9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)

A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)


Allan Weisbecker





Your recent bloggo-sphere conflict with Kevin Ryan did not surprise me – I’ve had my own problematical interaction with Doctor Ryan (coincidentally, with Bob Parry as well); somehow I feel qualified to comment here.

As you likely know, Doctor Ryan has been doing investigative work regarding how the explosives came to be placed in the WTC towers (plus Building 7), i.e., in-depth histories of the security companies and personnel involved, and so forth.


As you also know, I’ve recently published an ambitious essay which covers several subjects, as is suggested by the title: ‘On the Deep State, Denial, 9/11, and the Legend of ‘Maverick’ FBI Agent John O’Neill’. And that’s just the subtitle, the main title being, ‘Orwell’s Optimism’. I know: Whoa!


Although I’d like to think that the heart of the piece is an expose of a faulty system of thought/inquiry, call it a ‘paradigm problem’ (hinted at by the ‘Denial’ plus the reference to Orwell in the title), my practical aim is to explode the myth of FBI Agent John O’Neill, who was supposedly killed on 9/11, and is considered ‘the real thing’ and a martyr by many of the truth persuasion – to my knowledge, the possibility that O’Neill was part of the 9/11 conspiracy has never even been considered; in fact, the very idea borders on ‘truther heresy’ – a concept with which, unfortunately, I am of late becoming very familiar.


I believe my essay lays bare the evidence and logic underlying my thesis that O’Neill was indeed one of the bad guys and almost certainly faked his death that day. But my point in bringing this up here is that Doctor Ryan, given his subject of deep inquiry – how the WTC security system was so massively breached that tons of explosive/incendiary materials could have been installed throughout the skeletal infrastructure – should in theory be extremely interested in my findings, since John O’Neill was the head of security of the whole WTC complex for the three weeks preceding 9/11. (The ‘O’Neill myth’ is built upon the disinformation/misinformation – what clearly started as disinformation became misinformation when repeated by the victims of the disinformer – that O’Neill started work on 9/11. He in fact started work on August 23rd.)


As most 9/11 researchers know (and as Doctor Ryan has pointed out), the two to three weeks prior to 9/11 were fraught with what, in retrospect, one can only describe as ‘suspicious’ goings on at the complex: power downs (one of which was described by a knowledgeable tenant as ‘unprecedented’), sudden ‘elevator maintenance’, along with the suspension of security surveillance and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs; the sorts of doings that would fit with finalizing prep work (if only a systems’ check) commensurate with the complexities of a top-down disintegration engineered to pass for a gravity-driven collapse (if only to the disinformed/misinformed masses).


To put the matter rhetorically: Assuming, as most of us do, that 9/11 was a hugely complex, intricately planned black op – and keeping in mind that ‘terrorists’ (aided by the FBI) already tried to blow up the WTC – is there even a modicum, even a theoretical molecule, of a possibility that the plan would include giving a ‘real thing’ anti-terror expert the job of uncovering a ‘bomb plot’ at the last minute, when the explosives were already in place?


In fact, would it not make sense that the WTC Head of Security would have been charged (by the deep state perps) with the vital task of seeing that all went smoothly in those last weeks before zero hour?


Jim, I would hope that an epiphanic light bulb is lighting up over the head of anyone who happens to read this, as I believe (from your response) it went off over yours, but my point in outlining this information here (there’s much, much more) relates to Doctor Ryan.


A word search of his WTC security-breach analysis reveals several mentions of O’Neill’s name but no actual information. In fact, Doctor Ryan implies that O’Neill started work on September 10th, which is incorrect, and the reason for believing that O’Neill was ‘set up’ to be killed during the attacks.


Odd to get that wrong, given the intensity of the research implied by the short-book length of Doctor Ryan’s tome. Hoping to contribute to what I consider a vital area of the 9/11 story, back in early January I emailed Doctor Ryan my essay, including my cv (my background would arose curiosity in most people) and a short synopsis with the cover letter. Doctor Ryan swiftly replied, saying he would soon give my essay a look. That was the last I heard from him, although weeks later, on March 1st, I wrote reminding him of our previous correspondence and the relevance (to him) of my work on the O’Neill matter; I saw fit to mention that my lengthy essay possibly contained non-O’Neill-related assertions that he might not agree with; I directed him to the page with the O’Neill nitty-gritty.


