9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

The Latest in Disinformation--this time, from "Cosmic Penguin" (corrected to: Mark Bilk)

Comment by RALPH OMHOLT 6 minutes ago
Delete Comment Funny, I always thought the "Cosmic Penguine" was Mark Bilk.
I've spoken to both of them - and I could have sworn there were two different voices
and two different sets of expertise.

Did I get that wrong? Is there some perceptive dissonance going on? If so, whose?

Say it ain't so, Jim!

Comment by James H. Fetzer 4 minutes ago
Oh, I think you are right. I blundered on that one. Thanks for the correction, Ralph.
Sorry about that. Jim

Cosmic Penguin is Russell Pickering, a very clever op, in
my opinion. As I was completing "Thinking about", for
example, I encountered some of his work, which I cited in
an endnote as weakening my conviction that an A-3 had in
fact hit the Pentagon instead of a 757. But if I were
wrong, why should he have bothered to dissuade me about
it? Now, I believe, he has revealed his true colors.


----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:26:57 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Saboteurs Attacking The 9/11 Truth Movement
To: "SHURE Dj" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

He's an op, in my opinion. Anyone who wants to know
more about the recreation of the Zapruder film should
visit my public issues web site assassinationscience.com
and take a look around, including "The Latest on JFK".

Or do a google on "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" or
"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".
Or check out "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". Ops
can only make their case by distorting their targets.

>Saboteurs Attacking The 9/11 Truth Movement:

Saboteurs Attacking The 9/11 Truth Movement:
The No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/Energy-Beams Disinformation Gang

A gang of disinformation agents is posing as 9/11 researchers and attempting to sabotage the 9/11 truth effort by:
Claiming that they themselves are 9/11 researchers (which they are not, because they don't use scientific methods)
Broadcasting lying smear attacks against the actual 9/11 researchers, in order to discredit the actual research results.

Making absurd claims: that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that the dozens of videos showing the planes were all faked, that the WTC was destroyed by energy beams or H-bombs, etc.

Their purpose in making the obviously absurd claims is to confuse the public into thinking that 9/11 researchers are crackpots, and therefore their information should be ignored.


The American/Israeli/British fascist governments have used their Big Lie -- that the 9/11 attacks were done by "Islamic Terrorists" -- as their pretext for murdering millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, practicing the most horrible tortures upon innocent people, instituting surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the threat of kidnapping, torture, and murder against their own citizens, and threatening to censor or shut down the Internet. In other words, for creating the "New World Order" -- a global fascist slave state.

The 9/11 truth effort is having ever increasing success in reaching the public with the results of the scientific analysis showing that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives and incendiaries that "Islamic Terrorists" could not possibly have placed in the buildings. This worries the criminal elements of the U.S. government greatly, and both Bush and Obama have ordered that their story about 9/11 must never be questioned, and that those who do question it are terrorists in league with "Al-Qaeda" (which actually does not exist as an organized international force).

The government has created websites, magazine articles, and books claiming to refute the 9/11 physical research, but these government productions have been shown to be full of lies. So, in order to disrupt the effectiveness of the 9/11 truth movement directly, a COINTELPRO type operation was apparently initiated, as it has been against virtually all organizations and movements opposing U.S. government fascist wars and oppression. The operations of the Disinformation Gang fit the usual COINTELPRO pattern.

Disinformation Gang Members

Major participants in the Disinformation Gang (as I call them) are James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds (former chief economist of G W Bush's Department of Labor), Judy Wood, Ace Baker, Kevin Barrett, Rosalee "Webfairy" Grable, Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren, Rick Siegel, Jeff Hill, and a number of others who hide their identity under pseudonyms like "Coffinman".

James Fetzer is a former JFK assassination "researcher" who claimed that the Zapruder film -- which is the most important piece of evidence in the case and proves that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the killer -- was faked by the government, and therefore was not valid as evidence.

Fetzer was a co-founder with physicist Steven Jones of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, which initially was the most credible and effective 9/11 research organization, listing as members hundreds of professional experts in various fields. But once the Scholars achieved wide recognition, Fetzer began publishing on the organization's website the obviously absurd claims of the Disinformation Gang -- that no planes hit the WTC, that the videos showing the planes had all been faked, etc. Many of the members raised strong objections to his actions, but Fetzer continued pushing the lies (and he still does currently, as of June 2009).

