, Alan.

Colmes: But they were real airplanes with real passengers on them.

Fetzer: Yeah there were real airplanes, but let me tell you something, if you look at the NTSB’s raw data, for these aircraft, which I observed on a spreadsheet this weekend, Dylan Avery who made Loose Change showed me the spreadsheet. You go for those four planes and you cross on the data and it’s all blank—it’s all blank Alan. Now, the NTSB had a formal obligation to investigate those crashes and it hasn’t done so. Why do you think it hasn’t done so, Alan?

Colmes: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I’m trying to—my job is to ask the questions, you’re going to answer them—but my point is that there were civilians, Americans who were on those flights, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were some, but the whole business about how many were paid and that whole sort of thing or compensation—

Colmes: What do you mean, paid?

Fetzer: Alan it’s very spotty.

(10:30)

Colmes: Wasn’t Barbara Olson on one of the planes? The one that hit at—

Fetzer: Great, let’s talk about Barbara Olson, okay we have discovered that those cellphone calls would have been physically impossible at speeds—at altitudes above 2000 feet and speeds above 230. AK Dewadney (sic), who’s a professor of computer science from Western Ontario has discovered that it becomes less and less possible to make those connections at the altitudes and speeds of these planes they would not have been possible. Now, Barbara Olson, according to her husband, called him, but he has given three different versions of her call, and get this, Alan, her name is not listed on the Social Security Death Index. If she’s dead her name ought to be listed there. It is not.

Colmes: Are you suggesting Barbara Olson’s not dead?

Fetzer: There have been reports, that I haven’t been able to verify, that she was arrested in Europe, her husband is now retired and he has moved to Europe. You figure it out.

Colmes: Ted Olson’s living in Europe?

Fetzer: That’s what I understand. And Ted Olson’s an interesting guy, you know, even though he was our Solicitor General, he observed that—this is probably his most famous quote—that he could imagine infinitely many reasons why the American government might lie to the American people. That’s a lot of reasons, Alan.

Colmes: So you’re suggesting that Ted Olson and his wife are together, living in Europe?

Fetzer: That would be my best guess, Alan. I can’t claim to know that, but it makes sense of what we do know.

Colmes: And are you saying the other people on all the other planes.

Fetzer: No, no, I’m not saying that. Obviously there were bodies around, there don’t seem to be enough bodies to make up what was a full complement. You know, each of those planes, Alan, curiously was about one quarter full—you actually could have put all those people together on any one of those airliners.

Colmes: And who were the people who crashed them. You’re saying they were not Muslims, they were not Arabs on the plane.

Fetzer: No. Don’t appear to be. You know in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, the government introduced a tape recording that was ostensibly from Flight 93, which of course was the plane that allegedly went down in Pennsylvania, and it included a cockpit voice recording of the passengers talking about how they were going to use a drink cart to break down the cabin door, but Alan, as an astute observer pointed out to me, cockpit voice recorders do not record voices in the passenger compartment.

Colmes: Alright, we’re going to take a quick break, we’ll be right back. We’ll open up our phones, I’m sure our listeners have a few things they want to say. James Fetzer is a co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota at Duluth. We’ll come right back at 877-367-2526.

(13:00)

Colmes: James Fetzer is a co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, they are a non-partisan association of faculty, students and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths behind 9-11 or so they claim. What other scholars like yourself or how many of them are there in this group?

Fetzer: Well, we have over 300 members of the association, over 200 have research credentials, over 85 have university affiliations, we include physicists, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots….

Colmes: Before we get to the phones here, I just, if this was some kind of a plot involving people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and other high government officials, this would have had to include so many people that it would have to have leaked out, somebody would have spoken, you would think that this would have been revealed somehow.

Fetzer: Alan, that’s the kind of nonsense we get from those who don’t want to look at the facts.

Colmes: How is that nonsense?

Fetzer: We established objectively and scientifically that the buildings came down by controlled demolition, for example. The 9-11 Commission for example, was so blown away by Building 7 they don’t even mention it in their report.

Colmes: But you’re not addressing what I said, how is it nonsense to suggest that if there were so many people it would have to have—somebody would have spoken.

Fetzer: Alan, weren’t you paying attention when I responded to Ollie about that? I pointed out when you have compartmentalized secret or highly sophisticated organizations, a small number of people are in control, they have five different training operations so-called going on that morning that completely befuddled air traffic controllers and the normal relations between the FAA and NORAD, I don’t think you’re paying attention to what goes on on the other show.

Colmes: No, I think for you take a slap at me and accuse me of not paying attention simply because you don’t want to answer a hard question. (crosstalk) I don’t go to Ollie North and ask to get information. I’m asking you. You’re the one making this postulation—how is that—you would have to have had—let me—you don’t want to—I’m asking you to respond to this.

Fetzer: I did.

Colmes: I’m not satisfied with your answer. You’d have to have a number of people involved in this, and that nobody would leak it, I would find extremely—there are always leaks for everything.

Fetzer: You remember the Manhattan Project?

Colmes: Sure.

Fetzer: Nobody leaked that. How about these experiments with syphillus with all kinds of black prisoners, it involved some of the most sophisticated hospitals and physicians in the country. Nobody leaked that. You don’t—

Colmes: How did the syphillus story ever get out?

