Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

View Latest Posts >>>

The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within

DISCLOSURE: The views expressed herein are views of the author exclusively and not the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. The views belong exclusively to author Jim Fetzer.

by Jim Fetzer and Don Fox


“Veteran’s Today, Barrett, and Fetzer seem to be tasked with keeping the 9/11 movement focused on the ‘usual suspects’ in the U.S. and Israeli governments at the time of 9/11.”–Alfred Lambremont Webre, J.D., M.Ed.


Who can compete with my colleague, Kevin Barrett, with his gift for satire in a bizarre situation of this kind, where we who organized The Vancouver Hearings were betrayed by someone we had entrusted in the role of judge for our proceedings?  Our purpose here is to present a more detailed history of how this came about, where I, Jim Fetzer, accept the lion’s share of the responsibility for what would ensue.  I placed trust in someone who, it turned out, did not deserve it, where the world is entitled to know “the rest of the story”.  9/11 Truth will out in spite of his malfeasance, which Don and I are going to detail below.  Alfred Lambremont Webre, J.D., M.Ed., has protested repeatedly that we are the ones who committed offensive behavior and that he has been unjustifiably pilloried.  Those of us who lived through this experience, however, know better; and we want to share our experiences, which we have documented, so everyone can judge the judge for yourselves.

In his latest blog on his exopolitics.com website, “9/11 Tribunal under attack for prosecuting 9/11 Accused beyond “The Usual Suspects”,  Alfred Webre launches a pre-emptive strike, alleging that, immediately following “The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal” acceptance of affidavits from Leuren Moret and Andrew D. Baisago into evidence, Kevin Barrett (who is described as “a polemical radio talk show host who had systematically criticized evidence (Alfred) had published in the 9/11 area”, which is true), and I (as “a former U.S. Marines intelligence officer”, which is false, since my MOS was artillery), organized “a campaign of slander and intimidation against (him)”. Insofar as truth is an absolute defense from slander and we both believe what we have written, Alfred, as a public figure, would be hard pressed to make a case for slander or intimidation.  He does not explain that this tribunal is the successor to The Vancouver Tribunal as an extension of The Vancouver Hearings; and that he was thereby violating previous constraints I had imposed upon his participation by restricting him to the role of a judge, to keep his personal views out of it, and for me to review the Basiago affidavit before it would be accepted. He claims,

Veteran’s Today: Operation Mockingbird front?

Barrett and Fetzer are coordinating a vicious ad hominem attack against the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal and its key witnesses through the pages of Veteran’s Today. The goal of this attack seems to be to discredit the sworn eye-witness testimony of Andrew D. Basiago that arguably provides probable cause for Donald H. Rumsfeld and Henry Alfred Kissinger’s mens rea around the 9/11 attacks as early as 1971. Mr. Kissinger’s mens rea, in turn leads to probable cause for the mens rea of his associates who are key individuals in the executive of an international war crimes racketeering organization, composed predominately of UK citizens.

Veteran’s Today, Barrett, and Fetzer seem to be tasked with keeping the 9/11 movement focused on the “usual suspects” in the U.S. and Israeli governments at the time of 9/11. Their defamatory articles, by attacking important breakthrough 9/11 witnesses such as Andrew D. Basiago, is designed to prevent the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal from identifying, investigating prosecuting, trying, convicting and sentencing 9/11 Accused who are UK citizens of the Merovingian and banking bloodlines, members of an executive of an international war crimes racketeering organization.

Webre omits that the Basiago affidavit cites DARPA “jump rooms”, time travel and teleportation, his (Basiago’s) presence on Mars thirty years ago with Barack Obama, observing prehistoric dinosaurs and gaining foreknowledge of the events of 9/11!  Displaying his gifts for satire, Kevin Barrett has lampooned the situation in an article Webre  alleges to be defamitory, “Now it can be told!  The REAL reason Obama was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Pleisiosaurs on Mars!”, but where the only false claim it appears to make is the innocuous one of identifying the secret society to which Alfred belonged at Yale as “Scroll and Key” when, according to Alfred, it was instead “Torch & Talon”.  This seems to typify the depths of deceit and deception to which Alfred Webre is willing to sink, where he claims Kevin and I, who have been doing everything we can to expose 9/11 as “an inside job” and identify the perps who were responsible, are  among those betraying the movement, when the evidence suggests that we are the ones seriously intent upon preserving the integrity of 9/11 research.

9/11 as “an inside job”

By now nearly everyone has heard the phrase “9/11 was an inside job.” But what exactly does that mean? Most of us believe it means that elements of the US government and intelligence community carried out the 9/11 attacks and that the 19 Islamic terrorists and Osama bin Laden, who were accused of the attacks, were patsies. Were other entities besides the US government involved? There is strong evidence that implicates Israeli and British intelligence as well as elements of the US government. These intelligence agencies represent some of the most powerful interests on Earth. There are many who believe that the intelligence community, in turn, works for the Central Banks and the governments are owned by those banks. These forces cannot allow the public to learn what actually happened on 9/11 because it would reveal who was actually behind the attacks. It would also reveal a far darker truth about who actually runs the world and how they do it. So much of what passes for serious political discourse, diplomatic relations and military action by the US and its NATO allies today is justified by the myths of 9/11 that none of us should be surprised that legitimate 9/11 research exposing it is met with resistance.

Perhaps the most astonishing failure of the 9/11 movement has been its inability to align with the anti-war movement, where many of us have been dismayed that an alliance has never been formed.  Those of us who attempting to forge a linkage, such as Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon, Ken O’Keefe, and me during the “Debunking the ‘War on Terror'” symposium in London, 14 July 2010, have felt this failure most acutely. It does not require rocket science to figure out that, if the event that was used to justify the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq was faked or fabricated and that the government has been marketing a whitewash, especially by means of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), where we have been deceived about the most elementary aspects of 9/11, including the “collapse” that wasn’t a collapse, the first death of Saddam Hussein, the second death of Osama bin Laden, and the story told about the Pentagon. If even the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission itself, Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, have repudiated their own report and explained that they were “set up to fail” in their book, WITHOUT PRECEDENT (2006), why would anyone continue to believe in a myth that was produced for public consumption?

All Warfare is Based on Deception

The 9/11 Truth movement has produced a great deal of information about 9/11, but much of it is inconsistent and thus cannot all be true.  There are multiple reasons for this, where each conflict requires its own adjudication. An examination of certain of the leaders of the movement suggests that some of them are compromised and that their efforts produce little more than CIA limited hangouts. As Vladimir Lenin observed, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” A growing number are inclined to regard Judy Wood, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan as among those who tend to fit the mold of controlled opposition along with more conspicuous left-wing gatekeepers, such as Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman.  The myth of “expolosive nanothermite”, for example, inhibited serious study of alternative explanations for the destruction of the Twin Towers for a half a decade.  They may reveal limited aspects of the 9/11 operation, where Wood, in particular, has been brilliant in recording the evidence that needs to be explained, but they could be claimed to perform a cover-up by keeping from the public the most important elements necessary for understanding how it was done and who was responsible.