In December 2006 a vote was taken on this issue among the members (over Fetzer's angry objections) and his policy of pushing lying disinformation was rejected by 153 to 9. In spite of this, he refused to stop, and so Steven Jones and most of the members left and formed the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.
General Methods Used

The most successful factor in exposing the government lies about 9/11 has been scientific investigation of the physical evidence. This evidence and its analysis are objective, and can't be countered by excuses like, "General Myers didn't send up interceptor jets because he was in a meeting when the airliners were hijacked." Physicist Steven Jones, author David Ray Griffin, architect Richard Gage, and political activist Alex Jones have been among the most effective in bringing this information to the public.

Just as the 9/11 truth movement was having substantial success in getting the word out, a small gang of people, many hiding their identity, sprang up and began spewing out huge amounts of disinformation masquerading as scientific research, but contradicting the real research. These people support one another, and say that they are the only real 9/11 researchers.

The gang's disinformation includes claims that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that all the videos showing the planes hitting were faked by the government, and that the WTC was destroyed by energy beam weapons or H-bombs (not by explosives and thermate).

Upon close examination, the gang's claims all turn out to be lies, but people who don't have a scientific background are sometimes taken in by them. The gang has published many hundreds of videos, blog entries, forum posts, and web pages. They appear to be well financed. Their enormous campaign also includes direct lying smear attacks against the most effective real 9/11 investigators and activists -- Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and Alex Jones.

The goal of this gang is to confuse naive members of the public into thinking that real 9/11 researchers are spouting absurd garbage like "No planes hit the World Trade Center" and "All the WTC plane crash videos were faked". Even people without a scientific education, just using common sense, know that these claims are ridiculous. And that is the goal of the Disinformation Gang! They want people to think that the 9/11 truth movement is full of idiots and crackpots, so people willl go back to believing the government's lies, and welcoming a police state for protection against nonexistent "terrorists".

Details of the Gang's Absurd Claims

In addition to making savage, lying personal attacks against the people most successful in spreading the truth of 9-11 to the population -- Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and Alex Jones -- various gang members claim that the following techniques were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center. The fact that many of these violate well-known laws of physics, contradict the evidence, and some are also mutually exclusive doesn't inhibit the gang. Refutations are given in parentheses.

Keep in mind that these claims are designed to be seen as absurd in order to make people think that 9/11 researchers are nutballs.

no planes hit the WTC (a few people saw the first plane hit, and many saw the second, which was also captured on dozens of videos and still photos)

all the videos and photos, even those made by private people, were faked by the government (all of the analysis presented by the gang to prove this turns out to be lies, in some cases using tampered versions of the actual videos)

an error in "video fakery" showed the plane's nose emerging from the opposite side of WTC2 (refuted in detail here)

all the witnesses who saw the planes hit were lying or brainwashed by watching TV (firemen, police, thousands of citizens saw the second

missiles disguised as planes by means of holograms (impossible, because, since light travels in straight lines, the hologram generator would have to be as large as a 767)

"UFO orbs" (actually the lights of helicopters in the distance)

"scalar waves" (which don't exist and are a fraud by Tom Bearden)

"Hutchison effect" (which also doesn't exist and is a fraud by John Hutchison)

micro-hydrogen bombs not using fission triggers (which don't exist, would have made an enormous flash and bang, and would have made radioactive elements which were not found)

missiles hidden by "cloaking devices" (which don't exist)

flocks of UAVs -- unmanned aerial vehicles -- to account for individual puffs of dust and smoke during the crashes (these were caused simply by turbulent air flow)

energy beams from space satellites (which would have required the combined power of hundreds of nuclear power plants, would have made the concrete dust burning hot, would have burned people on the ground, would have made enormous lightning bolts in the air, and could not have penetrated even one of the hundred steel floor pans)
This gang has created dozens of websites, blogs, forums, mailing lists, Net radio programs, and various other outlets for their lies. Their intention is to associate these nonsensical claims with the actual 9-11 research movement, in order to discredit it. They have already begun to succeed: articles have been published in mainstream media saying that 9-11 researchers are nutty conspiracy theorists who say that no planes hit the World Trade Center.

Cars Were Not Burned By Energy Beams

Here is a refutation of one of their claims -- that cars near the WTC were burned in peculiar ways that proves they were hit by energy beams from space:

Ordinary burned cars with the same damage as WTC cars

The "Spire" Did Not Turn To Dust

The disinfo gang claims that the WTC steel "spire" -- some girders that remained standing briefly after one of the towers fell -- was "dustified" by directed energy beams, this based on low-resolution video from which it's impossible to tell what happened. In fact, any type of energy that can reduce solid steel to dust would have to vaporize it first, which would require heating it to beyond white-hot in order to overcome the very strong interatomic bonds that make steel such a strong construction material. Such heating would cause the steel to emit a blindingly bright blue-white light. Of course this didn't happen.

