 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: STJ911 Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members |
 |
|
| Quote: | Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members
Berkeley, CA, October 22, 2008 -- On October 18, 2008, an OpEdNews article titled, "8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses," was published by four members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (STJ911.org). The authors of the article and draft bill are not spokespersons for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and therefore are individually responsible for it.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice does not endorse the draft bill due to the inclusion of numerous unscientific claims and misrepresentations, and condemns in the strongest of terms any associations between the organization and the claims presented by the authors of this bill. As stated at the front page of their website, Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice "take[s] care to present the strongest, most credible research available..."
While in agreement with the authors of this bill that a new investigation into the tragic events of September 11, 2001 is warranted, representatives of the Scholars group note that the draft bill and article lack basic scientific rigor and credibility, with statements such as, "the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW)," and the ideas that "nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used." The sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies (www.JournalOf911Studies.com), has numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting such claims.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice believes that a much better bill can be crafted using the strong analysis in articles by its members, several of which are recently published in scientific journals, including The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories (UL) manager who was fired in 2004 for publicly questioning the NIST report, and a committee member of the Scholars' group, says the bill is harmful to the cause of exposing the truth. "Basically," he said, "asking Congress to investigate many poorly defined, and highly implausible hypotheses minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC buildings." In fact, the bill also omits any mention of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, which provided hundreds of questions left unanswered by the 9/11 Commission.
Scholars' member Dr. Steven E. Jones, a Professor of Physics, also notes that statements attributed to him in the bill are "errors . . . misrepresenting my published statements." Dr. Jones goes on to say, "It is unacceptable to misrepresent my views, as is done in this document by Ellis et al., and to ignore my published technical papers in established journals."
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 500 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. |
http://stj911.org/press_releases/Misrepresentation.html
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Posted my response here:
| Quote: | Clearly, the bill in its present form can only serve to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and its research; including writings published in peer reviewed journals. The inclusion of theories that have been exhaustively critiqued in the Journal of 9/11 studies and widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement can only serve to discredit. However, a more credible bill could be conceivably crafted to detail the research of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, as well as inclusion of the unanswered questions by the Family Steering Committee.
This is not the first time that discredited theories widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement have been presented to represent the 9/11 truth movement by association to U.S. government officials. For example, a 2007 press release by attorney Jerry Leaphart discussing a return for correction to NIST explained:
"Prof. Morgan Reynolds, with various evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers... Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings."
Reynolds' document entitled "What Planes?" asserts that video footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center were "simply based on impossible physics, rather like a 'Road Runner' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon". As already mentioned, many of these claims have been exhaustively discredited in the Journal of 9/11 studies, but these authors persist in their promotion of these discrediting claims. James Gourley explains:
"It's called discrediting by association... You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission... That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."
What was particularly noteworthy about the NIST return for correction by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds is that it shortly preceded a submission by a "group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members" which challenged official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, with "a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." When NIST finally replied to this request for correction, they stated that they were "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".
This latest article which associates discredited claims with the 9/11 truth movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has the similar function of discrediting by association, regardless of intent. |
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/10/scholars-for-9-11-truth-justice.html
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 949
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is worth noting that many of these very same issues (space beams, no-planes and mini-nukes) were central to why the original "scholars" group fractured into two separate groups. STJ911 formed as a result of these ridiculous tin-foil-hat theories being FOISTED on the public as legitimate science by Dr James Fetzer - a well-known and documented disruptor of the JFK assassination movement as well.
And now we have rogue elements attempting to once again tar the surviving legitimate members of STJ911 with the very same brush of disinformation that disrupted, discredited and shattered the original group.
amazing. someone surely seems intent on ensuring that scientists, historians and scholars do not study 911.
i wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great job spotting and dissecting this.
I'm continually amazed by the disinfo legions. Every time I feel like it's safe to venture down into the cellar there's a new batch of fungi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | Great job spotting and dissecting this.
