Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Realist Report - Dr. Jim Fetzer: 9/11

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Dr. Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Dr. Fetzer and I will be discussing his recent debate with Dick Eastman on the Rense Radio network regarding the controversial issue of planes/no planes in New York City.

Please visit The Realist Report on TalkeShoe to download this and past episodes.

Here are some important links related to this discussion:


  1. Fetzer attempts to debunk the concept of software based video creation and software/camera video compositing - in favor of a "holographic" plane scenario.

    Fetzer is wrong on several key points. Eye-witness testimony is inherently unreliable. Fetzer bases his "holography" hypothesis on the shifting sands of unreliable "eye-witness" accounts.

    These suspect accounts cannot even be considered in any rational examination of the 9/11 event because those witnesses are essentially anonymous and have not been cross-examined. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon in any way.

    In any court of law - anonymous "eye-witness" accounts would never be allowed into evidence. Also, in a court of law any real eye-witness would be made available for cross-examination so that the jury could determine the credibility of statements made.

    I know that Fetzer knows this. But he forges ahead anyway on a course designed to steer inquiry away from Israeli controlled media Information Warfare methods.

    I wanted to give Fetzer the benefit of the doubt on whether or not he is a shill. Thanks to this interview I am satisfied that he is selling snake-oil.

    I know Fetzer is not stupid. He just thinks we are.

    Fetzer, if you're reading this I want you to know that many people don't think you're bullshit is very cute.

    John, thanks for having the guy on and giving him enough rope to hang himself with.

  2. I have heard of the no plane theory, but found it outlandish, even though I didn't buy into the official story.

    This hologram or computer forged scenario seems quite possible though.

    If there are 100's of eyewitnesses, the hologram theory seems more plausible.

    But there were. no planes at the Pentagon or the woods. Why are there no holograms there?


    1. Markus,

      You say there were 100s of eyewitnesses. You also say that computer generated video is outlandish.

      There were not 100s of eyewitnesses. There may have been some actors that recited some lines saying they saw a plane or planes.

      Please point us to just one credible eyewitness that we can talk to in person - today.

      Just one.

      As for "radar data" - that's easier to fake than digital video.

      Deception—whether by a con artist or an enemy force—is an everyday occurrence. But while deception is commonplace, systematic methods for spotting it are not, partly because common reasoning strategies aid the deceivers.

      Basically, deception works because most people think they are too smart to be fooled and actually resist acknowledging evidence that they have actually been fooled.

      The fact is that the digital video you viewed of "planes" hitting buildings came from one source. Not "hundreds" of independent sources. One source.

      That source was the Israeli media.

      They created that video and showed it to you. Then they created other video of people saying they saw planes - and showed that to you.

      I am just stating facts.

      I suggest you start leaning about media based deception and Information Warfare.

    2. 12:09,

      I said "if" there are 100's of eyewitnesses, the hologram theoru seems plausible.

      That said, I would like to hear them as well from independent sources. If there are no eyewitnesses then the computer forgery theory seems more likely.

  3. First off, hats off to John for posting comments submitted by 'Anons' which are critical of your beliefs/conclusions! This engenders a lot of trust in your legitimacy/sincerity. This is also posted as a discussion thread at:

    where you can read a much 'richer' version of it, with embedded links, slicker formatting, dedicated followup discussion etc.

    I believe the "No Planes @ WTC" (NP@WTC) theory is, as far as our 'movement' is concerned, a red herring at best. And at worst, it 'accomplishes' 2 destructive ends:

    1. It temps/baits 911 Truthers into expending our energies into a "dogs chasing our tails" infighting ditch, over a speculative & irrelevant (as far as the forward movement of our 'movement' is concerned) question of HOW the 911 psyop was technically done. Not our job to completely resolve that question-- let's not dwell on the "technicals of the smoking gun", and instead focus all that same energy on waking up NEW people outside our 'choir', and on identifying & prosecuting the perps.

    2. Given that the NP@WTC theory is, IMHO, practically tailor-made for targeting by our opponents with their powerful disinfo gambit of 'ridicule' (and I say this as a ~10 year Truther who diplomatically "allows for the possibility" that NP@WTC is in fact correct, though I don't presently subscribe to that belief!); it therefore turns OFF not ON potential newcomers to 'our movement'. That is, IF those in our movement who misguidedly 'take the bait' outlined in #1 above, have any energy left over for actual outreach to noobs!