Fetzer: Alan, Alan, you talk to—

Colmes: How did the syphillus story ever get out? The President of the United States apologized for that when Clinton was president.

Fetzer: Alan! Talk to Ollie North about Iran-Contra, how many people were involved in that?

Colmes: But that got out! But that was leaked, we knew about it.

Fetzer: Well, we put together what happened here. I predict some people will come forward. Look, Norm Mineta talked about what he actually witnessed directly in the underground bunker, involving the vice president. I make that public, the next day he’s gone. You aren’t putting two and two together.

Colmes: So you’re claiming that Mineta resigned as a result of your appearance on my television show?

Fetzer: Absolutely.

(16:01)
Colmes: Joe in Seattle, hello.

Joe: Hi Alan, very good point by the way, I got two things I want to say. Number 1, you are now talking to someone that is directly involved in this big conspiracy. My uncle died in Pennsylvania, so I guess this guy figures my uncle is part of the conspiracy, my aunt…

Fetzer: (yelling) What do you know about what happened in Pennsylvania?! I am sorry your uncle is dead, but what do you know about what happened?

Joe: You’re not sorry. You’re an idiot. You’ve got no idea what is going on, you are making things up. You’re hypothesizing and it’s really great.

Fetzer: This is quite ridiculous. I’ll be glad to talk about Pennsylvania. I had residents there call me, and tell me they explained to the FBI that they heard explosions in the air before anything hit the ground and the FBI would not write it down. I have had other citizens there write me letters and tell me they were taken by deputy sheriffs to a search area far larger than the officially designated area and the sheriffs told them that if they mentioned this to anyone the sheriffs would deny it. I…

Joe: I can give you a list of all the names—(crosstalk)

Alan: Alright, alright, Joe you’re claiming your uncle was on the plane, your uncle died on Flight 93?

Joe: On the plane, and was talking to my aunt during the hijacking.

Fetzer: Oh really!

Joe: I guess my uncle is a liar.

Fetzer: On a cell phone? That’s incredible because you can’t make those cell phones! We have a professor of computer science who’s flying all over the country with different cell phones. He tries...

Joe: Oh God!

Fetzer: At altitudes above 2000 feet, at speeds above 230 it is almost impossible to make the connections. The relays…

Joe: Yo Einstein! Have you ever been on a plane, there is a phone on the back of every seat there?

Fetzer: You think those hijackers were just going to let passengers make cell phones, or those.... those.... plane phones? You need a credit card (voice cracking) to do that! It is kind of elaborate…

Joe: (laughs)

Fetzer: Something I thought very bizarre about all these claims about the hijackers which are quite bizarre. If I had encountered a couple of hijackers with boxcutters, I would have taken my luggage and beat ‘em to death.

Joe: Well I guess Alan, I guess my aunt’s a lying... you know what.

Alan: Are you suggesting his uncle is probably alive someplace?

Fetzer: No, I am not suggesting his uncle is alive. I am saying he has no idea exactly how he died. And look I had a friend…

Joe: I think he died in a plane crash!

Fetzer: I have a friend who’s an inspector general for the Air Force, used to investigate air traffic, I mean air crashes and he told me if that plane had crashed the way the government claims, the debris would have been scattered over one city block. It’s actually distributed over eight square miles. I've got another Air Force colonel who's responsible for air crash investigations, told me the crash site looked to him like they brought a bulldozer out, dug a ditch, put some trash in it and blowed (sic) it up.

Colmes: Alright, we thank you for the call, Joe, we’re going to take a break, we’ll be right back. Our phones are open. By the way on tomorrow night’s show, Daniel Ellsburg, a key figure in the Pentagon Papers case, and he will comment on the whole New York Times issue, his perspective certainly a unique one having been through this himself, in a leak case, thirty years ago, so Daniel Ellsburg, tomorrow night. Also, we’ll have as our guest, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a rare interview with him on tomorrow night’s program. We continue in just a moment with your calls for James Fetzer, he is co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, your calls of course welcome. At the end of the half hour of course will be radio grafitti. We’ll be right back with your calls 877-FOR-ALAN, put it on the quick dial, 877-367-2526. Coming back to you in just a moment.

(19:34) James Fetzer, our guest, co-chair, Scholars for 9-11 Truth, we go to Emery in St. Cloud, Minnesota, hello.

Emery: Hello, how you doing today, Alan.

Colmes: Good.

Emery: Good. My question is, I know it’s very difficult for the American people to really (sic) think about this, well, what the rest of the world already knows, but if we know the US planned fake terror attacks on citizens to create support for the Cuban War (sic) in Operation Northwoods, well, why wouldn’t they be at the very least complicit in the 9-11 attacks, to carry out their plans to invade Iraq, and to carry out the attacks on Iran, which we know is coming next.