What did happen is shown in the two closeup higher resolution videos below: the spire simply fell, mostly dropping vertically downward. At the end the tallest part also begins a rotation to the left, which can be seen in the second video. The sideways motion causes some blurring due to the video compression process. A lesser degree of blurring is seen in the first video as the spire falls, but it's clear that the various parts of the structure remain intact, because they keep their geometric relationship with one another; dust clouds could not do that.



If your video player won't display these, download and install mplayer. It runs on Linux, Mac OSX, and Microsoft Windows, and can expand videos to full-screen, and also run them in slow-motion or frame by frame, so you have time to perceive and understand what's happening.


Is the No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/Energy-Beams Disinformation Gang COINTELPRO?

People in various 9-11 truth groups are now starting to connect the following facts:
The U.S. government has carried out COINTELPRO operations -- infiltration, disinformation, and disruption -- against all major anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-environmental organizations in the past.

The 9-11 truth movement is exposing as a huge and murderous fraud the 9-11 pretext for the entire "eternal war against terrorism" -- which is actually for war profiteering, seizure of oil resources, extension of geopolitical/military power, and obedience to the demands of the state of Israel.

It is therefore very likely that a COINTELPRO operation is being undertaken against the 9-11 truth movement.

No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/Energy-Beams Disinformation Gang has all the characteristics of a COINTELPRO operation against the 9-11 truth movement, and it is the only group that does.

Views: 137


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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 17, 2009 at 8:26pm
Bill, I certainly agree that the flights do not appear to have landed as the government affirms. I also believe that the thermite/thermate component of the destruction of the Twin Towers was modest in relation to other causes that must have been involved to bring about the observed effects. If that's not good enough for you, then I suggest you create your own forum, because I'm not going anywhere and this one is taken. OK? Jim
Comment by Killtown on June 17, 2009 at 3:08pm
Oh geez. As I've said before, those people who write long, drawn-out articles on who's "disinfo" and what theories are "hoaxes" are probably the real shills.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 15, 2009 at 1:16am
Comment by James H. Fetzer 1 hour ago
Delete Comment Yes. I was calling to ask if this is a fair summary. Sorry it is so late.
[6/14/09 11:32:16 PM] James H. Fetzer: Are you OK?
[6/14/09 11:36:12 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: Yes I was having difficulty with skype
[6/14/09 11:36:19 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: got it working now
[6/14/09 11:36:46 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: yes your synthesis of my thesis is correct and very put and clearly

So I awakened the man at 12:36 his time to address this issue. He added that

yes, but include terminal velocity factor which does not allow the 16 floor block to reach the required velocity of 4500 miles per hour

which means that, if there were no terminal velocity--if the 16 floor block were falling in a vacuum--then it could acquire sufficient energy to cause the collapse. But because of air resistance, that is an idealization: even from 120 miles above the target floors, it could not acquire sufficient kinetic energy to bring about a collapse of the bottom 94! I think this is terrific stuff. After recaping it, of course, I could have been off in my remark about Jenkins' analysis: perhaps 2.4 atomic bombs is closer than one! In any case, that's the score. The author has confirmed that I have understood his work clearly and correctly. Now, have you?

Comment by James H. Fetzer 1 hour ago
Delete Comment Sure. I have told you more than once that no one should be afraid of research, even research on complex and controversial subjects. Egad! That's what we are doing here! I also told you that I, like you, believe in the historical reality of the Holocaust and that neither you, nor I, should worry about someone wanting to do work in that area, because if their research is sound then they will be inevitably led to conclude that it was real! I said surely you would not worry about someone doing research on whether or not the Earth is flat and that Holocaust deniers are in a similar plight: if they do their homework properly (and, of course, if we are RIGHT in our belief in its reality), then they should arrive at the conclusion that it was real. My impression is that you want to make this public in an effort to embarrass me, which is silly. My attitude about research is that it should be open and unfettered regardless. You are the pantywaist in this debate, because you are AFRAID of allowing research on subjects like that one. I really don't understand you any more, Michael. I thought you were principled and dedicated to science and truth, including about even the most controversial and complex subjects. But I can seen now that I was mistaken and took you for your better. When you share whatever you want to share with the world, be sure to include this post. I am not going to allow you to smear me for whatever reasons you may harbor of your own. It was disappointing to me that you took such a restrictive and sheltered attitude toward research. But that you are making such a ploy in this context verges on the despicable. I am very disappointed in you, Michael. Do you damnedest! I think any thoughtful person, especially professional scholars, will side with me, not with you. So be it!
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 15, 2009 at 1:15am
Comment by Michael Morrissey 2 hours ago
Delete Comment Ralph, I don't think there is much to discuss. You have not yet answered Jim's question, as far as I know, about visual fakery (If the speed is impossible, how can the videos be real?), and Jim refuses to answer my question about why Greg Jenkins is wrong in his argument against DEW. Jim would rather talk about a paper by Charles Boldwyn that he (Jim) does not understand any better than I do, or refuses to explain it. He would rather insult me for admitting that I do not understand it, and for not wishing to discuss something incomprehensible written by an admirer of David Duke. This is not the path to mutual understanding! Jim will be better off in his own forum, where he can control such matters.