I'm continually amazed by the disinfo legions. Every time I feel like it's safe to venture down into the cellar there's a new batch of fungi. |
I am frequently surprised by the number of seemingly intelligent people who seriously entertain the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon. There are a few prominent members of the DC 9/11 Truth group who hold that view. For the most part I try to avoid the discussion since it can be divisive and distracting.
I certainly will not endorse anything that promotes no-plane, DEW or mini-nuke scenarios. When I make statements which might be construed as being representative of the group, I make clear that I am speaking for myself unless I am convinced that the group as a whole supports what I'm saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 949
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the question has been - and always will be - intentionality
look - i can believe that a few poor souls are being duped into believing that the plane is missing at the Pentagon. that is the human condition.
but - i do NOT believe that this same circle of circus clowns keep advocating every insane theory that comes along - at the exclusion of all else - while simultaneously disrupting and attacking the movement - without it being the result of ill-intent.
come ON now! does anyone really believe that Nico Haupt believes all the lies he publishes online?
so - what IS his intentionality?
space beams. mini-nukes. pods. holocaust denial. tv fakery. no planes. living hijackers. voice morphing. when you see that the ADVOCATES of these theories hang together like rats - supporting and promoting each other - attacking witnesses and activists - it simply strains the boundaries of credulity to believe that they are NOT working in concert - with INTENTIONALITY to disrupt.
intentionality. that is the real question.
cease and desist attempting to debunk their disinformation. it is a fool's errand. start reporting the TRUTH:
these people intentionally trying to obscure something!!
begin to ask - publicly - at the top of your lungs: what are they trying to hide?
shout from every street corner: haven't the victim's families suffered enough?
now these low-lives are going to usurp the loss of thousands of lives to bring a bill before congress to investigate space beams?
clearly they have no shame. clearly they possess some perverse sense of right and wrong that somehow justifies their twisted agendas.
that is their intention - and we need to stop shying away from the truth. lets call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rolf Lindgren, Kevin Barrett's PR representative responds to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and their Justice Press Release, Defends Inclusion of Absurd Claims in Draft Bill Sent to Congress in mass email:
| Quote: | Four members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice recently made presentations to science and technology legislative staffers of eight members of the United States House of Representatives, including Rush Holt (D-NJ-12), who has been critical of the FBI's claims about the Anthrax case. And this was not just talk, but a draft bill was produced.
[...]
But rather than meet with the representitives, or coordinate this with scholars, or offer praise, Victoria Ashley has decided to pick another public fight with members of the 9/11 Truth movement. |
| Quote: | | The actions of Victoria Ashley are destructive and should be condemned by all memebrs [sic] of the 9/11 Truth movement. Her press release is an embarrassment to 9/11 Truth, an insult to Dr. Ellis, and seems designed to discredit the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice by making it look clueless. |
The press release is not by "Victoria Ashley". It is a statement endorsed by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, so he is making a false statement by claiming that "Victoria Ashley" is responsible for the document. Obviously.
Perhaps Rolf Lindgren also believes that Barrett should stop criticizing senator candidates? After all, they are all senator candidates and are all on the same team! Go America! Go Democracy! End Criticism (... sorry, "attacks")! Stop Criticizing Bush Too! He's our leader and we're all Americans! We shouldn't criticize (... sorry, "attack").
| Quote: | All pioneering scientific work contains errors. The greatest scientists in history, from Galileo, to Newton, to Darwin, to Wegener, the Einstein, all made errors.
We need to praise Dr. Barbara Ellis for her hard work. Nobody is perfect. But if Dr. Ellis can help get a real official probe going on the WTC, then we can move closer to the truth. |
Rolf Lindgren is making hilariously tortured arguments to defend discredited claims widely rejected by the vast majority of the movement. In other emails he has said that these claims are not promoted by the MSM and therefore not important. Now he says that we can promote them to Congress and it doesn't matter.
He considers criticizing these ideas a form of "attack".
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
Last edited by Arabesque on Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arabesque, thanks for the heads up on Lindgren. Anyone taking bets on which people are going to think the draft bill is just great?