Fetzer: Oh, you’re absolutely right, that’s very perceptive. Operation Northwoods, which was exposed by James Banford in his book, Body of Secrets, was in response to Castro coming to power and Eisenhower suggesting that if there weren’t legitimate reasons for invading Cuba, that the military ought to invent them, thank goodness Jack Kennedy was using Maxwell Taylor to vet these things and was turning them all down. Unfortunately it convinced the Chiefs that Jack was part of the problem, not the solution, but there have been multiple instances such as the Gulf of Tonkin event or more recently this young Kuwaiti girl, who appears before Congress and claims she’s seen Iraqi soldiers dumping babies out of incubators, turns out she was the daughter of the Iraqi (sic) ambassador and she’d been trained by a Republican public relations firm. The whole thing was a scam!

(20:48)
Colmes: Thank you very much for your call. Uh, didn’t Osama Bin Laden claim responsibility for 9-11?

Fetzer: Actually Osama Bin Laden denied responsibility, Alan, in one of the few tapes we know to be authentic, those that you’re talking about include a fatter, heavier, darker Bin Laden they appear to have been fabricated, we have multiple press releases that discuss this very point and the evidence for it, on Scholars for 9-11 Truth dot org, ST911dotorg.

Colmes: So, you can prove that Osama had nothing to do with this?

Fetzer: Well, even the FBI, I mentioned that on your show, even the FBI, in the last two weeks has affirmed that they have no hard evidence relating Osama Bin Laden to 9-11.

Colmes: Was this an excuse to invade Iraq?

Fetzer: Oh, it had to do, you’re familiar surely with the Project for the New American Century--

Colmes: Sure.

Fetzer: --this idea of building American bases around the world, when America is the only superpower, keeping any other country from rivaling us and moving into the Middle East because it’s so geopolitically sensitive, but that the American people would be unlikely to go along with this because it would be fantastically expensive and cost lives of their sons and daughters, absent some traumatizing, catalytic event such as a new Pearl Harbor. Zbig (sic) Brezinski talked about the same scheme of things in his earlier book, The Grand Chessboard published—

Colmes: If they’re able to steal two elections as you claimed, are they poised to steal the next one?

Fetzer: I’m afraid, that’s my fear this midterm election these electronic machines, weren’t you even reading there was a story in the USA Today, Alan, unfortunately it wasn’t on the front page where it belongs, that experts have concluded that these machines can be hacked, and are subject to like 120 different forms of variation. Listen, I’m an expert in the theoretical foundations of computer science. Simplest possible software, you take a number, n, and you add one to it to produce a new number, n prime. Anyone who claims there’s something proprietary about that software is lying to your face. It can only be because they have some sophisticated way to manipulate the numbers—switch for example the—if you know the Democrat’s going to win, just switch the numbers for the Democrats and Republicans. It’s a piece of cake, Alan, there’s nothing to it.

Colmes: Who does it? Who’s behind it?

Fetzer: Listen the Europeans think it’s absurd—we’re insane—to allow private companies that have affiliations with a party—

Colmes: Who spearheads all this? Who’s really in charge of all this?

Fetzer: I beg your pardon?

Colmes: Who’s running things?

Fetzer: Well, that’s an interesting question, but when you talk about Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, you’re very close to the core, but ultimately, it’s you know corporate interests are at work. Have you been reading about these NAFTA superhighways, Alan?

Colmes: Yeah.

Fetzer: They’re just shocking me, they’re already putting under construction massive ten-lane highways that are going to bifurcate the United States, chop it up into different regions, commercial zones, and I haven’t heard one word of public debate about it.

Colmes: Let’s go to Jeff in Pittsburgh, hello.

Jeff: Okay, Alan, this gentleman claims that the man who owned the World Trade Center had it knocked down for insurance purposes? Why—is the Pentagon in on it too? Did they also want to have the Pentagon rebuilt? Was it done for insurance? And as far as Number 7, I already heard a fireman say it was the jet engines and fuel at hundreds of miles per hour it went flying right out of the World Trade Center building--

Fetzer: (Laughs hysterically)

Jeff: --and onto 7 and it burned for hours before it collapsed (crosstalk)

Fetzer: You don’t know anything about the case at all.

Jeff: Tell the guy to be quiet, Alan, and listen, as far as having—

Colmes: Wait, hold on, let him respond—hold on—hey! Let him respond. Hold on.

Fetzer: There’s a very good book that every American ought to read, it’s entitled The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin, a very respected theologian and philosopher of religion from the Claremont Graduate School, who’s published over 30 books. In The New Pearl Harbor, he summarizes all the evidence and assesses it in relation to six or seven hypotheses about degrees of complicity of the government, from the lowest, that we were just taken by surprise, that we—(crosstalk)

Jeff: They burnt their own Pentagon, and killed their own people. That’s insanity.

Fetzer: Why don’t you try looking at the evidence, instead of making up your mind—

Jeff: That is a crock. I’ve been out there to Shanksville, and saying that hole looks like it was built by a bulldozer—there’s people that live right around there, they would have seen the bulldozer digging the hole. And as far as those people who heard bang before the crash, I’ve heard the Air Force shot that plane down with an anti-aircraft missile because they knew it was going to hit the Capitol. That’s probably why they heard booms before it hit the ground. Where’s Todd Beamer, then? The Todd Beamer brigade? Another thing Alan, he keeps saying it’s nearly impossible to make a cellphone calls, it’s nearly impossible. Well, nearly impossible is not impossible.

Fetzer: It was impossible at those altitudes.