Comment by Michael Morrissey 2 hours ago
Delete Comment And Jim, would you like to divulge to this group the content of the letter you sent to a certain Stephen Boyd, who applied for membership in Scholars a couple of months ago, and whose application I refused because I thought that as "co-chair" I had that right (though you disagreed)? In the light of what has happened here, I have had to reconsider that incident. You said at the time it was a "mistake," but I find it hard to believe that now. I still have a copy of Boyd's letter, and of your reply. Would you mind if I posted those letters here? You are otherwise quite open about posting your correspondence, even without asking for people's permission, and have even asked me to do so for you, which I have done though I probably should not have. So let's show everybody this exchange, ok? We want to be honest and transparent, so let's let it all hang out, shall we?

Comment by James H. Fetzer 2 hours ago
Delete Comment Egad! I didn't realize you wanted me to talk about Greg Jenkins, Michael, because his argument, like that of Boldwynn, is mathematical. The bottom line on Jenkins is that he insists it would take "more energy" than the world can provide to destroy the buildings using directed energy weaponry. Judy replied, "Then I guess they are still standing!" I replied, "That's nonsense, since an atomic bomb would do it!" I apologize if I missed the intent of your inquiry. I am sorry about that. With your desire to eschew mathematics, I did not realize that you wanted to talk about Jenkins' paper. Anyway, in your terms--in down to earth language--that's my take. I would rather be here with you, Michael, if you were not so zealous in the commission of ad hominem and genetic fallacies, not to mention guilt by association. I still hold you in high esteem, but I am getting the impression that my standing with you is slipping. Sorry about that. I have never had any problem admitting that experts in other fields know more about those fields than do I. I guess we are alike in that respect. But I am willing to have them around for the benefits they provide, which seems to be the point at which we diverge. I am keenly disappointed that we seem to be parting ways, but I find it very odd that you cite "experts" in the Jones camp to dismiss the mini-nuke hypothesis while baring discussion of Charles Boldwynn's work, which is far less sophisticated in its mathematics. I'm no math wizard, either, Michael, but I certainly respect the benefits that it provides in offering more exact and precise formulations that are easier to test and verify or falsify. And I thought that Jack Sunn was here to keep Charles honest--and us reassured that something important is at stake here, which I firmly believe.

Comment by James H. Fetzer 1 hour ago
Delete Comment About Boldwynn's paper, his thesis is very clear: that it would have taken the equivalent of 48,000 tons of explosives to equal the kinetic energy (energy of motion) that the top 16 floors of the North Tower (taking the plane to have hit at the 94 floor and subtracting 94 from 110 = 16) would have had to exert upon the bottom 94 floors for their "collapse" to have initiated the collapse of those 94 floors. John Skilling, one of the senior engineers of the firm that built the towers, had observed that they could carry 20 times the expected "live load" (that is, physical steel and concrete structure plus office furniture and human beings) that they would ever be expected to carry. Charles believes it was actually much greater than that, but even using Skilling's more conservative figures, he has calculated that the force required to collapse the lower 94 floors (using vector addition and subtraction of forces) which would have required the combined weight of some 588 16-floor equivalents (taking into account that those uppermost 16 floors were not as heavy as lower 16 floor units because the steel was not as thick) before collapse would ensue; or, using the thought of those 16 floors falling through space downward onto the lower 96, that that 16-floor unit would have to be elevated to a height of 120 miles above the remaining 94 for it to possess enough energy of motion to collapse the remaining 94; or, alternatively, that the energy required would be equivalent to that of 2.4 (Hiroshima sized) atomic bombs, which clearly was not available from the miniscule potential energy tthat was allegedly released by the fires weakening the steel and causing the top 16 floors to collapse on the bottom 94. Honestly, Michael, I thought you were simply opposed to posting a mathematical treatment, even one that covers the ground (or should I say "space") as well as this does. I even featured Charles on my radio program on 10 June 2009, which should be posted at radiofetzer.blogspot.com in the next few days. I guess we are really not communicating very effectively, my friend (or is it now "former" friend?). I would have much preferred to stay here, but you made it impossible to continue to pursue the truth about 9/11 within the boundaries of your narrow conceptions about anti-Semitism, guilt by association, and abhorrance of all things mathematical. It was impossible to continue under those constraints, which is a pity, since I still think you are, in every other way, a marvelous chap! So there you have it! I guess if you are throwing in with Ralph Omholt, the prospects of reconciliation between us are not great. That, alas, is a real shame. But there you have it! I hope you get it. It's not really that hard.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 14, 2009 at 10:38pm
Comment by RALPH OMHOLT 2 hours ago
Delete Comment Funny, I always thought the "Cosmic Penguine" was Mark Bilk. I've spoken to both of them - and I could have sworn there were two different voices and two different sets of expertise.