No response.


A digression is in order.


Spending most of my time down here in outback Mexico working on my film, I have only very spotty Internet, and my outside research (for my film) being of a certain slant (‘truth’ related, to be sure), it was only back in the fall that I became aware of Doctor Ryan’s intolerance, even outright belligerence, towards researchers that he – for reasons that are often nothing short of mystifying – disagrees with.


I can still recall the moment back then when I realized that all was not well with the good Doctor. Having been very aware of his early work and commitment, plus his personal sacrifices (career loss, etc.), I came across an essay of his excoriating those who are wont to point out that no large plane (Flight 77 or any 757 or its ilk) hit the Pentagon.


WTF? Talk about a wrinkled brow! I was so taken aback by Doctor Ryan’s erudite, meticulously crafted balderdash that I at first thought the author might be a different ‘Kevin Ryan’ than the one who in the name of truth had stood up to the powers that be at Underwriters Laboratories and who had changed his life to pursue the facts of 9/11.  This Kevin Ryan sounded like some blatant deep state stooge/sock puppet.


I kid you not. I spent google-strokes making sure it was the same guy.


I have come to see certain aspects of the 9/11 attacks as pure and perfect examples of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ Syndrome. Building 7 of course comes immediately to mind, but for me the obvious fact that no airliner hit the Pentagon is in a class by itself, not just due to the ‘bigness’ of the event itself (in fact, for sheer mammothity, Building 7 wins out), but because it does not take a ‘leap of reason’ to ‘see the lie’ for what it is, which Building 7 does – to see that lie one must resort to ‘causation theory’, or – god forbid – have a modicum of imaginative ability (to picture the infrastructure during collapse);  hence we have the maddening ‘I’m not an engineer’ or ‘I need more information’ or other ‘appeals to ignorance’ regarding 7’s collapse, which are difficult to respond to (due to their utter nonsensicalness).


With the Pentagon/airliner issue, however, all one (or any child) need do is look at the photographs taken before the façade collapsed. (And then, after the collapse, there are those showing no airliner within the building, but those are of the ‘icing on the cake’ variety.) For me to go further here in explanation is to fall into the ‘misdirection trap’, which, unlike Doctor Ryan, I refuse to do: Anyone looking at the photos and then ‘needing more information’ can legitimately be queried, as a Brooklynite truther buddy of mine tends to do:  ‘Whaddare ya, frickin’ blind?’


Some things are actually pretty simple.


(Pilots for 9/11 Truth and, especially, the CIT boys have aptly explained how and why people saw a big airliner flying toward the Pentagon that day. To them I say, ‘Great and thank you for the good work!’, but I didn’t need you guys to know what did not happen that day – since I’m not frickin’ blind. Again, I will not fall into the misdirection trap by elaborating.)


My emailed caveat to Doctor Ryan – and my directing him to the relevant O’Neill page – was based on a mention of the Pentagon/airliner issue in my essay. I assumed that a scientist, indeed a Ph.D.-ed one at that, could separate issues, especially if they were directly differentiated by a respectful ‘fellow researcher’.


No response from the good Doctor. Although I asked him to please just zero in on my essay’s O’Neill information, it’s possible that Doctor Ryan is ignoring my work out of pettiness over my Pentagon opinion; this would peg him as small of mind, so no need to deal with that possibility. (If he is indeed that small of mind then my point in writing this letter is made, if in a backassward way.)


The other possible root of his ignoring my information is the ‘ego/denial issue’ (dealt with in depth in my essay), which, ironically (for him) Doctor Ryan himself well defines with respect to Bob Parry: According to Doctor Ryan, Parry refuses to properly deal with 9/11 because it would mean that as a journalist he’s spent the last decade missing the most important story of his life; hence we witness Parry’s denial, nay, his Orwellian doublethink (denial on steroids) – it takes more than simple denial to come up with his ‘spacious atrium equals freefall collapse’ lollapalooza, among other utter stupidities. 


In other words, Doctor Ryan’s failure to examine in detail the doings of the ‘counterterrorism maverick’ who oversaw the WTC complex security for the three weeks before zero hour, and who was face-to-face given his job by two men on everyone’s short list of active co-conspirators – Larry Silverstein and Jerome Hauer (O’Neill’s ‘drinking buddy’) – would put him close to, if not quite firmly in, Parry’s category of journalists who missed a ‘Biggie’.


