Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show Part 3 of 4 parts
I’m talking about scientific research in the 9-11 research community and how it can be managed and how in the case of activists how it can be contained if you adopt a passive model by bringing those who are interested in becoming active and doing something about it to a mode of operation where you’re simply watching DVDs or videos, not participating in discussion of ideas or plans for action, so when people come in to the activist community with lots of ideas and motivation become turned off because the programs that are being conducted are boring, repetitious and uninspiring and nothing ever gets done. That’s a brilliant mode of operation if you’re objective is to make sure that nothing ever gets done. Create an environment that’s boring and repetitious where people who have ideas that motivate them to take activist steps get turned off. And I say that’s something you would want to do deliberately if your objective was to contain 9-11 activism. That’s a model for containment that applies to activism.
The model of containment that applies to research is to constrain the range of alternative hypotheses allowed to be investigated. Make sure it’s an artificial contraction so that in fact the true hypothesis isn’t even included among those under active investigation. And in fact anyone who wonders off the reservation, who starts to explore or consider hypotheses other than those that are within the bounds of the acceptable is viciously attacked on all kinds of ad hominem and other unscientific grounds. Masquerading, of course, as though they were science, you might even put them in a journal you claim is a peer reviewed journal, but actually it is operating by a group of individuals that are being mutually reinforcing. They have no critical standards. They’re not actually trying to enforce the quality that would be required if this actually were a serious journal. I mean what it’s usually being used for is a disinformation mechanism to constrain and control what becomes acceptable research. So that in the case – I was offering the parallel – in the case of real-life events – the case of the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in an airplane crash that happened on 25 October 2002 where the NTSB as a matter of policy doesn’t consider any non-accident compatible alternatives unless the attorney general declares the scene as a crime scene, you know a potential crime scene, and if that doesn’t happen, in the absence of making such a declaration, then they’re constrained to consider only accident compatible alternatives. So if one of the oddities of the case was that the props were set out for independent investigation and the company came back and said they were set on idle, which is very odd. I mean if the props are on idle you have no forward thrust and the plane’s going to crash, so the question became ‘well, why were they set on idle?’ This was not something for which the NTSB had an explanation. They would eventually claim that the pilot simply lost control of their air speed and altitude and allowed the plane to crash.
Well, this verges on absurdity. I mean if you’re trained as a pilot, the most important elements you are instructed in is always maintaining the proper altitude and speed. Otherwise you’re going to crash. So this was an insulting explanation that the NTSB proposed after a year.
Well, you’re going to have to wait a year to hear what the FBI thought because while the plane went down at 10:22 a.m. in the Eveleth Minnesota area which was north of Duluth which I mentioned already. An FBI rapid-response team appears to have been on the scene as early as noon, which is fascinating. We know that because the St. Louis county sheriff, Rich Walberg, encountered some of these guys he knew personally when he showed up at 1:30 and they told him that they’d been there since noon. I spoke with the airport assistant manager who had discovered the plane after it didn’t arrive on its schedule, and he told me he knew they had been there at least since one o’clock but he’d been so tied up with phone calls and so forth that he couldn’t say how much earlier they might have shown up. So I did a backward calculation making the most, you know, brief times involved in getting from their offices in St. Paul to the airport, getting aboard the plane, getting the plane in the air, flying to Duluth, renting the cars and getting up to Eveleth, Minnesota. And I discovered, using the most conservative estimates, in other words, making all these things happen about as fast as they could possibly happen within remotely reasonable parameters, and I discovered for them to have arrived by noon, they had to have left St. Paul at the same time, or at approximately the same time, as the senator’s plane was taking off. So these guys must have amazing powers of prognostication that they can anticipate that they’re going to be needed in the Eveleth Minnesota area because of a plane crash involving a United States senator when they had taken off even before the event had occurred.
Not only that, but a spokesman for the FBI would announce that day already that there were no signs of terrorist involvement. Well I gotta tell ‘ya, that plane where the wings are the principle fuel source… the wings were broken off, and the plane crashed in a wooded area. The tail was still intact but the fuselage was burning with such intensity that the firemen were not only not able to put out the fire, they couldn’t remove the bodies, and it burned intensely for some seven hours. It only cooled enough to be inspected the next day, when while they were shuffling through what remained, which was basically a pile of charcoal -- and I’ll tell you where you can get photographs to confirm this – in looking for the black box did they discover the bodies. I mean that’s how destroyed were the bodies.
Now I say ‘how can the FBI be saying there was no evidence of terrorist involvement when they have no idea of the cause of the crash, which the NTSB wouldn’t determine for a year. I mean think about it. If you don’t know the cause of the crash, how can you know that the crash was not something that terrorists were using? Now when you talk about terrorists, you’re talking about people who have a certain kind of motivation. They’re trying to perpetrate acts because they have a political agenda. In the case of 9-11, for example, the Bush administration appears to have had a political agenda, this neoconservative vision for an American empire that spanned the world that needed to have support from the American people which wouldn’t occur unless they thought they were subjected to some kind of external threat by a foreign force. They needed a catalytic traumatizing event and 9-11 provided it. Well how can you know there’s no terrorist involvement in a plane crash if you don’t even know the cause of the crash?
In a similar parallel, when a fire broke out in Houston and a reporter – he put out a story that I read saying how they didn’t know the cause of the fire at the refinery but there were no signs of terrorist involvement. And I wanted to say ‘how can they say there were no signs of terrorist involvement if they don’t even know the cause of the fire?’, and he wrote back to me rather sheepishly and said he thought I had a good point. Well, that’s an excellent point.
You have to ask this question when you’re hearing claims, you know, that are being made that may seem the least bit funny. How could they possibly know? Here, the FBI was making a declaration that there were no signs of terrorist involvement and yet no determination of the cause of the crash had been established, so how could they possibly know? Answer. They couldn’t. If they couldn’t possibly know and yet they’re making a declaration, then evidently something is going on other than an objective search for truth. And Carrol Carmody who was a former CIA official but was in charge of the team from the NTSB that showed up the next day went ahead and blandly endorsed the statement from the FBI that there were no signs of terrorist involvement, even though, as I have already observed, it would be a year before the NTSB would determine what had happened.
Well, my investigation was carrying me in the direction of causes other than accidents. It was very implausible that it was the plane, the pilots, or the weather. It was far more plausible that something untoward had happened that might be a gas canister or …
And we’ll be right back for further discussion. This is your host, Jim Fetzer on The Dynamic Duo. Stand by.
Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show Part 4 of 4 parts