Alfred Lambremont Webre, J.D., M.Ed. who served as a judge at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings, may or may not also be a member of the opposition. Judge Webre gave the initial appearance of being one who was interested in prosecuting the elites who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Webre approached me as the co-organizer of The Vancouver 9/11 Hearings and offered to serve in some capacity or other. I had featured him as a speaker during the Madison Conference in 2007 at the suggestion of Leuren Moret.  I was impressed by Weber’s work at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal but Kevin was concerned about his exotic personal views about time travel and the like. After discussion with Kevin Barrett and negotiations with Alfred (to restrict his role to that of a judge), I agreed and invited him to serve. I would be reminded of his unconventional views about UFOs, time travel, and such when a local Vancouver blogger, Russell Scott, sounded the alarm. After consulting again with Barrett, I nevertheless allowed him to serve as a judge provided that he would keep his extraordinary personal views out of the hearings. In correspondence with many participants of the hearings, after Alfred had violated his promise by introducing an affidavit by Andrew Basiago, I wrote about my conversations with Kevin and Alfred, and outlined the course of events that had transpired at the time:

James Fetzer jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Sep 28 


Kevin and I discussed this issue at length when it first arose. I drafted two new paragraphs for a response to the critic who had raised the issues about Alfred’s participation. He requested that we not include them. I called him and said we would not include them if he would abide by them in the conduct of the hearings. He agreed that his own personal opinions about these exotic claims would not be introduced into The Vancouver Hearings. He contravened that agreement, which he even acknowledged explicitly during his dinner conversation with Barbara and Ernst. Insofar as we have already severed any ties with his Tribunal, we are done with him. THE END


I shared with everyone an exchange I had had with Alfred on 2 May 2012, which explicitly dealt with the issues that would emerge:

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM, James Fetzer wrote:


A conversation with Kevin Barrett this morning has convinced me that we need at least one additional paragraph discussing issues of methodology.

It seems to me that your personal beliefs are not at issue as much as the standards that you regard as appropriate to regard them as warranted. I would therefore like to know if you accept the following paragraph to add:


The most important questions related to this area of inquiry, however, are those of methodology. I have discussed this with Alfred and he agrees that, even though he may be personally inclined to believe the witnesses he has interviewed, we are at an early stage of investigation, where their reports are puzzling phenomena for study and where different theories or hypotheses about them require consideration. The laws that govern the occurrence of teleportation need to be established and tested, especially by replicating such events under conditions of controlled experimentation.

Alfred agrees that qualifications would have been appropriate when he has presented witness reports, such as that Bisago and Stillings both “maintain” that they have undergone these experiences, but where the public acceptance of their testimony requires additional systematic and thorough investigation to ascertain their reliability and truth. We are still at the stage of speculation about alternative explanations of the puzzling reports they present, where a variety of different theories about them as bona fide or false memories, for example, are going to require a great deal of additional research before they become scientifically warranted.


Let me know if this works for you. After you return from Kuala Lumur, perhaps we could do an interview on “The Real Deal” and discuss your work in these areas and the methodological constraints that I have been outlining here. Beyond the stages of puzzlement and speculation, we have those comparing alternative hypotheses relative to their explanatory power in relation to the available evidence and then, once the evidence has “settled down”, we would be entitled to accept the best supported of those alternatives as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.

Warm regards,


When I discussed this with Alfred over the phone, Alfred expressed a strong preference for those paragraphs to be excluded from the response that I would send to the Vancouver blogger, which I accepted as long as Alfred agreed that his personal views would not affect the hearings.  I did not realize at the time that Alfred would regard the Basiago affidavit as more important than any other evidence that would emerge from The Vancouver Hearings, where the standing of the affidavit as evidence as opposed to testimony is clearly in doubt

What Michael Salla already Discerned

In retrospect, Kevin and I and the rest of us have lately discovered that serious questions about Webre’s methodology had been raised by Michael Salla, who edits the exopolitics.org web site. Michael has delved into the Webre/Basiago connection, where among the most interesting of his reports about the two of them and their relations is that, when he asked Webre about confirmation of Basiao’s extraordinary reports about DARPA “jump rooms”, of having been teleported to Mars, and the presence there of carnivorous Pleisiosaurs (where he claims to have been in the company of a young Barack Obama), it turned out that Webre was citing Basiago himself as the “independent whistleblower” who had been on Mars and confronted Pleiosaurs on its surface to confirm his own report:

Remarkably, Salla concludes that Webre and Basiago are attempting to disclose secrets about projects involving Mars in ways that have the effect of making it difficult to take them seriously. While I have difficulty taking all this seriously, Salla’s observations are relevant:

So what is the ultimate agenda of Basiago and Webre? In my [Michael Salla’s] conclusion, Basiago’s and Webre’s tasks are to disclose some of the truths about a secret Mars project but to do so in such a sensationalist way that it discredits any wanting to seriously study such claims. This is a classic psychological warfare tool whereby the truth can be hidden in plain sight, and deter any serious investigation of what is happening. Basiago’s involvement as a child participant in Project Pegasus involved heavy mind control. Webre’s membership in Scroll and Key [Note:  According to a postscript by Alfred, it was “Torch & Talon”.]  involved a degree of mental conditioning if not outright mind control. The result is that both Basiago and Webre are ideal candidates for a limited disclosure hangout concerning life on Mars. Being part of an officially sanctioned psychological operation, helps explain why Basiago can still practice law in Washington State while making sensationalist claims, when other whistleblowers have lost their careers for doing far less. My final conclusion is that Basiago is both a genuine whistleblower and a crackpot – by design.

Clare Kuehn has emphasized (during exchanges between participants in the hearings), that more than one interpretation of Alfred’s commitment to Andrew Basiago and the highly unusual reports about the experiences he claims to have had is possible.  When we do our best not to beg the question by taking for granted that Basiago’s tesimony is false, even though Alfred begs the question by taking for granted that it is true, then at least four alternative interpretations are possible, which for the sake of logical completeness include:

(h1) Basiago was teleported to Mars, where he was in the company of Barack Obama, encountered Pleisiosaurs and foresaw 9/11;

(h2) Basiago was subjected to hypnosis, where these “memories” were embedded, which he himself believes to be totally authentic;

(h3) Basiago has been suffering from false memory syndrome, where he sincerely thinks he had experiences he did not really have; or,

(h4) Basiago knows that these reports are figments of the imagination, but he has reasons of his own for promoting them with Alfred.