Doctor Kevin Ryan – yes, that Kevin Ryan, the scientist, the Truther Scientist Kevin Ryan – appears to be ignoring evidence because it does not fit his thesis.


Assuming, as I am here, that my essay ‘nails it’ re O’Neill, what other explanation have we? If I was somehow mistaken in my pegging of O’Neill as a colluder, why wouldn’t Doctor Ryan merely say so, if only in a terse email?


(Jim, you’ve read my essay but in the event that other folks who have not done so come across this letter: Aside from yourself, a short list of those who have endorsed my O’Neill findings include David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Craig Ranke, Sander Hicks, and Bob McIlvaine; there are a slew of others.)


Dispiriting, no? It gets worse.


I’ll further digress to a generalization here, but only to buttress my above thesis that Doctor Ryan is himself a stone-caster not without the same sin he has the gall to berate you for: the one against reason.


I say buttress my thesis because Doctor Ryan is far from the first to ignore the ‘all the evidence’ requirement for validating an explanatory hypothesis (in this case, how the ‘explosives’ came to be in the WTC) – assuming, as I (and others) do, that my O’Neill information is ‘evidence’. This past fall I sent a summation of my O’Neill research to Alex Jones’s Infowars.com. No response, even after multiple submissions. (As with Doctor Ryan, my work apparently didn’t even disserve a ‘pass’.) Wanting to get my research ‘out there’, I then joined Jones’s Prison Planet Forum and attempted to start a thread with my information.


Jones immediately banned me permanently from his (public) Forum.


At first, aside from disappointed, I was mystified. Then it hit me. Jones, in his films as well as on his website and radio show, has always lionized John O’Neill; Jones as much as anyone, is a victim of the disinformation surrounding ‘The Legend of John O’Neill’.


Ego. (The hypocrisy of my being censored by this ‘info-warrior’ is implicit.) Alex Jones does not like to be wrong about anything. So, like Doctor Ryan in this case, he simply ignores problematical evidence.


Not long after the Jones debacle, I contacted James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, whose podcast I’d for a long time considered the best of its kind. After seeing some of my work, including a rough cut of the film I’m working on, Corbett asked me to do a podcast interview. I gladly agreed; as I say, I respect the guy and take his work very seriously. (In spite of what follows, I still highly recommend Corbettreport.com.)


A matter of days after the podcast invitation, I sent Corbett my essay.


I never heard from him again. In spite of entreaties as to, ‘What’s up?’, no explanation, no apology, no ‘bye-bye’. Corbett, like Jones, has often glorified O’Neill, and, like many of the truth persuasion, believes that O’Neill had been set up for murder on 9/11. (As my essay shows, nothing could be further from the truth.)


But what’s my point, at least so far? Twofold. Doctor Kevin Ryan, in terms of background and scientific integrity, has no right to excoriate you. (More on this in a minute.)


In a more general sense, very unfortunately the truth ‘movement’ appears to be going the way of so many others that start out with some degree of ‘purity’ and then in effect fall apart from within, due to the very deficiencies of human nature that its proponents are supposed to defend against. (The ‘green’ movement being by far the best example.)


I speak of ego (as in ‘egotist’ or ‘egomaniacal’) and the denial-evolving-to-doublethink (denial’s ‘Big Brother’) that ego often depends upon for survival – say, when someone points out an obvious truth that pops (or at least deflates) your own balloon.


But back on point, for I’m not done with Doctor Ryan. Jim, although you have defended yourself well in your blog-reply, given the vitriol of his attack on you, and his adding insult to injury by entitling it ‘Why Robert Parry Is Right About 9/11 Truth’ (no matter Doctor Ryan’s ‘thinking’, to title a 9/11 piece thus is just downright frickin’ stupid), and given Doctor Ryan’s own imperfections, I have a few comments to add.


First, as you point out, there’s his misquoting you by leaving out the ‘virtually’ in your sentence ‘virtually every claim made by the government about 9/11 is provably false.’ Aside from outright dishonesty, Doctor Ryan is displaying his pettiness, his nastiness here, and also his ignorance. As David Ray Griffin has pointed out – I believe in his critique of the 9/11 Commission Reporttaken in context, indeed every word (let alone claim) in that Report – the government’s official ‘official story’ – is a lie. So even without the ‘virtually’, your statement is at least arguably true. Given that there is so little in your essay that is in any way arguable – it’s a good summation of 9/11 truth – I sense that Doctor Ryan’s diatribe is motivated by less than pure motives.