Jeff: You said, sir, it was nearly impossible! Nearly impossible!

Colmes: Alright, Jeff (crosstalk).

Fetzer: Experiments with cellphones by a professor of computer science. This is not made up, we conduct our own research. One of those cellphone calls allegedly was made by a fellow named Mark Bingham, who calls up his mom and says, “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham!” Can you imagine anyone presenting such a ridiculous story?

Colmes: Let’s go to Mark in Charlottesville.

(26:09))
Mark: Hello Alan. Your listeners need to think about just one question: how is it possible that World Trade Center building number 7 could collapse at free fall speed? It collapsed in about 6.5 seconds. That is physically impossible unless controlled demolition had been used. What we need is a Congressional inquiry into how that building came down at free fall speed.

Colmes: You’re gonna trust Congress to do that?

Fetzer: That’s part of the problem. This stuff gets politicized so rapidly. But he’s making an impeccable point. You understand, Alan, the Trade Centers themselves, even the 9/11 Commission reported, it came down in 10 seconds, Alan. That’s the same speed as if I’d taken a grand piano and dropped it off the top, it would have come down in 10 seconds.

Colmes: We know that planes went into the World Trade Center?

Fetzer: Yeah?

Colmes: You’re saying that there was controlled demolition at the very moment that the planes hit the building?

Fetzer: No, I didn’t say that the buildings had come down the very moment, Alan. The buildings didn’t come down until about an hour later in the case of the south tower, which was hit second but fell first. And an hour and a half in the case of the north tower which was hit first but fell second.

Colmes: You’re saying that there was a coordination to make it appear as though the planes were causing this. And there was a plan to have the planes hit and then within the hour to have the building fall down because of controlled demolition.

Fetzer: Well, I think the amount of time was really dictated by circumstances. I mean, the explosives were already there. Steve Jones, who is professor of physics from BYU, was doing this brilliant research on the construction, the ah, the ah, collapse of the towers. His conjecture is that it could have taken as little as 40 minutes and as few a trips to plant enough thermate, which is a sulfur-enhanced version of thermite, to bring the buildings down. Now, interestingly, the NIST has discovered sulfur residue on the steel which they couldn’t explain. Steven Jones has continued his research and he’s found that he’s discovered thermite residue on the steel. Alan, this is virtually conclusive support for his hypothesis about how the buildings were brought down.

Colmes: You say no Boeing 757 appears to have hit the Pentagon, and flight 93 is a mystery.

Fetzer: That’s right.

Colmes: What hit the Pentagon?

Fetzer: Well, the best I can tell, it appears to have been, a, ah, small fighter aircraft, possibly an A-3, that fired a missile into the building just before it impacted. I have a friend who told me he’s got a buddy who’s a trucker who was right in front of the building and saw a big commercial airliner head toward it but then swerve off at the last minute. That may have been why there were so many reports. But Alan, the damage there is very modest. The actual hit point, before the upper floors fell, which was caused by a secondary explosion, I think that because the initial damage was so slight. It was only about 10 feet high by 16 feet wide. There weren’t broken windows, there’s fence, there’s cars. There’s no fuselage there. There’s no seats, there’s no bodies, there’s no luggage, there’s no tail, there’s no wings, there’s no engines, there’s no Boeing 757 there, Alan. It’s just not there. And in the footage that the Pentagon recently released, under legal pressure from Judicial Watch, there’s no Pentagon there, either. In fact Bill O’Reilly showed it on his show, thinking it was going to put to rest these so-called conspiracy theorists who are really critics of the government’s own conspiracy theory, and had to admit he didn’t see a plane.

(30:02)
Colmes: Let’s go to Laura in Eaton, North Carolina.

Laura: Yeah, I want to ask your guest, what about all the other terrorist attacks across the globe. We see bombings in Madrid, London, the seizure of the elementary school in Russia. Is everything around the globe all a big Cheney-Bush conspiracy? (crosstalk)

Fetzer: That’s a really great question. How effortless is it for you to pull off some stunt like the Bali bombing, the 7/1 things in the subways in London, I mean, the reports were that the floors were blasted outward, which implies that there was a charge underneath. It’s very easy to arrange these things and blame them on– (crosstalk)

Colmes: Was Cheney behind that also?

Laura: Was Bush and Cheney –

Fetzer: She has no idea what she’s talking about.

Colmes: No, I think it’s a very good question. Was Bush-Cheney –

Laura: Who arranged the bombings –

Colmes: Were they behind that? (crosstalk)

Fetzer: This is ridiculous. They could have been. We just don’t know. We’re proceeding methodically, scientifically, in an orderly fashion. We’re publishing our results on our website at ST911.org. If you wanna know what we know it’s there.

Laura: I’m asking you, sir. You’re referring somebody to a website, a mysterious article, a friend. I’m asking you, sir. You tell me.
Fetzer: What’s wrong with you? I’m telling you where the studies can be found.

Laura: There’s nothing wrong with me. What’s wrong with you? You haven’t had an answer for one caller. Not one! Every caller you refer to a friend that saw this, he saw a plane swerve out of the way at the last minute. You’re nuts!

Fetzer: Well I started talking about the melting point of steel and Alan didn’t want to go there.