While Clare’s point–the fact that Webre has done a bad thing (by violating his promise and compromising The Vancouver Hearings) does not mean he is therefore either insane or a disinformation operative, although some are inclined to believe he is one or the other or both–is logically impeccable, it raises serious, even profound, questions about Alfred’s rationality–since, before he would be entitled to accept (h1), he ought to have attempted to ascertain whether (h2), (h3), or (h4) might have a higher degree of explanatory power–and also suggests he was intent on using The Vancouver Hearings to promote his own personal agenda in spite of commitments to me.

Alfred During and After the Hearings

Webre sat dutifully through all of the Vancouver presentations although, because of a combination of technical glitches and our falling behind our schedule, the opportunity for Alfred to summarize the speakers’ presentations–which was going to be the penultimate event of the hearings–was aborted after we ran overtime and the theatre manager requested that we vacate the premises. Over the summer, Alfred sent out emails encouraging speakers to submit affidavits so he could begin writing indictments that would be submitted to the ICC or  to other suitable venues. A couple of deadlines were extended, and the final deadline was set for 1 October 2012. It was only on the verge of the deadline, 24 September 2012, that Alfred Webre revealed his true agenda. A few days before the deadline, he emailed the Vancouver speakers and organizers copies of an email he had just sent to Judge Imposimato of Italy, which mentioned that an affidavit by Andrew Basiago was attached; but the affidavit was not also attached to the email he forwarded.  This outraged many Vancouver speakers, since Basiago had not even spoken there and Webre’s actions violated the explicit conditions for his having been accepted as one of its judges.

The most striking indication that Alfred was acting quite deliberately surfaced following the conclusion of the hearings during a dinner conversation between Alfred and Barbara Honegger, which was witnessed, at least in part, by Ernst Rodin, Ph.D., who was attending the conference at the encouragement of David Ray Griffin and who would compose a series of blogs about it.  I was not enchanted by Rudin’s blogs when the subsequently appeared, as I explained in two reports, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I” and “9/11 Truth will out:  The Vancouver Hearings II”, but I was utterly astonished by Barbara’s report of their conversation (about which she took 14 pages of notes as it was occurring), insofar as Alfred was very open about having made a promise to me that he wanted to break.  He was soliciting her advice about how he should go about breaking his promise; but both Barbara and Ernst discouraged him from doing that, where Barbara was quite emphatic. She has outlined her conversation with Alfred on 17 June 2012 in considerable detail, as follows:

Barbara Honegger

Oct 1

to me, Kevin

I’ve been warning Kevin since shortly after the the dinner that Alfred was going to try to bring in the Basiago material based on what he said at the dinner with me and Ernst. After a show I did with Kevin we talked on the phone at length and warned him that Alfred had an online seminar on his ExoUniversity.org website then scheduled for mid August explicitly on the links between the Basiago time travel material and 9/11, which Kevin wasn’t aware of, and he said he’d get in touch with you to alert you and ask you to get with Alfred to have it removed or delayed until after the Hearings process, which Kevin got back to me and said you had done. He got back and said you’d talked with Alfred and that he’d gotten angry and said that the rejection of ETs was the ‘new discrimination’ like discrimination against gays. However, when I checked Alfred’s website just after that, the seminar linking time travel to 9/11 was gone. I e-mailed Alfred and asked what happened to it and he got back and said that he’d moved it to next year, 2013. I spent a month pulling together the information in the timeline and sent it to Kevin so he’d see how totally absurd Alfred’s claims were and how long and how in depth he’d been making them and sent them to Kevin to further warn him and ask him to get with you again. After meeting personally with Kevin at the NYC conference, Kevin said that he’d gotten to you again but hadn’t heard back. Right after that Alfred sent us the copy of his e-mail to Judge Imposimato to which he’d attached only Basiago’s affidavit, and the rest i(s) history.


The next day, in response to an inquiry from Dennis Cimino asking for more information, Barbara expanded upon what had transpired and her efforts to warn me and Kevin, which had led me to contact Alfred and protest his seminar on time travel, which he rebuffed over the phone but actually moved to 2013, which was appropriate:

Barbara Honegger

Oct 2

Hi All —

Dennis sent a recent e-mail, due to lack of knowledge of the background, that asked why I hadn’t tried to warn about Alfred’s intentions to break his promise to Jim not to include the Basiago and related material in the Hearings process ‘months ago.’   I did.  After both Ernst and I emphatically told him at the dinner the last night of the Hearings that he had to keep his promise to Jim, I thought and hoped that had nipped it in the bud, but given the content of the dinner conversation was wary that might still break the pledge.  So I checked his websites and found that, only a day or so after our dinner, that his ExoUniversity.org site listed an online seminar then scheduled for mid August — which at that time was right after the then deadline for our submissions to be turned in of Aug. 1st (later extended), that by its title explicitly linked the ‘time travel’ claims directly to 9/11.  I urgently alerted Kevin that the site included that planned seminar which, to me, was already an in-your-face violation of his agreement with the Hearings organizers.  Kevin checked the site, found the online seminar linking Basiago’s claims to 9/11 right in the middle of the main page, and immediately got in touch with Jim to alert him.  Jim, Kevin told me, then contacted Alfred, after which — revealing of Alfred’s guilt — Alfred immediately removed that seminar from his website — after having first railed at Jim that the request to remove it was ‘discrimination against ETs, which he said was the ‘new discrimination, like against gays’ (!!).  A few days later when I checked the website and found that the seminar had been deleted, I e-mailed Alfred and asked why; he e-mailed back, which I’ve kept, that he was moving it to after the Hearings process, to next year, 2013. Given this, it appeared that he was backing down and, finally, would not include the time travel claims in the Hearings process.   Then, shortly before the 11th anniversary, last month, Alfred sent an updated Hearings witness ‘docket’ which to my shock included an affidavit from Basiago who hadn’t even spoken at the Hearings and which Alfred had obviously requested, and the alarm bells went off again. I immediately contacted Kevin, yet again, and arranged to talk with him in person at the NYC 9/11 conference, where I showed him Basiago’s name in the docket list.  I’d also just spent more than a month doing the interviews and research for the Timeline which I had mailed Kevin.  After seeing Basiago’s name in the witness docket Alfred had sent and having now read the Timeline for the big picture, Kevin immediately e-mailed Jim to warn him of the new violation of Alfred’s promise.  Jim will have to fill in what he then did, but shortly after that, as we all know, Alfred sent us all a copy of his e-mail to Judge Imposimato of Italy which said that he had attached the Basiago affidavit — and only the Basiago affidavit.  This was the last straw, which I immediately and urgently e-mailed to Kevin and Jim to alert them.  And as they say, the rest is history.  The bottom line is, I was doing everything I could to warn about what Alfred was planning to the Hearings organizers all along…

Alfred’s Response to His Outing by Barbara

Unsurprisingly, Alfred did not take kindly to having been outed by Barbara Honegger and sent everyone the following response:

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd

Sep 27

September 27, 2012

Clare, Jim and All – There seem to be various threads conflated here that I think need to be separated if the discussion is to be accurate and intelligent.