Although far be it from me to fathom the thought processes of another writer (let alone one with a Piled-Higher-and-Deeper after his name), I’d bet a valued possession that ego is somewhere in Doctor Ryan’s motive mix. (Could it be as lame as this: Not only did you beat Doctor Ryan to the Parry-response punch, but you did so via Michel Chossudovsky’s prestigious Globalresearch.ca website? Given Doctor Ryan’s two-bit jabs at you, frankly it would not surprise me if he’s just out flat jealous.)  


Aside from the above misquotation dishonesty, Doctor Ryan leads off with an astounding assertion: ‘The Fetzer article is an example of shameful, self-aggrandizing theft and falsehood.’


Doctor Ryan – and I’ll address you directly from here – I would never deny that a writer, any writer, myself included, might be motivated (to write) by ‘self-aggrandizement’, in the broad sense, which, to give you the benefit of the doubt (a concept you may be unfamiliar with), I assume you used in your verbal assault. (Surely you didn’t mean that Jim Fetzer wrote his essay for financial self-aggrandizement?!)


But theft and falsehood? Since you do have a Ph.D., Doctor Ryan, you can’t be completely new to the writing game, but I assure you it feels like you don’t understand that words really do have meaning. You have, in public print, called another writer a thief and a liar.


This bears repeating, with a twist: Jim Fetzer takes the time and expends the energy to defend the very movement you claim to be dedicated to and which was ignorantly and falsely denigrated by a well-known journalist and you burn precious words calling him a thief and a liar? You do understand that you did that, don’t you?




As Jim Fetzer points out (it bears repeating), you are obviously unaware that nowadays it’s a given for a ‘truth’ essayist to sum up the research we are all intimately familiar with and refer to it with the general pronoun ‘our’, meaning folks who understand what 9/11 was. Not since The New Pearl Harbor has anyone tried readers’ patience with a constant reminder that the writer did not actually do the original research.


Do you, Doctor Ryan, in a short-length essay, see fit to credit every fact or event-transpiration with a source note? (The first plane hit at 8:46, did it, sir? Really? How do you know that? What’s your source?)






Since 90% of Jim Fetzer’s essay is of the 9/11 Truth 101 variety – sort of a Cliff Notes of one of David Ray Griffin’s early books, say – stuff most of us have known for years, I’ll not take the time to nit pick as you have done.  But since you seem obsessed with uncertainty about the Pentagon/airliner issue, I’ll briefly break my no-misdirection rule, and while I’m at it breach another subject you seem interested in: the presence of deep state assets, or moles, within the truth movement. Here’s a particularly revealing paragraph from your diatribe:


‘The evidence we have suggests that Fetzer and his colleagues took the opportunity of the heightened mainstream media coverage around the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to engage in an evil parlor game of disruption, similar to the COINTELPRO operations of the past and the kind of “cognitive infiltration” supported by members of the Obama Administration.  There is other evidence for this possibility, in that Fetzer is known to be an expert on the use and value of false information.’


Not only is Jim Fetzer a thief and a liar, but now he’s a mole, a deep state asset. That’s what you’re saying here, isn’t it, Doctor Ryan? Thief, liar, traitor. Wow.


Which reminds me of something… 


Back in the States this fall I had a lengthy phone conversation with a ‘name’ in the truth movement (the sort of conversation that would entail a breach of etiquette should I ID the other person). On the subject of deep state moles, we agreed that the bloggosphere is riddled with them – shills, sock puppets, call them what you will.  Their main goal is to create discord among the truly committed and the common method of doing so is misdirection, i.e., to create controversy where in reality there is none, thereby directing energies to non-productive areas.


Your name, Doctor Ryan, was the first to come up in this regard – via my companion – and your attitude about the Pentagon/airliner issue was offered as prime facie evidence. In other words, my companion considered your view sufficient evidence, while I more conservatively label it as necessary but not sufficient. (In other words, all moles espouse your view but not all who do so are moles.)