Colmes: It’s not that I didn’t want to go there. There’s a lot to cover and I wanted to get to the government conspiracy theory. (To caller) I thank you for the call. (To Fetzer) Are you suggesting Bush-Cheney were behind the Madrid bombings as well, and all the other acts of terrorism?

Fetzer: Not necessarily, Alan. It’s certainly there are legitimate terrorist attacks. The problem is, we’re not in a position to sort it out. And out government can manipulate us by...look, Keith Olberman did a study here a few months back and found there were 14 different instances when Bush got into political trouble, that within two days there was an announcement of a terrorist threat.

Colmes: That’s a different issue. I saw that. That’s a different issue. You’re talking about during the run-up to the election.

Fetzer: No, that’s not a different issue –

Colmes: No, no, no, wait a second. You’re talking about the run-up to the election, when they raised the threat level whenever there was a political issue. I’m talking about specific terrorist attacks like Madrid and like in England that have taken place, and who was behind them.

Fetzer: I take it that MI5 and the CIA and our Defense Department operate very closely, Alan. I’m not going to answer a question, tell you something I don’t know the answer to. I will say, it’s very fishy, this thing in England. And experts suggest that this was a contrived event to manipulate the citizens of the United Kingdom just as much as 9/11 was to manipulate us.

Colmes: Where is all this going?

Fetzer: Well, God, I hope the American people deserve to know that the American government has been using violence and threats of violence to manipulate us, to instill fear into us, to achieve its own political agenda.

Colmes: Have you ever been threatened for coming out and saying that?

Fetzer: That, Alan, is the classic definition of terrorism, which means that the government has been practicing terrorism on the American people.

Colmes: Have you been threatened for saying the things that you’re saying?

Fetzer: Nope.

Colmes: The government hasn’t come after you? Hasn’t tried to shut you up?

Fetzer: No, but I’m pretty prominent, Alan, and I would talk about it.

Colmes: But you don’t have any fear that some of the things you’re saying could cause your own –
Fetzer: Alan, Alan, Alan, if I were afraid, ah, look, I believe in my country, I’m a former Marine Corps officer. We have to stand and fight for what we believe in. None of us is gonna live forever, Alan. This is important enough to take a stand, and I and other of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are doing that on behalf of the American people. We have nothing to gain, we have no budget, no money, we all do this voluntarily. We are experts, we’re, we’re even former chief economists for the Department of Labor, the George W. Bush administration, and the former director of the Star Wars program–

Colmes: Ah–

Fetzer: –in Democratic and Republican administrations–

Colmes: Ah–

Fetzer: –former director of science and technology for the German government, a prominent and distinguished philosopher for –

Colmes: Yeah–

Fetzer: –for the University of Guelph–

Colmes: Ah–

Fetzer: –a professor of physics from Brigham Young University–

Colmes: I got you–

Fetzer: –Go to ST911 and check out that–

Colmes: – All right, James. Thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Fetzer: I’m grateful. I’m grateful to you.

Colmes: Thank you very much. James Fetzer, Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

(End. 34:19)

26 Comments:

At 02 July, 2006 04:54, Blogger shawn said...

I mean I’ve published 27 books on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and mentality, I have founded an international journal, I’ve founded a an international society, I founded an international library, I have done quite a few things, Alan, which put me in a category where I don’t think there’s a lot of question about my scholarly credentials.


Yeah, Fetzer, that doesn't mean you can't hold retarded, unsupported ideas.

 
At 02 July, 2006 05:45, Blogger Billythekid said...

"Fetzer: Experiments with cell phones by a professor of computer science. This is not made up, we conduct our own research. One of those cellphone calls allegedly was made by a fellow named Mark Bingham, who calls up his mom and says, "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham!" Can you imagine anyone presenting such a ridiculous story?"

Fact: Only two phone calls were made with cell phones, at low altitude, so why doesn't he know this? They conduct their own research? Apparently not.

Another mistake: he believes Mark Bingham phoned his mom using a cel l phone, while he used the air phone. This is what he is telling his mom.

There is a site MarkBingham.org, set up by his brother, where you can read: "Bingham called his mother early Tuesday morning from an airphone on the plane. He began their conversation with the words, "Hi Mom. This is Mark Bingham," providing a clue to his state of mind as he spoke."

 
At 02 July, 2006 06:28, Blogger shawn said...

Billy, you highlight one of the more disgusting claims of the CTs. Most of the time I can be emotionally detached from the fact they're making light of the death of 3000 Americans, but when they go out and insult a man who has just had his world turned upside down...well, it just defies words.

Not only is "Operation Achilles" (or whatever biased name it had) a terrible subject (as he didn't use the right plane, only one type of cell phone, and ignores changing altitiudes), but you hit the nail right on the head. Airphones have none of the weaknesses cell phones do.

 
At 02 July, 2006 06:32, Blogger shawn said...

By the way, this Fetzer guy calls for a mondo fisking.

 
At 02 July, 2006 07:06, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, I'll start it off.