Thread #1 – Alfred as War Crimes Judge – Jim, Barbara H. and the “posse” see Alfred as having defaulted on his duty as a War Crimes Judge.  Alfred sees himself as having had to extricate the 9/11 Tribunal from unethical organizers like Fetzer, lobbying witnesses like Honegger who have threatened the independence of the 9/11 Tribunal and its ability to reach bottom line goals like ICC jurisdiction.

Thread #2 – The issue how to evaluate attorney Andrew D. Basiago’s sworn affidavit of valid forensic evidence concerning 9/11 that was obtained via U.S. secret quantum access technology in 1971.  For starters with Thread #2, I am including at the end of this email several background articles evaluating reports of the U.S. secret time travel program, as well as the impact of secret time travel technology on the events of 9/11.

Thread # 1 DISCUSSION:

The tone typically used by Fetzer in disparaging Webre is ad hominem, to wit:  Alfred has been as reckless as possible in compromising the integrity of the findings of The Vancouver Hearings.  And he has violated our agreement to keep his personal views out of it, even discussing it openly in front of Barbara and Ernst.  I am reminded of the man who claimed he had not killed his wife because he had hired someone else to do it!


WEBRE RESPONSE:  My contention is that I have acted properly as a Judge of a Tribunal of Conscience to preserve the independence of the Tribunal, its jurisdiction, and with regard to vital 9/11 evidence and the affidavits of Andrew Basiago and Leuren Moret. These are matters of which the Hearings organizers and posse of attacking speakers seem to be intentionally ignorant.

1. Affidavit of Leuren Moret – I have acted properly with regard to the Affidavit of Leuren Moret, as hers is the only affidavit which will introduce 9/11 Accused who are not Israeli or US citizens, but French, UK and Canadian citizens and hence secure ICC jurisdiction for this case under Article 12 of the Rome Statue that provides ICC jurisdiction where an ICC Accused is a national of a state party to the Rome Statute.

I realize that neither Fetzer nor his attacking posse of speakers at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings are attorneys. They are acting in reckless disregard of the  independent jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  As far as I am concerned, Fetzer, his co-organzers, and their threatening posse of speakers have continued try to intentionally block jurisdiction 9/11 by the ICC in seeking to block Leuren Moret’s affidavit (which you may read at 911warcrimestribunal.org in due course if you so wish), and refuse to address this issue, either becuase it is beyond their mental competence or because their entire act of outrage is a charade.

International war crimes Legal proceedings, like surgery, take a great deal of skill and care.  With actions like you have taken to attempt to block the affidavit of Leuren Moret, along with the affidavit of Andrew D. Basiago (an written evaluation of whose testimony by me has been available for over a year) is the work of persons of substandard understanding of how the law functions, and a lack of integral purpose to secure ICC jurisdiction of 9/11, and the best evidence as to the most meaningful 9/11 Accused, which may not at all be the 9/11 Accused named by the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings witnesses.

The Hearings organizers and attacking posse of speakers of the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings, including Honegger deserve to be exposed for what they are, a force that through brutal, ego-centered, uninformed suppression of evidence are willing to go to any lengths to prevent proper international prosecution of the key 9/11 Accused by an independent Tribunal of Conscience.

Barbara Honegger and Messr Rodin engaged in an improper witness to Judge lobbying conversation with me in which they set out how they thought the Tribunal should be run and I listened and made my usual diplomatic comments to solicitous witnesses, which now Honegger twists to aggrandize some sort of perceived position on her part.  As I recall, a lengthy part of the conversation between Honegger and myself was a speculative conversation session in which she revealed to me her interest in multi-dimensional topics and we discussed these.  At some point in the conversation, we walked out to a scene where I was verbally threatened by member of the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings who had been pointed out to me as a police provocateur by a member of Vancouver 9/11 Truth. My recollection is that Prof Anthony Hall defended my position as Judge against the audience member in the lobby and I was grateful for that defense.

I have today sent urgent emails (cc to Fetzer) to Christopher and to Enver to reply via return email whether they wish their submissions to remain the in 9/11 Tribunal.  So far I have not heard back from them, which is strange. As soon as I receive their replies, all business between the 9/11 Tribunal and the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings is over.  I consider The organizers and specific speakers of the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings are hostile to the effective international legal prosecution of 9/11 Accused, hostile to Tribunals of Conscience, hostile to the protection of witnesses and Judges, and hostile to the rule of law.

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd



Donald Fox saw through the Smoke Screen

One of the most insightful posts commenting on this exchange came from Donald Fox, who had long since lost faith in Alfred, where I had previously had no idea that Alfred was a proponent of the use of DEWs on 9/11, which meant that he had a bias for that position:

Donald Fox

Sep 27

OK folks Mr. Webre has shown us his true colors. This is some fairly high level propaganda and I think it deserves some analysis. A few key points to take out of this email:

1. He states that Fetzer (and the attack posse of speakers) is suppressing crucial 9/11 Truth information (Leuren Moret’s affidavit). This is reminiscent of Judy Wood’s baseless claim that Fetzer was threatening her not to reveal the truth about 9/11. Fetzer and the rest of us have no ability to suppress anyone’s info from coming out. Indeed most of us here are fans of Leuren’s and would welcome her contributions. In my dealings with Fetzer I can attest to the fact that he welcomes all contributions to evaluate their worthiness. Fetzer never makes any of us stick to a script like they do in Judy Wood’s crew.

2. He spends an inordinate amount of time discussing Mars, teleportation, Tesla, time travel and Basiago. None of these things had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. As everyone here is already aware of.

3. He reveals that Judy Wood got it right and some sort of a Tesla directed energy weapon destroyed the WTC. The main causal mechanism for the destruction of the WTC was mini-nukes. Fetzer has gone on record stating that now and Prager and I have been advocating this for a long time. The evidence for nukes is staggering: debris ejected upward and outward. One chunk of WTC 1 weighing 300 tons was ejected up at a 45 degree angle and out 600 feet into the Winter Garden. That feat required MASSIVE explosive energy. Only nukes can account for this.

