The Ace Baker/Anthony Lawson Saga continues . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:35:15 -0500 [09:35:15 AM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: "ace baker" , [e-mail]

Subject: Re: According to Ace Baker: Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator

You've linked to it plenty of times. I was promoting your work and
telling the world where to find it. This is typical of your infantile attitude.
If someone is not doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT EXACTLY WHEN
YOU WANT IT, they must be some kind of psy-op! You were spoiled at a
child and never got over it. I have never seen such an extreme case
of narcissism in my life--at Princeton, in the Marine Corps, in grad
school, as a teacher with thousands of students, or in ordinary life.
You are a classic. One for the text books. Under "narcissism" in a
dictionary, they must have your photograph--a man who can't get over
himself! I can't believe I allowed myself to be duped by you TWICE!
Well, I can assure you, IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN! You are disgusting.

Quoting "ace baker" :

Jim,

So why exactly would you not link to my treatise?

Sincerely,

Ace Baker


"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about
answers". - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow".

________________________________
From: "[e-mail]"
To: Anthony Lawson ; [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:55:16 PM

Subject: Re: According to Ace Baker: Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator

Anthony,

Ace uses various techniques of disinformation. His initial assertion--that he
knows me "as well as anyone in 9/11 truth circles"--is ambiguous between his
KNOWING ME PERSONALLY BETTER THAN HE KNOWS OTHERS IN 9/11
TRUTH CIRCLES and HIS KNOWING ME BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE
IN 9/11 TRUTH CIRCLES KNOWS ME. His second claim is similarly perverse:
While I have a list of resources under the heading, "Possible Evidence of
Video Fakery", which of course includes Simon Shack's "September Clues",
that does not mean that I endorse all of the arguments presented there! But
you wouldn't know. He also refers to my "alleged forthcoming book". Well,
every book I have ever planned has been published, but things are moving at
a snail's pace in publishing and this book--a bit shorter, now--is moving
forward slowly, This is painful, but I am gravitating to the position that
one of us may be a psy-operator.

As long as you don't play games like Ace Baker, I won't have anything to
complain about. But I anticipate that you will misrepresent my views as
well as those of others (John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, Jeff Hill, killtown,
The Webfairy, Joe Keith, Elias Davidsson, and many others on this list)
by exaggerating their positions (thereby creating "straw men" to attack),
by omitting crucial evidence (such as the existence of steel trusses that
are filled with four inches of concrete on every floor, where Flight 175
intersected with no less than eight of them), and attacking the sources
of these arguments (as non-experts if they are not pilots or aeronautical
engineers, for example, while citing your own preferred sources, such as
Field McConnell, no matter how weak his opinion, or John Bursill, even if
his arguments have already been debunked by Rob Basalmo, among others).

I confidently expect you to use every trick in your bag, Anthony, thereby
reaffirming your standing as one of the leading deception artists of all!

Jim

Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
When thieves fall out! Thieves of truth and reality, that is.

You both know that the time is near when your no-planes edifice will crumble
before your eyes. The planes were real. They could not possibly have been
holograms, because thin air cannot reflect light beams. They could not
possibly have been computer generated images, and I can prove it.

You'll never guess how, because you are too locked into your own private
tunnels, and cannot see even an inch either side of you, to even contemplate
other solutions to this "mystery".

Watch out for another video in which all will be revealed!

Anthony

[Thoth II]

Anthony : "You both know that the time is near when your no-planes edifice will crumble
before your eyes. The planes were real. They could not possibly have been
holograms, because thin air cannot reflect light beams. They could not
possibly have been computer generated images, and I can prove it."

I can't understand why he is so adamant about this. The videos show clearly physically impossible features, there is no longer any doubt. So why is he maintaining this despite evidence to contrary? I just don't get it. And after reading John Lear's masterfull list of evidence, that clinches it: what most of us watched on CNN that morning was not really that plane smashing into south tower. And I truly had deep suspicions that day already, because it looked like a CGI to me .