9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Even more lunatic ravings from Judy Wood and her band of trolls . . .

In retrospect, it has become very clear that Agent Fetzer's involvement with the Kennedy assassination served the same purpose as his cognitive control of a Directed Energy Weapon being used to "dustify" the World Trade Center complex. Agent Fetzer is like a bottom dwelling Anglerfish walking on articulated fins assimilating the color of its body to the surroundings in areas abundant with prey and luring them into a wide mouth with long pointed teeth. When cornered, Agent Fetzer mutates into an inflated and neurotoxin laden Pufferfish that has the ability to change its appearance making no attempt to hide from predators. Agent Fetzer's associates in the 9/11 cover-up have either been Feterized by use of mind control tactics or they are willing participants. Remember that covering up a crime is a crime itself...I wonder if Agent Fetzer looks into the bottomless pit of a grave he is digging for himself when he blames others for being outed? (Agent Fetzer knows who I am, and I'm not Dr. Judy Wood. I am an Amazon customer and they know my real identity.)

You replied with a later post

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:27:21 AM PDT 
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
Ben, we have to let Dr. James Fetzer get his sleep. He can't just keep writing posts at all hours of the night and study the definition of "perception managment" during breaks in his posting. Anyways, that is why he has you to fill in for him during his sleep times and going out times. It wasn't that long ago he had a discussion with me on the Veterans Today blog, as I mentioned in an earlier blog on this discussion. In that blog the term "perception management" came up a number of times. Dr. James Fetzer's statement, "I am not familiar with the phrase "perception management" is totally BS. I'm sure he is aware of Andrew Johnson's book "9/11 Finding the Truth" and I'm sure his intellectual curiosity got the best of him and he had to read it from cover to cover. Now, Dr James Fetzer might deny he has read it, just like he denies he has read all of Dr. Judy Wood's book, but in my opinion, that is just more BS coming from Dr James Fetzer who has made it his passion to get involved with Dr Judy Wood's research for over 6 years even though Dr. Judy Wood has not discussed anything with him in over 4 years. Plausible deniability is just one of the tools of Mr James Fetzer's dirty deceptive craft.

You replied with a later post
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:44:33 PM PDT 
Last edited by you 1 hour ago
Pathetic. Matt Naus demonstrates again and again that he cannot fashion an argument. He does not seem to understand that using barn-yard phrases to dismiss well-founded positions can't cut it. Egad, man! What difference would it make? You people are not even willing to grant the obvious: that, to whatever extent I have affected "perception management" in relation to Judy's work, it has been overwhelmingly positive:

(1) My featuring Judy Wood on my radio programs 15 times: POSITIVE!

(2) My publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: POSITIVE!

(3) My providing Judy Wood three hours to speak in Madison: POSITIVE!

(4) My inviting Judy Wood to speak at the Vancouver Hearings: POSITIVE!

(5) My posting a 5-star review of Judy's book on amazon.com: POSITIVE!

To any objective reader, what would Judy's groupies think had I never featured her on my radio programs? had not published her chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY? had not given her an unprecedented three hours to speak in Madison? had not invited her to speak in Vancouver? had not given her book a 5-star review? There are many forms of lunacy; the evidence suggests they suffer from severe cognitive impairments.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 3:29:07 PM PDT 
Last edited by you 20 minutes ago
To appreciate how warped this person (who claims not to be Judy Wood, but whom some of us believe has been, at least up until now) has become, just read any of my articles on JFK. You don't even have to read any of my three collections by experts on the case. Just consider these five samples:

"Reasoning about Assassinations"

Presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, this article demonstrates that, simply by establishing where JFK was hit in the back, the existence of conspiracy can be proven;

"Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" (with Jim Marrs)

Demonstrates that the "backyard photographs" were faked in order to implicate Lee Oswald in a crime that he did not commit (with Jim Marrs, the author of CROSSFIRE, one of the sources of Oliver Stone's "JFK");

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

Demonstrates that the consistent testimony of Clint Hill over nearly 50 years supports the conclusion that the home movies of the assassination were extensively revised to conceal the true causes of death of our 35th president;

"JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cique)

The first of a five-part series (with chiropractor Ralph Cinque, who brought a fresh pair of eyes and distinctive background to resolve an old and contentious issue) proving Lee Oswald was in the doorway as the motorcade passed by;

"JFK Conspiracy: The bullet hole in the Windshield"

Multiple lines of proof that establish the existence of a through-and-through entry hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine, which was fired from an above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass and hit JFK in the throat.

If anyone can find a reason to suppose that "Emmanuel Goldstein" is not a complete and total flake, when my books and articles prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was framed and JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I would like to hear it. Because this has gone beyond absurd into simple insanity.

Views: 291


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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Shallel Octavia on July 4, 2012 at 11:57am

Reality is being manufactured is so many ways, in such quantity, I fear I cannot discern the truth at all anymore.

We really must get all the way back to basics and start with the Laws of Physics. I can only say with certainty that if an action is in violation of these Laws that there are two possibilities, 1) that action is falsified, or 2) these Laws of Physics are wrong or incomplete. 

We are being fed lies from all sides, and cannot trust any picture, video, or person. No-one is exempt from scrutiny. Anyone who is a blind follower WILL most certainly be deceived to the point of being a agent of deception themselves.

Comment by Jeannon Kralj on July 3, 2012 at 1:35am

"And her profound paranoia has even seduced previously good men like Matt Naus to The Dark Side."