Your attack on Jim Fetzer is in fact more misdirection, here of the nastiest sort, i.e., a personal attack on a ‘name’ – which was guaranteed to create a ‘stir’, thereby diverting energies and creating discord. (Jim Fetzer and I – plus several others – have taken the time to compose formal replies to you when at least in theory we could have been pursuing actual research or reaching out to the unwashed… uh, brainwashed multitudes.)


Doctor Ryan, you have wasted everyone’s very precious time (I include any reader of this letter here) with your inflammatory accusations.  Assuming this was not by design, in other words, assuming you are not a mole, do you not see that you might as well be one?


I doubt that you are an actual (ex officio) deep state asset, but only because my own research into the John O’Neill matter has shown me how powerful is the ego / denial / doublethink trait in the human psyche. Like so many others, once you have started down a particular mental path (Pentagon/airliner, say), you are loathe to give it up; then the coherency dominoes begin to fall until you are outright doublethinking, i.e., making no rational / empirical sense (whatareya, frickin’ blind?); unfortunately, though, others who trust your judgment may be pulled into your nonsensical notion(s). The negative effect on ‘truth’, then, is very similar to that of mole-engendered misdirection.


Point being, my theory is that once you got a bug up your ass about Jim Fetzer – for who knows what reason – you came off the rails, ‘lost the plot’ (as the Brits like to say). Quite frankly, doc, your head is now competing for space up there with that bug.


Back to parsing your gibberish.


Although Jim Fetzer ably discloses the flaws in your ‘thinking’ re the ‘space beam’ issue, let’s look even a bit closer; let’s examine your use of language:


‘There was no evidence for space beams at the WTC.  Moreover, we soon found out that Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.’ 


That first sentence rings familiar. Where have I heard the like before? Right! NIST’s very own report on the destruction of the WTC! When they say there’s ‘no evidence of the use of explosives’! Remember that? Of course, we soon found out why there was no evidence: they hadn’t looked for it! And they hadn’t looked for it because ‘it would be a waste of time to look for something that isn’t there.’ Reasoning that’s so circular one could get dizzy just reading about it.


That’s some interesting plagiarism coming from a Truther, Doctor Ryan. (Assuming you really are one.) 


How about the second sentence?


‘…Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.’


This too sounds familiar. Where have I heard the like? But hot damn, all over the MSM! Chris Matthews: ‘These conspiracy theorists don’t even have a complete theory about what happened on 9/11!’ Followed by, ‘Nutcases!’


How is what you are saying, Doctor Ryan, any different? If Fetzer’s colleagues cannot explain the physics (maybe supply a blueprint?) of the weapon then why listen to them? Your ‘voice’ and ‘logic’ are identical to that of the worst of the deep state prevaricators.




‘Was it because there was overwhelming evidence to support the space beams claim …[?]’


This sentence implies that Jim Fetzer claimed that there was overwhelming evidence for the use of ‘space beams’, which of course he never has.


By the way: I use scare quotes because, while Jim Fetzer nor Judy Woods – the engineer Jim has interviewed on the subject – have talked about 'directed energy' and 'weapons in space' (satellites), you prefer the phrase ‘space beams’ as easier to lampoon.


I ask myself why would you accent the term thus? ... Because ‘space beam’ sounds stupid and crazy, like it would go on a tabloid headline: ‘Aliens Destroyed the WTC With Space Beams!’ or the like. Isn’t that why you employ this phrase? Sure it is.  


Doctor Ryan, how would you react if I wrote a hit piece on you, referring to super-thermite as ‘space dust’?




Doctor Ryan, in subtext you’re saying that there’s no evidence for the use of directed energy beams or any sort of advanced weaponry. Isn’t that right? Sure it is. Your meaning is obvious.


I don’t have a string of letters after my name but bear with me as I use my common sense to analyze this matter of advanced weaponry and 9/11; keep in mind that I’m just a science dilettante… Wait, I’m not even that. I’m actually just an aging surf bum down here in Mexico, living on cocoanut water and speared fish. So really, bear with me.


Not having an internet connection, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but isn’t it true, Doctor Ryan, that the amount of cement turned into microscopic dust by the controlled demolition of the WTC towers by the laws of physics cannot be reasonably explained by the use of thermitic material and/or conventional explosives?


There’s way too much energy involved in the solid matter-to-dust conversion. (In short: thermite could not have done it and the amount of conventional explosives needed would not be practical, plus there would entail too loud a ‘boom’.)