Those fires were really quite modest; turns out the steel that was used to construct those buildings was certified by Underwriters’ Laboratory up to 2000 degrees for six hours

UL did not certify steel used in the World Trade Center. How these people continue parroting this is beyond me.

the fires that were going on there were oxygen deprived as indicated by the billowing black clouds

Black smoke is indicative of more solid matter being burnt (the black in the smoke is particulate matter being sent skyward). How a fire inside a building that has unlimited access to oxygen (those planes blew out quite a few windows, Fetzer) is oxygen-deprived is beyond me.

, we didn’t elect them, they stole that election, they’ve stole the election in Florida in 2000

Yeah, too bad every single recount had Bush winning.

Colmes: Well, what evidence do you have though that this conversation took place?

Fetzer: We got it recorded, Alan.


No, you don't have the conversation recorded, you even admit that in the next breath. You have a guy saying the conversation happened.

It’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense.

Except it's totally convuluted and far too complicated, and has an astronomical rate of failure.

actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.

Wrong, "pull it" means to evacuate.

Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were prepositioned explosives in World Trade Center 7—


Ah intellectual dishonesty at his finest. First off, no one would accidently blab the greatest coverup in history on television. Second, he was making reference to evacuating firefighters from the area and cease trying to save the building.

He had insured it for $3.5 billion against a terrorist attack six weeks previous.

And then spent the money rebuilding it.

I can prove all of these things, it’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense and in many cases we have direct evidence

Besides the fact it makes no sense, and you have zero direct evidence, yeah you can prove it.

That was at 5:20 in the afternoon, it had been hit by no aircraft, it had only very modest fires, that was an extremely robustly built building—

Hmmm except massive chunks one fairly large tower did a good amount of structural damage and there were fires on most floors of the building. I guess that's "modest fires".

My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

Except you can watch videos of both planes and neither look like refueling tankers.

Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.

Neither were you, numbnuts.

None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest.

No, they weren't named on lists of victims.

Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.


Welcome to 2006, we don't consider mistaken reports from 2001 as evidence, thanks.

And they don’t include any hijackers, Alan.

Someone needs to count how many times this guy is wrong in one interview.

Alan it’s very spotty.


Well, it's a good thing it's spotty, otherwise you'd have to back up your insane claims.

okay we have discovered that those cellphone calls would have been physically impossible at speeds

Wrong (see previous post).

There have been reports, that I haven’t been able to verify, that she was arrested in Europe, her husband is now retired and he has moved to Europe.

You know there are reports Elvis is alive and UFOs exist, but we don't just accept them without any further evidence.

that he could imagine infinitely many reasons why the American government might lie to the American people.

I guess that's what passes for concrete evidence the government committed 9/11 nowadays.

Colmes: And who were the people who crashed them. You’re saying they were not Muslims, they were not Arabs on the plane.

Fetzer: No. Don’t appear to be.


Except for the whole worshipping Allah and dying for the jihad, nope don't appear to be Muslims at all.

Flight 93, which of course was the plane that allegedly went down in Pennsylvania

There's no alleged about it you mental lightweight, Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania. How a man so intellectually dishonest became a professor is my first question.

and it included a cockpit voice recording of the passengers talking about how they were going to use a drink cart to break down the cabin door, but Alan, as an astute observer pointed out to me, cockpit voice recorders do not record voices in the passenger compartment.

Does this guy honestly think we have recordings of everything people said on the plane? The cockpit recorder recorder the passengers only as they tried to take back the plane...y'know while attacking the cockpit.

Colmes: Before we get to the phones here, I just, if this was some kind of a plot involving people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and other high government officials, this would have had to include so many people that it would have to have leaked out, somebody would have spoken, you would think that this would have been revealed somehow.

Fetzer: Alan, that’s the kind of nonsense we get from those who don’t want to look at the facts.


Except Colmes is one hundred percent correct. And Fetzer, watch out for that irony.

We established objectively and scientifically that the buildings came down by controlled demolition,

You've done no such thing. You can't establish something that's untrue.

The 9-11 Commission for example, was so blown away by Building 7 they don’t even mention it in their report.


God, how dumb are you? The Commission focused on the buildings attacked.

I pointed out when you have compartmentalized secret or highly sophisticated organizations, a small number of people are in control

Maybe when you show some proof of these claims you'll get people to "pay attention".

Colmes: No, I think for you take a slap at me and accuse me of not paying attention simply because you don’t want to answer a hard question.

Colmes right on the money.

Fetzer: You remember the Manhattan Project?

Colmes: Sure.

Fetzer: Nobody leaked that.


So now he's ignorant of history, too? Soviet spies leaked it to USSR, that's how they got their bomb so quickly.

Colmes: How did the syphillus story ever get out? The President of the United States apologized for that when Clinton was president.


I bet Fetzer hates getting his ass handed to him.

Colmes: But that got out! But that was leaked, we knew about it.

And Colmes continues to point out the false analogies Fetzer loves to use.

Fetzer: Something I thought very bizarre about all these claims about the hijackers which are quite bizarre. If I had encountered a couple of hijackers with boxcutters, I would have taken my luggage and beat ‘em to death.

They also claimed to have bombs. Seeing how stupid you are, I wouldn't put it past you to attack someone armed with an explosive device on a plane, though.