    Fetzer & Friend would, assuming their sincerity, obviously disagree with the 2 points above. JFriend at 44:10 in this podcast, reiterating his already widely publicized belief:

    "Well, there's all sorts of reason to conclude that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center Towers; I mean, the evidence seems pretty overwhelming at this point."

    Fetzer @ 19:35:

    "I think if the American people understood that they've been deceived by Hollywood style techniques, that they would revolutionize their understanding of 911. I mean, the fraud and fakery here is simply overwhelming. [JFriend: "Exactly."] So I believe this is tremendously important John, and I'm really pleased we're talking about it here today."

    Fetzer reiterated those ^ sentiments beginning 1:03:45 in his closing remarks, if not elsewhere in this podcast, which I won't transcribe here.

    (cont'd next comment; 4096 character max!)

  4. (cont'd...)

    Sorry guys ("The JFs" and all sincere NP@WTC advocates), I just aint buying it; that is, the notion that 'convincing' the American public of NP@WTC, as a way to "move our movement forward", is anything but fools' folly-- again, for reasons outlined in my assertions 1 & 2 above.

    As a college degreed & engineer certified American who's been awake to 911 since '03, I've loosely followed this "NP@WTC sideshow" for years; and I remain solidly UNconvinced of NP@WTC... viewing it, regardless of its potential truthfulness, as DEstructive to the forward movement of our movement. Hearing the NP@WTC crowd like Fetzer breathlessly citing the technical minutia alleging to 'make their case', has long since made my eyes glaze over! Think pragmatically guys!

    Surely the NP@WTC advocates would graciously 'allow for the possibility', that the very "video evidence" you cite as "proof positive of video fakery", could itself be video fakery? Produced and interjected into 'our movement' by the same Hollywood/CIA-Dept-Of-Fake-Osama-Videos™ cabal which has a bottomlessly-funded vested interest in sowing dissent/infighting into our movement rendering us ineffective in "moving anywhere", and in dissuading J6P-911-True-Believers OUT of further investigating our main message?

    That's enough blabbering on for here/now... though I and others will surely have more to add at the link at the top.

    Thanks again John for posting this critical comment by a lowly 'anon' here. -PatColo

  5. You guys who are "solidly unconvinced" that there were real planes used on 9/11 are the kind of adversaries I enjoy going up against.

    Your position in the face of the massive volumes of evidence disproving the presence of real planes hitting anything says more about your lack of awareness of the state of the art of modern methods of warfare.

    Warfare has evolved away from mass destruction of infrastructure and mass casualty producing actions toward targeting the minds and cognitive processes of the enemy. We have come to realize that if we can control your perceptions - we can control you.

    I am not writing this to enlighten anyone who thinks they are too smart to be deceived because they are a "college degree & engineer certified American". No need to cast pearls before swine.

    People are deceived because they do not systematically consider alternative explanations for the evidence they observe and incorrectly weigh the evidence they do have. These behaviors occur because of memory limitations and related reasoning heuristics that evolved to deal with non-digital reality.

    Consequently people often dismiss important evidence, prematurely prune alternative hypotheses, and jump to conclusions. These cognitive problems make people and organizations easy to deceive.

    Human evidential reasoning is mainly adequate for everyday events. Reasoning heuristics, evolved to be cognitively efficient and effective in the everyday world, often result in biased reasoning – grossly over or under estimating probabilities – when faced with unusual events such as deception.

    These characteristics of human cognition are what we intentionally exploit.

    Frankly, as someone who has used these techniques in conflict scenarios - I can't help but to laugh at the "doubters". It's always best to go up against an adversary who is overconfident and completely unaware of the types of weapons being deployed against them.

    If I felt like it I could explain step-by-step how media deception is deployed - what the principles are - and how it was used on 9/11. But I won't waste my time attempting to educate those who think they know it all already.

    John is correct. Widespread digital fakery was employed on 9/11. If fact, it is used today very aggressively in "news" programming.

    The enemy correctly views most of you as clueless.

    1. Hello 'Anon',

      In response to this, and to your whole "NP@WTC Army Of One BLITZKRIEG!" below (12:45 AM, 12:54 AM, 1:16 AM, 1:24 AM, 1:26 AM-- productive hour there, Lieutenant! LOL); please feel free to expend your energies into a "dog chasing your tail" infighting ditch until ejaculation.