We’ve all seen the video interview of the firefighter describing how the towers were turned into dust – how the largest artifact he came across was ‘half of a telephone keypad – and it was about this big.’


As a scientist, Doctor Ryan, how do you explain that?


And you know what? It’s not just the cement-to-microscopic dust conversion that bothers me. It’s the human beings too.  About 1,000 human bodies disappeared during that explosive event. Disappeared. Vaporized. Turned into wisps. (Like Flight 77, had it crashed into the Pentagon?)


Let me ask you something, Doctor Ryan: How could thermite or any sort of conventional explosives, or any combination thereof, make 150,000 pounds (1,000 humans of 150 pound average) of human flesh and bone disappear? Keeping in mind that they were randomly scattered all over the towers’ structure. (The ‘randomly scattered’ part is an important part of the mystery, isn’t it? Whatever process – according to you, a ‘normal’ explosion – it was that in effect atomized those humans could not have been directed at a localized area.)


And it occurs to me that most of them were wearing shoes...


You know how it works when a suicide bomber detonates his explosive vest? No? Well, I’ll tell you. There’s not much left of him. They often, not always, find his head, but if he’s wearing shoes they always find his feet, both of them. In his shoes.


If we suppose the use of conventional weapons-only on 9/11, then we’re miraculously missing 2,000 human feet.


As a physicist, do you believe in miracles, Doctor Ryan? No? Then some sort of advanced weaponry was probably used on 9/11.


Still on the subject of ‘space beams’ (again, your terminology): At the end of the paragraph I’ve been dealing with you snidely ask this presumably rhetorical question:


‘…[will] the use of space beams at the WTC… make a huge impact in achieving justice for the victims? Your implied answer: No!


Now you bring in the victim’s families, in subtext accusing Jim Fetzer of insensitivity. Maybe some readers might think to themselves, ‘What a brute that Fetzer is for not caring about justice for the victims!’ That was your purpose in mentioning them, wasn’t it? Sure it was.


I mention this because of who inspired me to look into the advanced weaponry possibility – yes, I had looked into it before reading your drivel.


Bob McIlvaine. In the course of making my film Bob and I sat and talked for a couple of hours. Bob is a serious researcher, especially regarding the WTC. And in case you don’t know, Bob is searching for justice for his son, Bobby. Bobby is one of the victims you refer to in your rhetoric.


It was Bob McIlvaine who informed me of the too-much-energy problem; that the physical effects observed at the WTC cannot be explained via a thermite / conventional explosive event. His summation of the possible use of some sort of advanced weapon (possibly ‘directed energy’) was this: ‘I certainly don’t rule it out.’


Neither do I. How about you, Doctor Ryan? Are you going to let stand your implication that Bob McIlvaine, like Jim Fetzer, is a ‘space beam’ fool?


Just one more issue: I’ve wasted enough of my valuable surf bum time with you, Doctor Ryan.


You refer to Jim Fetzer’s JFK research as ‘dubious’. Although there is a lot of competition for the top spot, this is perhaps your most ignorant assertion. (I’m certain there are legions out there who would disagree.)


Let me tell you something, Doctor Ryan: I could write my own book on the subject of what I know directly or indirectly based on Jim Fetzer’s JFK research. (I’ve written three books, so book writing is a subject about which I know whereof I speak.)


One example: If not for Jim Fetzer’s JFK research I would not know that the JFK autopsy photographs and X-rays were faked. Did you know that they were faked? Since you refer to Jim Fetzer’s JFK research as ‘dubious’, I have to assume not. I’d bet a valued possession not.


It follows, then, that you don’t know that the truth of this fakery (if I may coin a bizarre phrase) is all you really need to know about the JFK assassination; meaning to know who, in the larger sense, ‘did it’.


It further follows, then, that you don’t know that those faked autopsy photographs and X-rays are directly connected to the events you profess to be an expert on; those of 9/11/01.


You don’t know these things (facts and their implications) because your mind is not properly configured to see, much less comprehend, the larger context of complex events -- the Big Picture – and how chains of causation really work. (This is obvious from your Pentagon buffoonery.)


The world you profess to study, the world of the deep state and how that world works, is actually quite beyond you. It’s for this reason that you don’t mention John O’Neill in your ‘in-depth’ research; or, for that matter, it’s for this reason that you are ignoring the truth about O’Neill, even though it has been pointed out to you (by me). Your denial is showing, Doctor Ryan.