Emery: Good. My question is, I know it’s very difficult for the American people to really (sic) think about this, well, what the rest of the world already knows, but if we know the US planned fake terror attacks on citizens to create support for the Cuban War (sic) in Operation Northwoods,

Northwoods was rejected. It also called for the huge casualty rate of zero.

Alan, in one of the few tapes we know to be authentic, those that you’re talking about include a fatter, heavier, darker Bin Laden they appear to have been fabricated, we have multiple press releases that discuss this very point and the evidence for it,

Of course only his denial tape was authentic. Thought we'd go one point without intellectual dishonesty? Fat chance (like the pun?). Osama APPEARS fatter and darker because of the resolution and lighting of the video. Any child could see that.

Well, even the FBI, I mentioned that on your show, even the FBI, in the last two weeks has affirmed that they have no hard evidence relating Osama Bin Laden to 9-11.

Hard evidence relates to physical evidence. And since Osama bin Laden didn't fly any of the planes into the buildings, we don't have any hard evidence on him (at least Fetzer didn't just say plain old "evidence").

that experts have concluded that these machines can be hacked,

A machine that can be hacked? Say it isn't so! (By the way, most of the higher ups at Diebold gave to Democratic causes, oops!)

to allow private companies that have affiliations with a party—

Yeah, those Republicans should be up in arms about Democratic partisans running the election machines.

There’s a very good book that every American ought to read, it’s entitled The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin

Except it's terrible, and every American should only read it as an example of irrational and illogical thinking.

Fetzer: Why don’t you try looking at the evidence, instead of making up your mind

Irony alert.

Fetzer: It was impossible at those altitudes

Hey, jackass, the planes were flying at low altitudes.

Fetzer: You don’t know anything about the case at all.

How many irony alerts can one guy cause?

 
At 02 July, 2006 07:18, Blogger Billythekid said...

So, here's a bit of context that explains why Mark Bingham mentioned his full name, something CT find extremely suspicous.

The full story is here: http://www.outuk.com/index.php?http://www.outuk.com/content/news/markbingham/index.html

His Mom: "I took the phone and, oh, I can’t remember what I said, but I heard Mark say, ‘Mom, this is Mark Bingham.’ It wasn’t until Mark used his last name that Alice was hit with the weight of what Kathy had just told her. I found out later from Kathy that Mark had said he wanted to let us know that he loved us in case he never saw us again. He didn’t say anything about not seeing me again when we talked, though. What he did say was, ‘I just want to tell you that I love you. I’m on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb.’ At some point he added, ‘I’m calling you from the Airfone,’ and then asked, ‘You believe me, don’t you, Mom?’

‘Yes Mark, I believe you,’ I said. ‘Who are these guys?’ Then he was interrupted by someone who was speaking in a low-toned male voice that, by its cadence, sounded like it was speaking English. I just heard these muffled voices for about 30 seconds, and I kept hoping Mark would come back on the phone.

"When he did come back, he repeated, ‘I’m calling you with an Airfone.’ I remember that distinctly because I knew Airfones are pretty conspicuous things, and I was afraid he would bring attention to himself and that the hijackers were going to pull him out of his seat and kill him. But I didn’t express that to him. I just asked him again, ‘Who are these guys?’ After another long pause he came back and asked again, ‘You believe me, don’t you, Mom?’ And that was the extent of our conversation. There was another long, agonizing pause, and I could hear ambient noise. But then the phone just trailed off."

So that's why he used his full name. It was him saying: "It is really me, Mom, I'm not kidding".

 
At 02 July, 2006 07:18, Blogger MarkyX said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 02 July, 2006 08:03, Blogger CHF said...

Broadcast this Fetzer clown far and wide....

Put him on every radio and TV in the land.

 
At 02 July, 2006 09:57, Blogger Billythekid said...

Seems "Loose Change Final Cut" is out, at least that title appears in the videotape the Loosers released yesterday, but you need to go to the forum to watch it. It has no resemblance to earlier editions, but contains interviews with Barrie Zwicker, Barbara Honneger, James Fetzer, Bob Pugh, Jim Marrs, Alex Jones and of course our friend Fetzer, who (I have to admit) has a more coherent story this time. Is this their way of getting around the factual errors? Let others do the talking, so they can blame them? Did they change the whole thing because of the legal troubles? Or is this Loose Change: The Interviews? What amazes me is that they put this online without any explanation, other than "First and foremost, here's our presentation from Los Angeles."

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:05, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah, Fetzer, that doesn't mean you can't hold retarded, unsupported ideas.

But there's a better chance that YOU will believe them (retarded ideas, i.e. official 911 conspiracy theory).

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

Did they change the whole thing because of the legal troubles? Or is this Loose Change: The Interviews? What amazes me is that they put this online without any explanation, other than "First and foremost, here's our presentation from Los Angeles."

What they want to do is put the ideas out there and not have numb-skulls like the Gravy train on their dick for every little mistake. Attack the ideas not the messenger. Something the debunkers fail to do time and time again.

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:23, Blogger Pat said...

Billy I think it just shows how distracted Bingham was, which is borne out in the rest of the conversation.