John A, i i linked to one of your comments on Hey, Hot Shot about that question, on the 911Blogger thread for this latest disinfo extravaganza. For real, where does "plausible deniability" end, for Phd.s like Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds, Griffin and Ellis' claims that they actually believe what they're saying about DEW, no 757, mini-nukes, voice morphing, etc.? For instance, would they swear out an affidavit that they believe these things and are representing these ideas in all seriousness and good faith, i.e. they really truly do believe there's something to them? That their intent isn't sabotage, discredit, distraction, disinfo?
As Arabesque and Gourley have noted, it's not necessary to ascertain intention; misinfo is damaging, period. So anyone that promotes it loses credibility, whether or not it's disinfo to them cuz they know it's BS.
Eventually we may find out, though, and it's a possible additional field to cultivate whistleblowers from, should any shills have second thoughts- or possibly evidence of intentional disinfo, if any sharp minds can catch one on record in a revealing Jack Nicholson "you can't HANDLE the Truth!!! Yes, I ordered the Code Red!!!" type slipup. After the communist state in East Germany fell, everyone found out who the secret informers were. Ray Kurzweil predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union; basically, he said that the increasing availability of communications technologies like cell phones and faxes was causing a corresponding loss in the ability of the state to control the public's information, eventually reaching a critical mass (my paraphrase- from The Age of Intelligent Machines). Anyway, i see the same thing going on globally now, with the web and the continuing exponential acceleration of technological change. Spooks, if you're lurking, pass on to your masters that it would behoove their posterity to start making overtures about establishing a genuine truth and reconciliation commission. Neocons are boiling frogs.
Cross-posted at truthmove:
Here's my take on it:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Rejects Association with Directed Energy Weapons and Mini-Nukes in Draft Bill
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/scholars-for-911-truth-justice-rejects-association-with-directed-energy-weapons-and-mini-nukes-in-draft-bill/
From my article: "The “22 nationally recognized experts” are not named, and this statement only says it was sent to them “for review and changes”; it does not say what their response was, or that any of them actually support the draft published at opednews.com. Steering committee members of STJ911.org were sent a copy of the bill, and they decided not to support it, for the reasons outlined in the STJ press release; no endorsement was given by the organization, though Ellis refers to the bill’s four authors as “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice”."
STJ911 committee members didn't endorse it; who are the rest of the 22? And how in the world does a Phd. justify misrepresenting STJ and promoting misinfo?
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This disinfo move can backfire on the clowns though, in the same way "no planes" garbage has. If it’s publically rejected strongly enough by stj911.og then it can actually help to draw a clear distinction between the nutball junk science and the real credible work by Dr Jones etc. Everything these jokers do falls flat and ends up inadvertently helping the real cause for truth and justice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Gold
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 1102
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fact #41
The 9/11 Truth Movement has suffered many setbacks by what seem to be organized disruptions, and the promotion of bogus information.
The thing that irks me is that they MUST know that these ideas are frowned upon by the majority of the people that question the official account of 9/11. If you are someone that promotes it, chances are, you stumbled across someone that told you why you shouldn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By email:
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | | All, Let me add my support for Rolf Lindgren and the courageous scholars of 9/11 research who have pursued these issues and brought them to the attention of members of Congress. I cannot imagine a more valuable contribution to the 9/11 movement than actions of this kind. That aby-stander like Victoria Ashley should carp and complain because of her personal opposition to one or more of the multiple theories that they have cited as requiring investigation is despicable. For all too long she has been the principal source of vitriol and venom among 9/11 investigators. I know of no contribution of any value that has come from her. Attacks of this kind, which grossly misappraise the value of what is being accomplish and demoralize those who would exercise their intelligence and initiative for this most worthy cause, are to be universally condemned. |
Comment: The press release is a product of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, not Victoria Ashley. It is therefore supported by the organization.