4. Radioactive elements found in the USGS dust samples included uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, chromium and lithium among others.

5. The China Syndrome Aftermath: For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.” And furthermore, it notes that, “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.” Note that the “1500 degree F, sometimes higher” is said to be the “ground temperature.” Again indicating that the heat source, underground, must be at a significantly higher temperature– as there was nothing visible there, at the surface, causing this heat.” Nuclear material (unexploded mini-nukes) was underground reacting until at least March of 2002. Only nuclear weapons explain this phenomena. To sum it up: huge explosions, debris flying hundreds of yards, pyroclastic flow, radioactive fallout and the China Syndrome Aftermath mean 9/11 was a nuclear event.

There was more to his critique, but the nice point is that he uses Leuren Moret’s affidavit  as the evidence for our suppressing important evidence about 9/11.  Neither Basiago nor Moret spoke at The Vancouver Hearings nor have I seen Leuren’s submission. I have written to Leuren asking for a copy and whether she would be willing for us to included it as we move forward, but I have yet to receive her response.
Kevin’s “Yes” or “No” Questions for Alfred

Because the Martian landscape has traditionally been regarded as rather like a desert, with no obvious abundance of water, and where the emergence of Plesiosaurs on Mars would require an extensive evolutionary chain to support it (absent an act of “special creation”, of course, which seems like a relatively sober position to maintain in comparison with those of Andrew and Alfred), I was becoming more and more concerned that my mistake in allowing him to serve as a judge was turning out to be a major blunder.  It was gratifying to me when Kevin Barrett distilled the core of the matter and sent this email:

Kevin Barrett

Sep 27


Please answer two simple questions: Did you, or did you not, promise not to include any “exotic” (UFO etc.) material in the Vancouver Hearings/Tribunal, and to keep your “exotic” interests completely separate from everything relating to the Vancouver Hearings/Tribunal? And did you, or did you not, understand that this promise was a prerequisite for your participation, in any way, in the Hearings?

A simple yes or no to each question will suffice.

Alfred categorically denied having made any such commitment and assailed me as though I were the person who was telling tales about their exchange, where, from Alfred’s point of view, he was the one being maligned:

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd

Sep 27

Kevin – Hi! Thank you for asking that question. It gave me the opportunity to search my email correspondence on this file with Fetzer. Below you will have my responses and the evidence.

1. QUESTION #1: Did you, or did you not, promise not to include any “exotic” (UFO etc.) material in the Vancouver Hearings/Tribunal, and to keep your “exotic” interests completely separate from everything relating to the Vancouver Hearings/Tribunal?

ANSWER: NO. Absolutely not. I would never make a promise like that, knowing that the false flag op of 9/11 was constructed around “exotic” (UFO etc.) technologies. That is the very foundation of my published research and you and Jim know that.

2. QUESTION #2: And did you, or did you not, understand that this promise was a prerequisite for your participation, in any way, in the Hearings?

ANSWER: NO. For the reasons as stated above. What is more I have found no evidence in my email file suggesting a YES answer and documentary evidence supporting my NO answer.








Having received Alfred’s response, Kevin cut to the heart of the matter in relation to our respective credibility and replied as follows:

From: Kevin Barrett

Date: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Subject: Re: Thread 1 (Unethical behaviour by Organizers and Posse of Speakers) & Thread 2 (Time Travel background articles)

To: “Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd”

Cc: jim fetzer, Barbara Honegger


These emails prove nothing.

When Jim was considering you for the Hearings, he and I were alerted to your beliefs about time travelers in Gettysburg Address photos and teleporters evading carnivorous Martian dinosaurs. I strongly urged Jim not to involve you in the Hearings. Jim, after discussing this with you, told me you promised not to involve any of your exotic material in the Hearings. I would not have participated in the Hearings otherwise – nor would most of the other participants had they known about your time travel claims.

Barbara says you admitted, during dinner with her and a witness, that you had made this promise to Jim, and that you stated that you sought a way around your promise. In other words, you acknowledged your promise, and stated your intention to break it.

So either Jim and Barbara and her witness are lying, or you’re lying.

I know Jim and Barbara better than I know you, and I know them to be truthful.

I also know that AB’s time travel yarns, if linked to 9/11 truth in any way, will badly damage 9/11 truth. And that any half-bright eight year old could not help but know that. Obviously you must know that too.


Some Troubling Aspects of the Situation

Basiago claims to be a “chrononaut”  as a time traveler in the Project Pegasus. He has even asserted  that he was present at Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and, in this photograph, says he was the young man near the center.  But who could possibly show that claim to be true or false?  Moreover, Basiago’s affidavit asserts that he had “direct, personal knowledge of the fact that a secret time travel project for which Donald Rumsfeld served as defense attaché gave Rumsfeld, who would serve as US Secretary of Defense during 9/11, prior knowledge of 9/11 thirty years before 9/11.  This has suggested to several of us that he may be part of a cover-up op to maintain that, given future foreknowledge of the occurrence of 9/11, it could not have been stopped–that history had been set, which means that Rumsfeld, for example, could not be held responsible, even though he had foreknowledge, too.

This sounds rather fantastic–which it is–but there are those in the population who are credulous enough to believe it.  Remember, as Marty Schotz observed in HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), the objective of disinformation is not to convince the public one way or the other about  the assassination of JFK or the atrocities of 9/11, for example, but only to create enough uncertainty by the use of manufactured evidence and fabricated testimony that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.  Some of them Alfred and Andrew’s associates even appeared on “Coast to Coast AM” on Thursday, 10 November 2011.  And Alfred has provided some links to articles reporting that the White House has denied Obama was involved in these projects, such as “White House Denies CIA Teleported Obama to Mars“, in response to others asserting that he had, “Conspiracy Theory: Obama went to Mars as teen”.  No matter how kindly one might want to regard Webre, it is all but impossible to resist the inference that Webre was planning on using Basiago’s affidavit from the very beginning, which means that he was using The Vancouver Hearings as a means toward that end. And of course we now know that, during dinner with Barbara Honegger and Ernst Rodin after the hearings had concluded, he revealed that he was trying to “evade” his promise not to include this material–a promise he was intent upon breaking.  His integrity is therefore very much open to question.

Once the Vancouver Hearings speakers had read Basiago’s affidavit, there was near universal revulsion at such material being included with our 9/11 research.  Webre’s sanity was even called in to question. Some, such as Donald Fox, had no doubts about Webre’s sanity, where he relayed his thoughts about Alfred’s motivation:

There should be no doubt that Webre knows EXACTLY what he is doing. Here is a quote from one of his emails last week:

Jim’s dismissal and ridicule of this breakthrough sworn testimony is of itself evidence why Prof. James Fetzer is unfit temperamentally, intellectually, and by training to conduct or control a 9/11 Tribunal. Dismissal and ridicule of breakthrough sworn testimony is a standard military-intelligence technique. It is of no personal consequence to me which 9/11 Witnesses opt in or opt out with your evidentiary submissions. That is your personal decision and your moral choice.