Shawn, Fetzer's so wrong that I don't think you can fisk the piece as a whole; for example, the $3.5 billion insurance figure is wrong for WTC 7, and it is wrong for the towers as well. I'm going to fisk bits and pieces of it over the coming day or two. It's hilariously bad.

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:37, Blogger shawn said...

But there's a better chance that YOU will believe them (retarded ideas, i.e. official 911 conspiracy theory).

Wrong again, nesnyc. Did you see how easily I fisked his interview?

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:41, Blogger Billythekid said...

Correction: the Final Cut-video is found in the Loose Change blog, not the forum.

Barbara Honegger is new to the Screw Loose Change crowd, as far as I can see. Remember, she was the first to expose the multiple-hijack-scenario anti-terror emergency response exercises and wargames being conducted by the Bush Administration on Sept. 11th. Ms. Honegger served as a White House Policy Analyst in the 1980's and was the first public resignation of conscience from the Reagan-Bush Administration. She is the author of October Surprise, the first book to document the secret deal between the 1980 Reagan-Bush Campaign and the radical Islamist Khomeini regime to delay the release of the U.S. hostages in Iran until after the 1981 presidential inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Exposure of the "October Surprise" ignited a major Congressional investigation.

Anyway, in "Final Cut" she says: "At the morning of 9/11 at 09.32 AM, long before anything hit the building, a bomb went off inside the Pentagon. At least one bomb. There was a massive explosive event inside the Pentagon. We know that there are Pentagon clocks, large wall battery operated clocks, that were all stopped at almost the same time by the explosive event. But the official story says that Flight 77 didn't hit the building until 5 to (according to the original story) 15 minutes later. These stopped clocks were recovered from the debris, one of which is at the 9/11 exhibit at the Smithsonian."

So we have a new mystery here: the Pentagon clocks. But her evidence isn't convincing at all. Early news reports placed the event anywhere between 9:37 and 9:45 AM, so 9:37 is probably also an estimate.

She also mentiones that she was asked by a film crew from Italy why she was doing research on the Pentagon, as most Truthers were dealing with the WTC attack. "In Europe, for years, 9/11 only meant the Pentagon attack. The WTC was peripheral to them."

Well, maybe to the Italians, but certainly not to the rest of us Europeans.

 
At 02 July, 2006 10:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

After 5 years, when the reports were being written and the 9/11 commision is released, she doesn't say anything to congress?

Any red flags going up?

 
At 02 July, 2006 11:04, Blogger James B. said...

My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.


I missed this one the first time. The Air Force doesn't even have the 767 refueler. There were plans to buy them beginning in 2002, but they were cancelled because of a bribery scandal. The first 767 tankers were delivered to the Italian Air Force beginning in 2002.

But hey, we can't let the impossibility of something prevent us from speculating on it.

 
At 02 July, 2006 11:05, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

How can anyone in their right mind listen to this utter fool Fetzer and not desire to see him institutionalized?

Where do people like this come from? What hole, what cave, what shithole are they emerging from?

I read that transcript, and it is moment after moment of the most banal, insane, disgusting claptrap I have heard since Bill Clinton gave a State of the Union address.

How this nut Fetzer has a job doing anything but cleaning toilets with his tongue is astounding. He should be fired and forced into exile somewhere until he grows up - or grows a brain.

Sickening. These loons are simply sickening.

 
At 02 July, 2006 11:09, Blogger The Heretical Jew said...

Whether or not these allegations are true, they are hard for one to absorb and accept. It is almost compelling for one to reject these ideas as idiotic. I truly hope that they are.

 
At 02 July, 2006 11:10, Blogger dman said...

Wow 27 books! Now tell me do they
all come with own box of crayons
or do you have to buy them
separate?

 
At 02 July, 2006 11:18, Blogger shawn said...

The Heretical Jew (since I won't be checking back at your blog anytime soon I'll comment here), you say:

I challenge anyone to cite on example where a Democracy formed from elements outside a country was successfull.

Well, there's the two most obvious examples: Germany and Japan.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:59, Blogger apathoid said...

I think Joan was completely wrong about this cat in the other thread. He is anything but intelligent. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before, but having read this post I'd bet good money that his IQ doesnt crack the 100 barrier.

There is simply no way he could be so dead wrong about nearly every thing he talks about. Writing 27 books does not make one smart. Writing 27 books on subjects like the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and mentality means he probably doesnt have a good grasp of reality....

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:42, Blogger shawn said...

I think Joan was completely wrong

Wouldn't be the first time.

 
At 02 July, 2006 23:21, Blogger BoggleHead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 02 July, 2006 23:22, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"So now he's ignorant of history, too? Soviet spies leaked it to USSR, that's how they got their bomb so quickly."

1) Everybody knows that the USSR is alive and well and was actively trying to penetrate US activities in September 2001.

2) This was to build their own 9/11 more quickly, of course.

3) If the KGB knew it would have leaked, like with Robert Hanssen for example.

 
At 03 July, 2006 03:07, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

The Soviet Union is "alive and well" bogglehead? Obviously you've never been to Russia.

 
At 03 July, 2006 08:08, Blogger shawn said...

The Soviet Union is "alive and well" bogglehead? Obviously you've never been to Russia.

It seemed he was trying to mock me, but with a stupid analogy would made no sense.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home