Did I get that wrong? Is there some perceptive dissonance going on? If so, whose?

Say it ain't so, Jim!

James H. Fetzer Comment by James H. Fetzer 2 hours ago
Delete Comment Oh, I think you are right. I blundered on that one. Thanks for the correction, Ralph. Sorry about that. Jim

RALPH OMHOLT Comment by RALPH OMHOLT 1 hour ago
Delete Comment I'm really confused. The Zapruder 8MM film was a fake, the various 9-11 videos were a fake, but Jim Fetzer is the real thing?

Is that what I'm reading?

I'm not supposed to believe my lying eyes; I'm only to believe in Jim Fetzer?

I guess I'll have to look that up in my book of authorities, but my lying eyes can't seem to locate it. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever had such a book. So, if the videos of the 9-11 WTC aircraft strikes are fake, what is there left to believe in? 9-11 must not have happened, the videos lied - right, Jim? Why are we discussing this? I seem to forget, for all my perceptive dissonance.

Better yet, Jim, Tell me again about all that physical evidence which certifies the WTC aircraft strikes. Why is it that you'd have everyone think that all that is a case of perceptive dissonance? Rather like millions suffering from the same hallucination. Same batch of LSD? Talk about a trick! I know the Agency is clever, but they usually botch such efforts. (Well, I guess this discussion is testimony of exactly that.)

Still better, Jim, please tell everybody what actually did happen on 9-11. DEWs? Earthquakes? Holograms? Please don't omit the Pentagon & Shanksville.

I can't speak for everyone, but I just can't seem to get by the idea that the damage & debris testify that the acclaimed aircraft factually struck the buildings.

Hell yes, aircraft CAN penetrate such buildings. Again, the outer shell of aluminum siding, backed by thin steel plating, with vertically stressed and staggered attachment points, not laterally stressed. The photos are quite evidentiary, on that, once again. The matter isn't limited to the video imagery.

Then, there was all that fire. Imagine the fuel containers required to produce that. (Or was the fire a fake, also?) You'd kinda hafta assume that if you couldn't get the aircraft into those buildings, you sure as hell couldn't get the required fuel in the middle of all those office floors. So there was no fire, right?

I've got a picture of a guy who landed feet first (really hideous), why did he join so many people in jumping out of the building? But, the people only jumped out of one building, so I guess they were fake as well, otherwise people would have been jumping from both buildings - right?

Once again, otherwise account for the nearly 9,000 pound engine "placement." No accommodating flatbed or crane witnessed or otherwise caught on tape/film? Do you honestly believe that a bunch of FBI agents lifted the engine from a truck, on their shoulders? As I said before; I see those engines transported up I-5 to the Boeing plant all the time; the flatbeds are too big to go unnoticed, especially in downtown NYC.

These aircraft are longitudinally stressed via "keel beams," there would be no instant 'telescoping' or 'beer canning' due to a supposedly weak outer shell.

Just eliminate the impossible. The videos, photos and debris tell the only possible WTC "aircraft" story. The same tell the 'controlled demolition' story. Passionate and clever rationalizations and assertions don't nullify common sense, backed by accurate technical data.

No, Jim, being "nice to me" doesn't change the facts. Does it? (But you already knew that, right?)

Let's see, if I successfully reminded you that Mark Bilk was the Cosmic Penguin - whom you apparently criticized to the max, then I can remind you that the airplanes DID hit the WTC towers, right?