These four sentences sum up Webre: he attacks Fetzer, accuses Fetzer of using military intelligence techniques and tells all of us he could care less if we submit evidence or not. As far as Webre is concerned, the Andrew Basiago affidavit is the most important submission from the Vancouver Hearings, even though it has the potential to discredit The Vancouver Hearings.

Indeed, proof of his enduring commitments to Andrew Basiago and his account of time travel and the like is as accessible as YouTube. He has made multiple joint appearances with Andrew Basiago, at least from 2009 to 2012, it appears.  And there can be no doubt that his loyalty to Basiago and his bizarre account of DARPA “jump rooms”, teletransportation, Pleisiosaurs and foreknowledge of future events, including 9/11, was the most pressing desideratum in his mind, and The Vancouver Hearings were only a means to an end where ethics simply did not matter.  As if further confirmation were needed, some of Alfred’s brief emails to Jim and to Kevin were extremely revealing, where he took after Jim and Kevin and claimed they were both “liars”, when the false promises and the dissembling claims were instead coming from him:

Alfred Lambremont Webre

Sep 27

I knew you would try and wiesel around the paper trail.

Liars like you are boring Fetzer

Sent from my iPhone

Alfred Lambremont Webre Sep 27

Liars like you are boring Barrett Sent from my iPhone

Like his allegations of slander and defamation, Alfred displays a oddly non-judicial and very subjective interpretation of the meaning of “lying”, which requires that a source (a) deliberately make a false assertion, when (b) knows that the assertion is false, yet (c) assert it anyway with (d) the intention to deceive their audience.  Those conditions are not satisfied by Kevin or by me, since we believe everything we have said about Alfred (for which we have substantial evidential support).  That the same cannot be said of Alfred should be obvious.

Unexpected Input from the Outside

I was surprised to discover an email from Ryan Povich, who identified himself as an active member of the Seattle UFO community as as someone who was very familiar with Alfred Webre and his views:


8:42 PM

Thanks for taking my call I will try to get ahold of you at another time during the day possibly.

But there are many more bizarre things that Alfred believes in.

I am glad you guys found out about him before its too late.

He has a long long reputation for doing what he did you to in B.C.

We can talk more about it later.

God Bless

James Fetzer jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Oct 2

When I asked if I might share what he was telling me with the other participants in the hearings, Ryan wrote back to me as follows:


9:23 PM

You can include this.

I have been involved in the UFO research community for a while and this is not the first time Alfred Webre has pulled this kind of thing. Many people have trusted Alfred only to find out that he later misquoted them in an article or greatly distorted their comments. I am suprised that some in the UFO fringe are bleeding over into the 911 field.

The blame can’t be laid on Jim Fetzer or the organizers because Alfred seems to be a very nice man and many many people I know have trusted him at some point. Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, and many others have expressed the same concerns about Mr. Webre.

It seems Alfred believes what he wants to believe and anyone who doesn’t agree with him is somehow in his mind a government agent or illuminati reptilian draco over lord.

A few of the things Alfred believes to be fact without any evidence to back it up.

1. There is a secret war between Draco-Reptilian shape shifting grey hybrids and the Andromedan species.

2. There is a secret Andromedan council who oversees the future of mankind.

3. Anyone who does not believe what he does is a government evil-doer

4. Aliens are communicating to us through some secret language that can be heard by analyzing reverse speech codes using reverse speech technology.

At best its good that the 911 community and Alfred are seperating ways before he takes the entire community down with him.



I found this fascinating and have shared it with the other participants.  To the best of my knowledge, Alfred has not denied any of what Ryan has had to say, which appears to be completely consistent with his other extraordinary beliefs, which he appears to feel entitled to accept and assert regardless of his failure to consider alternative explanations for the testimony he has received, which reflects the failure to exercise critical thinking, a degree of apparent gullibility beyond measure, and a temperament unbecoming of one posing as a judge.

When is “a Judge” not a Judge?

Not only has Alfred Webre never acknowledge his improper motivation and dedication to the extraordinary views of Basiago, but Greg Felton has raised a number of grounds on which his performance as a judge in relation to The Vancouver Hearings is open to question:

1. Violation of Terms of Reference.

His participation in the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings (hereinafter “the Hearings”) was contingent upon his not entertaining theories of a speculative, extraterrestrial nature.  The fact that he imposed Andrew Basiago’s submission on the Hearings—a submission that included “remote viewing” and Mars jumping—without the consent of Hearings’ organizer Jim Fetzer demonstrates judicial  arrogance and usurpation of authority.

2. Mala Fides

In conversation with Barbara Honegger and Ernst Rodin after the hearings, Webre, according to Honegger’s report, expressly regretted his earlier agreement to exclude the above mentioned speculative theories and wanted to find away to introduce them surreptitiously. This admission demonstrates bad faith (mala fides) toward his commitment to abide by the terms of his appointment, thus casting into doubt his motives for acting as judge of the Hearings.

3. Judicial Misconduct I

As a judge, Mr. Webre had a moral and professional duty to remain detached from the specific presentation of each witness. By including Andrew Basiago, Mr. Webre crossed the line from being a judge of evidence to being an advocate for a point of view.  As he wrote in an e-mail  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd <webre@shaw.ca> wrote: “Well, sorry to disappoint the critics, but technological and not psychic quantum access was used by DARPA time labs to retrieve 9/11 materials.”

4. Judicial Misconduct II

Mr. Webre failed to disclose to the conference organizers a professional and personal conflict of interest in including Basiago’s submission. Basiago was the editor Webre’s book EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE (and has been a personal friend of Webre’s for 10 years). This conflict of interest is exacerbated by the fact that Webre’s new 9/11 tribunal website is hosted by his Exopolitics blog:  http://exopolitics.blogs.com:911_war_crimes_tribunal 

Perhaps even more remarkably, Greg has pursued Alfred’s standing before the bar in Canada and his entitlement to serve as a judge:

I placed a call to the Career Development Office at Yale Law School to find out if a Juris Doctor graduate is allowed to practice law in B.C., given that Alfred Webre received his JD from Yale in 1967. Although Webre had practised law in the U.S., I was told that any American lawyer would have to pass the bar in Canada to be legally allowed to practise here. A call to the Law Society  of B.C. turned up no record of Alfred Webre as a practising lawyer, meaning he had not passed the bar. In short, Alfred Lambremont Webre was not professionally qualified to act as judge at the Vancouver Hearings, and as such any findings or affidavits filed by him are inadmissible.