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | | Scientific inquiries require consideration of every alternative explanation, not the self-serving selection of a preferred set and the elimination of the rest. |
Jim Fetzer once again promotes the bizarre claim that no possibilities can (ever) be eliminated. According to his line of thinking, we couldn't "eliminate" aspects of the official story of 9/11. By making this argument he would have to say that we can't eliminate the possibility that jet fuel knocked down the towers. That he does not acknowledge this shows and reveals a bias in his thinking. He continues to promote the idea that claims such as DEW and other discredited notions have not been "considered" when they have been considered and found to be discredited (see Journal of 9/11 Studies).
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | The full range in this case includes the possibility of mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and other novel mechanisms as well as various conventional explosives, with or without the use of thermite. A new investigation would have the duty to sort them out, even apart from prior studies of these issues, where replicating and confirming their findings would be indispensable to the integrity of the outcome. My personal belief is that any investigation conducted by Congress will experience political contamination, as was the case when The House Select Committee on Assassinations reinvestigated the deaths of JFK and of MLK (1976-77). An international inquiry might fare better. But to belittle or ridicule the efforts that have been made in this instance is irresponsible and inexcusable. It is she, not the four who have undertaken this admirable effort (at their own considerable time and expense) who should be condemned. The extremes to which she will go in her endeavors to undermine the movement are once again apparent. We must all appreciate that there are those within our numbers who are not dedicated to the discovery of truths about 9/11 and their dissemination,alas, and recommit ourselves to overcome the obstacles that they present.Whether or not this bill represents the views of the group that calls it-self Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, it most certainly represents those of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Congratulations for work well done! Jim James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth |
Note the slew of accusations found in this message are all based on the mistaken premise that Victoria Ashley is responsible for the press release. Apparently, Mr. Fetzer didn't "consider" the "possibility" that the press release is a product of STJ911 and not a single individual.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Gold
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 1102
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arabesque wrote: | By email:
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | | All, Let me add my support for Rolf Lindgren and the courageous scholars of 9/11 research who have pursued these issues and brought them to the attention of members of Congress. I cannot imagine a more valuable contribution to the 9/11 movement than actions of this kind. That aby-stander like Victoria Ashley should carp and complain because of her personal opposition to one or more of the multiple theories that they have cited as requiring investigation is despicable. For all too long she has been the principal source of vitriol and venom among 9/11 investigators. I know of no contribution of any value that has come from her. Attacks of this kind, which grossly misappraise the value of what is being accomplish and demoralize those who would exercise their intelligence and initiative for this most worthy cause, are to be universally condemned. |
Comment: The press release is a product of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, not Victoria Ashley. It is therefore supported by the organization.
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | | Scientific inquiries require consideration of every alternative explanation, not the self-serving selection of a preferred set and the elimination of the rest. |
Jim Fetzer once again promotes the bizarre claim that no possibilities can (ever) be eliminated. According to his line of thinking, we couldn't "eliminate" aspects of the official story of 9/11. By making this argument he would have to say that we can't eliminate the possibility that jet fuel knocked down the towers. That he does not acknowledge this shows and reveals a bias in his thinking. He continues to promote the idea that claims such as DEW and other discredited notions have not been "considered" when they have been considered and found to be discredited (see Journal of 9/11 Studies).
| Jim Fetzer wrote: | The full range in this case includes the possibility of mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and other novel mechanisms as well as various conventional explosives, with or without the use of thermite. A new investigation would have the duty to sort them out, even apart from prior studies of these issues, where replicating and confirming their findings would be indispensable to the integrity of the outcome. My personal belief is that any investigation conducted by Congress will experience political contamination, as was the case when The House Select Committee on Assassinations reinvestigated the deaths of JFK and of MLK (1976-77). An international inquiry might fare better. But to belittle or ridicule the efforts that have been made in this instance is irresponsible and inexcusable. It is she, not the four who have undertaken this admirable effort (at their own considerable time and expense) who should be condemned. The extremes to which she will go in her endeavors to undermine the movement are once again apparent. We must all appreciate that there are those within our numbers who are not dedicated to the discovery of truths about 9/11 and their dissemination,alas, and recommit ourselves to overcome the obstacles that they present.Whether or not this bill represents the views of the group that calls it-self Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, it most certainly represents those of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Congratulations for work well done! Jim James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth |
Note the slew of accusations found in this message are all based on the mistaken premise that Victoria Ashley is responsible for the press release. Apparently, Mr. Fetzer didn't "consider" the "possibility" that the press release is a product of STJ911 and not a single individual. |
"Scientific inquiries require consideration of every alternative explanation"
Every one? Really? Fucking idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Fezter is fodder for disinfo documentation |
|
|
just poke Fizzle a few times, and he spouts material Arabesque uses in articles exposing disruptive tactics. What a bonus Fetzer is to the 9/11 Truth Movement; his antics are so obvious, they make people investigate 9/11 for themselves, i.e. why is a Phd. working so hard to make an ass out of himself, and who are these people he's attacking?