The "profound paranoia" is a characteristic I have observed in Dr. Wood for a few years.  For that reason, I think it is best not to respond to her, and her followers', ravings.


She always said she wanted her work to stand on its own. Dr. Wood, at least in her "debut" years, debut years that you, Dr. Fetzer, made possible for her,  always said she did not want to focus on criticizing others' work.  She wanted her work to be considered on its own merits, and she used to have strong "faith" in her ideas and would go out and "defend" them to some extent.  The fact that she would not go to the Vancouver Hearings and support and defend her ideas indicates to me that her paranoia and animosity toward you have overtaken that ability.


Thoth may be on to something when he attributes Dr. Wood's rumblings these days, and those of her followers,  to the recent work of Jeff Prager, Chuck Boldwyn and others that do rather thoroughly refute her ideas.  So many of the anomalies that Dr. Wood said could not be explained but by DEWs are anomalies that can be explained by mini-nukes.  (toasted cars. huge bent "pipes", massive amounts of dust  etc.)


Anyone who has listened to you over the years on the radio interviewing Dr. Wood knows that you were from the beginning and consistently supportive of her.  You never said you totally accepted her ideas regarding destruction of the Twin Towers, or said that of anyone else's theories on that,  but you applauded her original thinking and approach, as well as her collection and cataloging of the "evidence" that needed to be explained.  Your record has always shown that you thought ALL ideas need to be discussed without prejudice as that is what scietific inquiry requires.  I listened to your original interview of her the other day as it was part of some video.  You were VERY enthusiastic and supportive.  So all this nonsense from Matt N. and others with screen names (not real names) is, to me, of the nature of something to be ignored and not dignified with a defense.  But you may see need to set the record straight, and I am not the one experiencing these ridiculous and sick) paranoid attacks.  It is just that your record is so on the books and so clear that I think it serves as your defense without your having to respond this garbage.  I do not regard these postings attacking you as sincere inquiries.  I think they want to put you in defensive mode. 

I said that some who conduct these kinds of attacks are sinister, and I would offer Jonathan Kay as falling into that category.  I believe he wrote a book with someone named Michael Roth who was proven by Joshua Blakeney to be a member of the Mossad.  Kay's books are published by Rupert Murdoch publisher so the indications are that Kay is doing a typical subversive manipulative "Israeli" or "Mossad" operation, and these entities are super sophisticated and accomplished in these kinds of operations.  I saw a video recently where Barry Zwicker, Richard Gage, and one other person whose name started with a Z reacting to the ridiculous statements of Kay in a book about conspiracy theorists.  In a way, I guess they had to point out Kay's ridiculous and taudry accusations and enuendos in print in his book and call him on the carpet about them.  But I got the strong impression that Jonathan Kay fully intends to draw people out into dignifying his garbage in such panel discussions.  That is part of Jonathan Kay's serious sophisticated and evil plan, and not expressions of a person with growing paranoid ideations.  ( I do not ascribe to the "theories" of those defending their good name on that panel, and it may me some of the defenders of their good name were play acting too to make themselves appear a certain way. But that is all another story.)


Dr. Wood, I do not believe, ever has been a puppet of entities like this.  She really was fired from her university teaching position.  Dr. Steven Jones' firing I believe was fake.  The whole Mormon (Brigham Young University) thing is looking more and more to be connected with those who stage Jonathan Kay.

All of your "defense" regarding Judy Wood accusations is on the record for all to see.  You have been nothing but cordial and supportive of Dr. Wood.  But she has gradually become suspicious of many and is so concerned that someone wants to steal her work or misrepresent her work and put her down.  I do not think that kind of thinking on her part was ever grounded in reality or truth.  Even if there could have been some researchers at first that may have been jealous of her good work, I doubt if there are any these days as she is turning herself into rather a pitiful character and her followers as well.


I say let the battle of the "theories" of what happened to the Twin Towers go on and may all be given exposure and discussion, as you have facilitated for her and many others, and may they best theory win out and take precedence.


I personally do not think we will ever have the truth regarding what happened to the Twin Towers and I do not want to debate that issue much anymore.  The layers of deception employed on that matter are many and very sophisticated and still being uncovered to some extent, and almost none of the "data" we have can be said to be "solid evidence."  The video fakery at the Towers matter seems to be "growing" and more things were faked than just plane crashes, so all of that appears to be moving to what I have regarded as absurd. the idea of Simon Shack, and writer Mr. Ogilby on VeteransToday that we do not have a real video of the destruction in progress of the Twin Towers and that the Towers were destroyed but not in a way that we observed on the very controlled videos we have been allowed to have on that issue (Naudet brothers, Fairbanks, Hezarkhani videos, etc.)  So though this idea still seems crazy to me, all who think that the Towers were actually destroyed from the top down as viewed on the controlled videos may be responding to more deception and fakery.  Again, all of this cannot be proven one way or the other and all we have been able to do is show very well that the official conspiracy theory could not possibly be true.


I think the work you have done on no plane crashes at the four desginated sites (with consequent "no planes" and "no real passengers" work of Nick Dean) as well as the your video fakery work regarding plane crahes into the Towers is "where it's at" for me.   

Comment by James H. Fetzer on July 2, 2012 at 6:23pm

Jeannon, I am finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss this as innocent or naive.  Something is seriously wrong.

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service