Despite his efforts to sabotage the hearings, we are proceeding without him.  Regardless of his intentions and beliefs in DARPA “jump rooms”, teleportation, Pleisiosaurs and other matters Martian, we have divorced ourselves from Alfred and his “War Crimes Tribunal”.  No one should have any doubt that The Vancouver Hearings and the Webre tribunal are separate and distinct entities. We now have no association or connection.  The conditions that I introduced for him serving as a judge, keeping his personal views out of it, and asking him to allow me to review Basiago’s affidavit before it was accepted, were all for naught.  He always had his own agenda, which he pursued smoothly right up to the end, when he could not longer conceal it.  I hereby accept responsibility for having him involved in this.  He had spoken in Madison in 2007.  I was impressed by his participation in the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal’s proceedings. He introduced a quasi-judicial dimension that complemented our efforts.  I thought it would work.  I was wrong.  But The Vancouver Hearing process is going forward unabated to pursue 9/11 Truth completely dissociated from Alfred Webre, Andrew Basiago and their extradordinary and unscientific claims.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who organized the Madison 9/11 conference (2008) and, in collaboration with Joshua Bakeney and Kevin Barrett, The Vancouver Hearings (2012).


Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the towers and has formulated an account of how it was done using very low-yield thermonuclear devices.

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 1, 2015, With 5049 Reads Filed under Civil Liberties & Freedom, Corruption, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

79 Responses to "The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within"

  1. Jim Fetzer  October 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Well, we have the IP address for every post that has been submitted under your name. There is a remarkable consistency in their vacuity of content combined with arrogance of attitude. If you can show that someone else was posting under your name, that would be quite a stunning development. Meanwhile, when you have had something to say, I have let it stand. You previously enumerated more than a dozen claims you have made, alleging them to show that I am wrong in some of my contentions.

    But, as anyone can see by reviewing that post above, they once again reflect your massive ignorance and no mistakes on my part. We do agree that someone using your name “has spewed some of the most embarrassing debunked nonsense ever recycled, along with the usual dollops of clumsy disinfo.” So I encourage you to write to the general manager of Veterans Today, gm@veteranstoday.com, and lodge your complaint. I am sure he will be glad to receive it and will confirm the idiot posting is you.

  2. Gordon Duff  October 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    andy may have been taken to the planet israhell

  3. Chris  October 13, 2012 at 6:51 am

    I agree with Barrett. Dov Zakheims SPC flew the planes into the towers. Not the original planes of course but planes nonetheless. The “no planes” meme is disinfo meant to let him and by extension Israel off the hook. Its also meant to make the uninitiated recoil and dismiss all that follows. Swapped planes? I can buy that and in fact lean towards that position.

  4. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    All of your posts have been stupid beyond belief. You do not under the structure of the towers. You do not understand elementary physics. You endorse a theory about the use of remote controlled drones because it was the first thing that popped into your mind. What gives you the right to post one rubbish post after another here? It makes you look like an idiot. It draws down the level of discussion here. And it wastes my time and effort.

    You have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are completely incompetent intellectually but a bully and a coward at heart. We know that. You have proven it. So sink back into your hole and let us get on with serious discussion. You are the most pathetic person I have yet to encounter in all my years on the internet. YOU ARE TRULY PATHETIC. Your life must be utterly without meaning for you to dedicate your time to drivel.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 7:30 pm

      None of those I deleted were any different from the ones that are posted. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have made no effort to show that I have anything wrong. You come here because you have no meaning in your life but to harass those of us who are uncovering what actually happened on 9/11.

      Show one example of anything you think I have wrong, why I claim it–and then explain how you know its wrong. You can’t do that, so instead you take the cowardly way out my posting endless harassing comments. I would bet people you think are your friends secretly despise you. And that’s because you are despicable!

    • Chris  October 13, 2012 at 6:22 am

      Liar, they were totally different. Now you’re lying in addition to censoring. Fetzer works for Zakheim.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 13, 2012 at 6:38 am

      Why would I, who has spent most of the past seven years (since founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005) exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11 want to cover up the complicity of Dov Zakheim in 9/11, about which there is no serious doubt? I can’t figure out if this guy is a shill or a nitwit, but he appears to me to be one or the other. Here are two articles worth considering that suggest he is probably one or the other.

      The first is about shills:

      The second is about perps:

      Zakheim belongs on that list, but not because remote controlled planes hit the Twin Towers. I have explained–again and again–why it would have violated the laws of physics and of engineering for any real plane to effortlessly enter the towers and only explode after they were securely inside, where they had to have come to a screeching halt from over 500 mph to zero in .056 sec in the 48′ feet that remained for a plane 160′ long and tower 208′ wide.

      I have explained these things in many places, including “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11”, and elsewhere, including Seattle just before The Vancouver Hearings: “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (13 June 2012):

      Part 1

      Part 2

      Because he cannot follow my argument, he concludes that I must be covering up. But I have been exposing the role of Israel in 9/11 since my first political speech on 15 April 2008, “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”. I have also addressed it in “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” I have been attacked by the ADL as “an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist”, even though I have proven all my claims. So this guy looks to me to be either a shill or a nitwit or both.

  5. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    You have now made nearly 50 ridiculous posts for which you have no evidence, no justification, and no rationale. You have to be one of the dumbest persons I have ever known. Because you entertain the false belief that remote control aircraft were flown into the Twin Towers, when what we see on those videos is physically impossible and cannot have occurred, you are making one absurd post after another. I have explained exactly why you are wrong, but your infinite belief in your own beliefs renders you incapable of understand the issues. You are completely wrong and are promoting a physical absurdity. Yet I am the one who is supposed to be wrong! How damned stupid can anyone get? You are setting the new indoor record for ignorance and stupidity. THE NEW RECORD.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 13, 2012 at 7:09 am

      Right! Going after the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia and local law-enforcement for the assassination of JFK, the CIA, NSA, Pentagon and White House for 9/11, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove for the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone ALL make me some kind of traitor to my country! You are so far over the edge you have no idea how much you come across as stark, raving mad. And your 50+ repeated posts confirm it!