      Further response at

      Cheers, -PatColo

  6. John,

    It's nice to see that your blog attracts hasbarats who post nonsense in lame attempts to protect the Israeli media and their perception management methods.

    They sure don't want to stupid cattle out there understanding that the are being mind controlled by media products.

    These are they same kind of shills that tell people that acknowledging that the holy hoax was a psyop "makes us look like idiots".

    Yes - and now they're saying that exposing the mechanics of deception warfare "makes us look like idiots".


  7. I also take my beanie hat off to John for posting comments submitted by 'Anons' which are critical of your beliefs/conclusions! This engenders a lot of trust in your legitimacy/sincerity. I don't think you should waste time thinking critically - think pragmatically guys! Planes hit the buildings. It was real. You saw it. Don't make my eyes gloss over. Think of the sufferhink. We should kill all the arabs for flying those planes into those buildings. Israel needs your help. Donate some money to poor starving Israelis in Israel and to poor starving holocaust survivors. Buy gold and silver when you visit the link at the top.

  8. Germanic death cults control the banks in collusion with Jesuits. Racists and Nazis control the media. I think racist Nazi Jesuits did 9/11. But what about the extraterrestrial angle? How do you guys know that the 9/11 news broadcasts weren't made with a camera taking a picture of a tv screen? Maybe they faked some fakery and faked that. Think about it. Isn't it making your eyes gloss over. Mine are. I heard that the Saudis control hollywood. They probably do. I think the Saudis made some holograms and used those.

    1. What's wrong with Nazis? Take a second look and you may eat your words in about week or so.

    2. What's wrong with Nazis? Take a second look and you may eat your words in about week or so.

  9. They used holograms. Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. Israel only wants peace. Arabs did 9/11.

  10. As usual with Dr. Fetzer, the #1 9/11 psyOp research community is completely omitted. Fetzer is an expert at NLP, even if he does it by accident, which is unlikely. May I remind 9/11 researchers new and old that there is no better resource than The many voices there illustrate quite well that the entire 9/11 media event was a high level intelligence driven military media event. To accept this is to realize that the "incompetent" levels of government and "on your side" media is an illusion, and your daily reality presented via media is strictly controlled. It's a big leap for those who think they're "free", but impossible to ignore once you finish analyzing the 9/11 movie. Fetzer is entrancing, but parsing his analysis is akin to breaking down a Star Wars movie. A completely fruitless (and distracting) exercise.

    1. The fruitless exercise part reminds me of the JFK assassination which Jim is also considered an expert as well That was also a high level intelligence military industrial complex production made for TV movie. I guess we can now substitute Rod Serling with Jim Fetzer as the intrepid host who knows the real deal but wants the audience to figure out their place in these Twilight Zone episodes, brought to you by Kodak and Pan Am, of course.

  11. Three comments on this thread are obvious shills. Anonymous on July 25th at1:16am, 4:55am, and 1:26am. Why these comments are allowed is something I don't understand. as your rules of posting comments reads:

    "comments, criticisms, and other perspectives are encouraged, but not by anonymous posters. Ad hominem attacks are not."

    These posts are not only anonymous but are such thinly veiled controlled-opposition comments that I don't understand why they are allowed on your truthful website. You truly are one of the nicest people doing this sort of work John, and I like that about you, but why be nice to the enemy? The whole anonymous thing is bothersome to me as it's cowardly. your suppose it'd be want to find out who you are they can do it very easily and the only people that anonymous posters are fooling are other posters. I have said a few dumb things but at least I'm not hiding and not afraid.

    1. IMHO, Anon replies at July 25 [12:45 AM, 12:54 AM, 1:16 AM, 1:24 AM, & 1:26 AM] are all the same rabbi; a virtual keyboard clusterbomb by an "NP@WTC Army-Of-One!", employing different disinfo gambits from their hasbara handbook. See some deconstruction of their 5-post blitz at

      I can't make heads nor tails of what Ab Irato at 4:55 AM is on about, which side of which issue they're on?