Nothing wrong with investigation of DEW and mini-nukes; it's been done, these theories have been debunked, disproven and discredited. Anyone can go to http://www.journalof911studies.com and see for themselves these theories hold no water. For them to be included in a draft bill presented to Congress discredits anyone associated with it. Fetzer still hasn't posted the bill at 911Scholars.org; why not, since he thinks it's great?
Barbara Ellis has posted the response of herself, Hirschhorn, Ball and Pease on the thread for the STJ911 press release posted at opednews.com.
Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Scholars-for-9-11-Truth--by-Victoria-Ashley-081023-416.html
(Ellis bill at OpEdNews) 8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses
http://www.opednews.com/articles/8-House-Members-View-Draft-by-Barbara-Ellis-081018-925.html
(My commentary at OpEdNews) Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Rejects Association with Directed Energy Weapons and Mini-Nukes in Draft Bill by Erik Larson
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10366
If you support investigation of 9/11, including evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC, and you disavow association with debunked theories that discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, i.e. DEW and mini-nukes, here’s a couple simple things you can do:
1) Click on the link to the STJ press release to boost its visibility in popularity/page view rankings at OpEdNews
2) Leave a comment- or several, if a discussion starts or trolls/shills appear.
Suggestions for commenting:
1) Quote from Ellis’ press release and bill, debunk nonsense and promote good evidence, with links
2) Pose questions and suggestions to Ellis; don’t attack her
3) Ignore trolls and shills; even make it clear you’re ignoring them by repeating steps 1 and 2 as replies to their comments.
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 949
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isn't it amazing how the usual cast of characters - surprise surprise - always invariably inevitably end up showing up to defend whatever disruption/disinformation du jour the disruptors of this movement dish out in our names?
what a suprise!!!!!
the same guy who split Scholars in the FIRST PLACE because of his insistance to include 'space beams' in their agenda, is now supporting a bunch of shills who are using STJ911's good name to promote .... yup.....'space beams'!!!!
LOL 
and of COURSE Barrett's PR rat also now needs to jump into the arena. How can he NOT? what a surprise!!!!!!
and also what a suprise it is that they are personally attacking Victoria for issuing a press release co-authored and endorsed by a whole group of people. what a SURPRISE that they would attempt to distort and lie about Victoria being the sole author!!
these guys are so predictable at this point - it is laughable.
Dr James Fezter is so full of hrummpffs that he should seriously look into medication. the man suffers from what i call 'chronic dishonesty flatulence.'
Let me be clear. In my opinion, Dr James Fetzer is a big fat farting liar who is shitting on the memories of all those who died on 9/11.
In my opinion Dr James Fetzer is a national disgrace who is intentionally promoting tin-foil-hat theories in an attempt to BURY the legitimate questions of 9/11.
In my opinion Dr James Fetzer is a foul piece of human excrement, and a disgrace to this nation which was founded on the idea that PEOPLE have the right to accountability from their governments. PEOPLE have the right to ask questions without fear of reprisal. PEOPLE have a right to ask why their loved-ones died without some big fat professional horses' ass burying their questions under counter-intelligence propaganda.
Got it - you fat f*ck?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Washington, DC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