If not for Jim Fetzer’s ‘dubious’ JFK research – and I am picking this other example from a very long list – I would also not know that the mental image we all have of the assassination – the alleged ‘home movie’ called the Zapruder Film – is no more a true representation of the event than would be a cartoon animation. If not for Jim Fetzer’s research, I would not know that those images are lies. (Did you know this?)


But by implications I also mean the following: When, via Jim Fetzer, I came to fully realize the extent to which the Zapruder film had been edited and re-edited, with state-of-the-art (for 1963) techniques and processes, I looked for implications. Going down that road, I found that the person who was behind the purchase of the ‘original’ camera film – it remained untouched / unfaked for only a matter of hours after being shot – for Life Magazine was a man named C.D. Jackson. Further research revealed that C.D. Jackson was not only a CIA asset, but a full-blown CIA agent – and a heavy-weight at that, since the Agency’s very founding in 1947.


In brief: C.D. Jackson ran Life for most of the 1960s. His real job during this time, however, was not to run Life. His job, along with the jobs of virtually (that word again) every major media figure of the time was to lie to the American people.


These inarguable facts – which I know thanks to Jim Fetzer – and their implications led me to intense research on the media / intel agencies hub that creates and sustains the illusions and the denial/doublethink of the zeitgeist.


But my point is that Jim Fetzer’s JFK research directly opened up ‘The Big Picture’ I am trying to sketchily describe, by connecting 1963 to 2001.


A related issue, Doctor Ryan: You bring up when Jim Fetzer first appeared on the 9/11 truth scene, citing 2005 as the year, as if this were still another negative Jim Fetzer factor. That you would do this, Doctor, is a perfect example of your failure – and I’ll switch tired metaphors here – to see the forest for the trees.  You do not understand that Jim Fetzer’s 9/11 work is a part of his long-standing, seamless search for truth, which goes back decades.


In one of my books I describe a surfing incident that occurred many years ago here in Mexico; it’s actually an incident that repeats itself with variations quite often – in the surf lineup and in life in general – and which directly relates to your behavior.


I refer to pecking order, a concept that I sense is important to you, although, via denial, you would haughtily dismiss as far beneath you.


If I’m sitting in the surf lineup next to some kid – he could be 15 years old or 30, no matter, he’s a kid to me – and a wave looms, one which we both theoretically should have access to, odds are I’ll take it and warn the other surfer off with a look (two on a wave is a no-no).


What my look says, and it somehow almost always gets through to the other surfer, is this: ‘Back off, kid, I was riding Pipeline when you were pooping in your diapers.’


My look is a demand for the respect that I’m due, via my history.


In case you’re not getting my drift, Doctor Ryan: Back off, kid, because ‘truth-wise’ Jim Fetzer was riding Pipeline when you were pooping in your diapers.


P.S. In the interest of the ‘truth’ of how the demolition of the WTC was carried out, I suggest that researchers take into account the matter of John O’Neill. Since Kevin Ryan does not see fit to deal with this issue in his ‘extensive’ analysis, I’ll supply a link directly to that part of my essay:




Those who would read the essay in its entirety can go here:





Allan Weisbecker is a novelist, screenwriter, memorist, and surfer, who has taken an interest in 9/11 and JFK. He is the author of the "cheerfully immoral novel”, Cosmic Banditos, of the memoir, In Search of Captain Zero: A Surfer’s Road Trip Beyond the End of the Road, and of Can't You Get Along With Anyone? A Writer's Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer's Paradise.  He currently resides in Mexico while completing his latest film, “Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a Mad Man”.


Views: 73


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on March 22, 2011 at 6:34am

"Doctor Kevin Ryan – yes, that Kevin Ryan, the scientist, the Truther Scientist Kevin Ryan – appears to be ignoring evidence because it does not fit his thesis."


This is an MO in both JFK/911 research, and it's getting tiresome.  I want people to think about the evidence and apply the scientific method, and stop special pleading like lawyers.  I am so disappointed that supposedely educated people can't get out of their biases, the dark side is laughing , not only are they fooling the innocent sheep but also the academics.  Look at guys like Groden and Thompson, there is ZERO doubt the Z film was edited , or recreated, but yet they insist it wasn't, and behave badly when challenged even though that ball game is so over. 

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service