      As for the stated anon poster policy, my feelings are mixed. If you follow Mami's [grizzom.blogspot] you know they turned off anon posting a couple months ago. They were being *hammered* by Anon-Tard-Tard hasbarats posing as toxic potty-mouthed wiggers; and no one's podcast threads there were getting hit worse than our Friend, John's. :)

      So mami's turned off anon posting, and since, any podcast which gets more than about 2 comments is 'active'. I for one was eliminated, coz I'm particular about trying to keep out of the joogle/NSAbook/blogger etc matrix of voluntary dossier-building; so I won't register with any of their interconnected organs. Hell, my laptop's webcam is taped over! Startpage search: "School District Pays $610,000 to Settle Webcam Spying Lawsuits". I take for granted 'they' know who I am, but I aint gonna help them dossier-build anywhere I can help it. Looking forward to the rollout of StartMail, see preview, < 2 mins:

      John's anon posting policy, as written, is untenable (nothing 'critical' from anons? c'mon), and at least we can see it's not enorced that way.. but John, consider re-wording it to say what you mean. Ad-hom/name-calling across the board, but but well articulated dissent should also be welcome across the board (AKA your defacto current policy).

      Regards, PatColo

  12. Hey guys, sorry I just changed the comment script below. I have been allowing anon posters for a few months now, I just never changed the comment text.

    I like receiving feedback from people, even if they don't agree with me on some of these controversial issues. I don't like comment wars, where posters are just attacking each other endlessly - I simply don't have time for that time of nonsense.

    Regarding this discussion with Dr. Fetzer, I don't buy the hologram angle he promoted during the interview. I tend to agree with Ab Irato and September Clues - 9/11 was a Hollywood-style movie, the entire event was fake from start to finish. The evidence is overwhelming guys - just watch September Clues. And then watch it again. And then watch some of Simon's other YouTube videos explaining the fake victims, actors, etc.

  13. Sorry John as I did call the shills out in a couple of comments that you chose not to post, I was pissed when I see shills comments on good sites like yours and will refrain from it in the future. I guess other people see the fake comments and realize what they are and ignore them. I suppose that is the high road and I should take it. Be well.

  14. And regarding your comments PatColo, I absolutely agree that I've read great comments from anons, however I do find confusing to see them talk back and forth sometimes. And it's nice to see who's who as well. Thanks for the links, especially the StartMail. That could be a really good thing.

    And I agree that any opinion has the absolute right to be shared as long as it intends to shed the light of truth.

  15. Jim did not mention Michael Collins Piper as one of the speakers to be included at the conference he is planning for the murder of JFK. I hope that he is not deliberately excluding Piper, whose book, FINAL JUDGMENT in several editions, about that bloody assasination is the very best researched. I will write both Michael and Jim about this; FINAL JUDGMENT is not even allowed in most, if any, American public libraries.

  16. What about the UFO theory? Some say they have seen flying saucers on 9/11.


  17. Dick Eastman: A remote control plane with no passengers hit each tower.

    Grable, Holmgren, Baker, Reynolds -- every camera recorded was photoshoped and every witness reporting a plane hitting South Tower lied, including firemen and, as I pointed out, not one person in all of New York as the North tower was hit and burning burning, managed to make a photo or report seeing the south side of South Tower first explode without also seeing the plane hit - not one. And the airplane shaped holes.

    Jimmy Fetzer: Claims witnesses saw and videos recorded "projected holograms" -- but what is a hologram but light emitted from a holographic plate. Fetzer seems not to know that one has to be looking at developed plate bearing the lazer-made diffraction patterns in order to see a hologram. What screen were witnesses watching and cameras recording from all angles from all sides of the WTC building. What held the screens in the air? Jim Fetzer is a science illiterate. Philosopher of Science. Give me a break. It is an unimportant and esoteric course that teaches nothing about scientific procedures. We know what optics are -- but what is the "philosophy of optics?" What is the "philosophy of physics" and what discoveries has ever come from it. Fetzer was a very bad professor with tenure who doubtless disliked his students -- and so learned his trick of ignoring all telling arguments, of pretending (bluffing) that he was not shot down. The debate was over when I mentioned the momentum with which depris came out of the north side of South Tower after the plane had crashed into the south wall. There must be conservation of momentum. Where did the debris flying out get that momentum, if not from a plan of equivalent mass and moving at nearly equivalent speed. And oh yes, leaving a Boeing size hole with beams and debris pushed inward from a force applied from outside the building.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.