I E-mailed Mark that you had him confused with Russ. I'm sure that he'll be relieved. (At least until he reads what you left-handedly wrote about him.)

I'll E-mail him again & tell him that you made a teeny-tiny simple mistake - no harm, no foul, and all that - right?

Or, should I E-mail Russ & make apologies for you? OR, you can E-mail them & get it all squared away; how on that, over?

James H. Fetzer Comment by James H. Fetzer 23 minutes ago
Delete Comment Chalk that one up to a "senior moment", if you like, Ralph. I am doing my best to figure out what happened on 9/11. Visit 911scholars.ning.org, for example, and read through my blog, which includes about a dozen studies, half or more of which I authored. I take it you are unfamiliar with Elias Davidsson's studies showing that there is no evidence the hijackers were aboard any of those flights; John Lear's observation that, before a commercial pilot (I think you are one, aren't you?) can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an "envelope" including a flight check list, yet none of them have ever surfaced; or the observation by Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), that, although each of these plane has hundreds or even thousands of uniquely identifiable parts, the government has never produced even one! I can't wait to hear your explanation of these three data points! If you are serious about JFK, go to assassinationscience.com and you will find "The Latest on JFK", including several recent studies that confirm the recreation of the Zapruder home movie. Or for even more, go the the on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK that I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today. If you think I'm going to bite at your bating, Ralph, you have me all wrong. It's remarkable to me that, each time I think you are a decent human being, you prove me wrong--again! I hope you can bring yourself to consider the evidence about both cases, including, for example, recent articles of mine including "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". You just might learn something. And thanks for "patching things up" with Russell. You are a prince, Ralph! A real prince! Everyone should have a pal like you.

James H. Fetzer Comment by James H. Fetzer 8 minutes ago
Delete Comment By the way, Ralph, now that I have your attention, are you aware that there were 47 core columns in each of the towers, that there were some 240 external support columns, and that they were connected with steel trusses, bolted and welded to the support columns and welded to the core? that 4" of concrete was poured into those trusses, creating an acre of concrete, 4" thick, on each floor? that Flight 175 allegedly hit the South Tower at an angle and would have impacted with four or five of those 4" concrete-filled trusses, which should have shredded the plane like a carrot? Gee, I guess you really aren't familiar with the construction of those towers, are you, or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself on this forum? Think about it, Ralph. Do you REALLY think that a 767 could enter that building with no decrease in its velocity? that the resistance of this 500,000 ton building was no greater than that provided by air? Is that your considered opinion? Egad! And I thought you were on one of those lists where I explained all of this over and over again. I must be mistaken, because you wouldn't be asking again if you had understood me the first time. It's really good to have you here, Ralph. You comments alone clarify everything there is to know about 9/11. Thank God for Ralph Omholt! The world is at your command. Speak out and share your wisdom with others, Ralph. Then the world will know you for the real Omholt I know you to be. Thanks again. I really don't know where we'd be without you! You really are "one of a kind"!
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 14, 2009 at 8:02pm

June 12, 2009

9/11 Truth Activist Sues Glenn Beck and Fox News for Defamation

by George Washington


An East Coast 9/11 truth activist is preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against TV / radio personality, Glenn Beck, the producers of the Glenn Beck Program, and the Fox News Channel.

Specifically, Greg Hoover will be suing the above-described defendants in Federal Court for Beck’s having repeatedly broadcast statements characterizing those who question the government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as, "anarchists," "terrorists" and as persons denying the Holocaust.

The complaint will note that - on October 22, 2007 - Beck suggested that those identifying themselves as associated with the 9/11 truth movement are "dangerous" "anarchists" who deny the Holocaust, and are "the kind of group that Timothy McVeigh would come from."

The suit will also note that during Beck’s June 10th broadcast Beck linked the murder of the Washington D.C. holocaust museum guard with "9/11 truthers."

As I have previously written, suing people for defamation who falsely claim that 9/11 activists are terrorists could be a good way to stand up to these bullies.

Hoover told me by email:

Copies of my actual initial filings will be available for media distribution within the upcoming week…

I do so having now cast off all other personal concerns. Having chosen sides... I'll stand with the patriots.

Godspeed, Mr. Hoover.

I will update this post with links to Mr. Hoover's complaint as soon as it is available.

Note: Mr. Hoover has not requested either legal or financial assistance. However, if you are an attorney experienced in defamation claims, please let me know, and I'll pass on your name.

George Washington

George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher.

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service