    • Chris  October 13, 2012 at 7:14 am

      “Going after”? HA! Good one. We know how controlled opposition works here Jim. All good disinfo has a lot of truth. You speak a lot of truth. That is not your purpose though. Your purpose is clear. Discredit 9/11 truth and protect Dov Zakheim/SPC and their direct link to Israel. Your Wellstone book and other work is called “cred building”. The purpose of building such credibility was to spend it on protecting Zakheim/Israel and discrediting 9/11 truth. Obvious tool.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 13, 2012 at 7:32 am

      This is stupid beyond belief. I am a former Marine Corps officer, a Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, a professor who spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning–and this buffoon thinks I am here to DEFEND ISRAEL FOR ITS COMPLICITY IN 9/11? I have never seen anyone so far off the deep end who makes all of these ludicrous claims with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! Ironically, the more proof I advance that he is wrong, THE MORE CONVINCED HE BECOMES that I AM AN OP. Just take the Wellstone case, which is simpler and easier to understand that JFK or 9/11. Here is a sampler of my work on Wellstone:

      “The Sen. Wellstone Assassination”

      “The NTSB Failed Wellstone” (with John P. Costella, Ph.D.)

      “Sen. Paul Wellstone: More Proof of Assassination”

      And, for independent confirmation that what I have concluded is correct,

      “Wellstone: They Killed Him”

      There is a mountain of evidence that I am right about JFK and 9/11, too. This guy got some rope up his ass over Dov Zakheim, when remote controlled planes cannot have been used in New York, because no real planes–remotely controlled or not–could have entered the North or the South Towers in violation of Newton’s laws. They would have exploded on impact and crumpled against the building. Because I explain he is wrong, he has gone on a mad vendetta against me. I have no doubt at this point in time that this man is either clinically insane or some bizarre kind of disinfo agent. In either case, we have seen his irrational posts, again and again and again.

      I am going to do my best to make sure no more are posted. He seems to think it is his right to share his demented beliefs with the public, over and over and over again. He has posted more than 50 at this point in time. I cannot see any rationale for this continuing. I have tried to be reasonable. I have explained why he is wrong. I have asked him for proof that I am mistaken. He is completely non-responsive and continues with his rants about me as an op who is covering up for Dov Zakeim. How much lunacy, how much insanity, how much irrationality is this forum supposed to tolerate? He is completely bananas. I have had enough! No more! Nada! Zilch! ENOUGH!

    • peter kjoneleit  October 13, 2012 at 9:21 am

      It’s about time! Now concentrate on exposing the foreign and domestic perpeTRAITORS of 911 until THEY hang (MELT is better and more likely!).

  6. Victor  October 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Christopher Bollyn, Susan Lindauer, Gordon Duff, Kevin Barrett, Joshua Blakeney, Allan Roland and Jim Fetzer are my heros for everything regarding 9/11 truth. I have read every article regarding 9/11 posted on Veterans Today and other websites, I have read just about every book on 9/11, including Bollyn’s “Solving 9/11: The Deception That Changed the World” and Lindauer’s “Extreme Prejudice” and I have viewed most of the YouTube clips and DVDs regarding 9/11 and 7/7 and I am fully convinced that the murderous events of 9/11 was an inside job. I realize that there are millions of people throughout the world that feel the same way I do and we are all fed up that our Attorney General, Eric Holder, is fast asleep at the switch. 9/11 is not the only crime on the agenda. There is also the war crimes carried out by the Bush-Cheney regime and the near economic melt down carried out by those fraudsters in Wall Street and Too Big to Fail banksters. I have created a petition to President Barack Obama to Fire Eric Holder for failing to carry out his oath of office and I request that anyone who reads this comment, to read it and if you agree with my petition, please sign it and share the petition with your network of friends and relatives. Just click or cut and paste this link: http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-terminate-eric-holder-as-our-attorney-general#share?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_summary

    Thank you.

  7. duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Chris, You can have a website of your own up and going in 20 minutes. Just google “free website host.” Jim can post a link to it here for you and you can then have all the space and freedom you need, and whomever wants to can read and discuss with you with no worries about anyone deleting what you have to say.

  8. duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Chris, I have a suggestion. Get yourself a free website and post what you have to say there. I am assuming Jim would post a link to it here in the comments so that anyone interested could just click on it and go read. You could have comments there and discussions with whomever cared to participate.

    Just Google “free website host.” You can have it going in 20 minutes to an hour.

  9. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 10:56 am

    This guy is persisting with a blizzard of meaningless posts. He has admitted he has not studied these questions and I caught him with his pants down. It is pathetic for him to be doing this, but perhaps its the only way he can infuse his life with purpose. They are too dumb to post, so I shall continue to delete them. If some slip through, I’ll trash them when I find them. He is a waste of space and time. He’s harassing me because I embarrassed him.

  10. wolf  October 12, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Chris: I too used to believe that Dov Zakheim’s SPC flew planes into the towers by remote control using their ‘Flight Termination System’.

    But I took the time to watch septemberclues and it changed my whole paradigm on this issue.
    I challenge you to watch it with an open mind. One cannot come away without agreeing that all of the videos showing planes hitting the towers were seriously doctored.

  11. duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Jim Fetzer, Do you happen to remember if there was any mention by “citizen investigators” of the possibility of nucs having been used, or nuc contamination at the WYC site, as early as Feb 2007? I don’t know of any, but just ran across some seeming disinfo launched at that time implying the absence of any nuc contamination; such disinfo perhaps launched to throw a wet blanket on the general idea of nucs being associated with “ground zero.” (Oh, the irony.)

    Any thoughts of nucs that oh so long ago? Thanks.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      Jeff Prager sent the following in response to my inquiry about this, “If my memory serves, a nuclear component to 911 was suggested by the Anonymous Physicist, the Finnish physicist and Dimitri Khalezov as early as 2005 which is when Dr. Jones arrived on the scene with his paper arguing against a nuclear component.” The Khalezov theory–of 150kt nukes in the basements of each of the three towers (including WTC-7)–cannot be correct, since they (the towers vs. WTC-7) were done in completely different ways, it would be a bottom-up vs. top down for the towers, and it would have demolished the bathtub and allowed Hudson River water to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, flooded the PATH train and subway tunnels, which had to be avoided at all cost and appears to be the reason why then had to find a way to keep any major part of either building shattering the bathtub by turning them into very fine dust, which remained suspended in air and blown out to sea.

    • duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm

      Thank you!

      A GAO report of Sept ’06 includes mention of NYC having done a helicopter survey of radiation in 2005. Some time after, the nydailynews ran a story on that. Then in Feb 07, at Cleveland Indymedia, that story was presented, with one fake paragraph added, saying that the Israeli Embassy in NYC had showed as a hotspot in the helicopter survey. That rumor went around and was believed by some even though quickly shown as fake in comments to the fake story at Cl’d Indy.

      Before sorting all that out, I was wondering if the helicopter radiation story was cooked up to distract investigators from any nuclear devices and 9/11 connection (e.g., helicopter survey discovered subtle radiation with sensitive scanners, but no mention of WTC, ergo no nukes on 9/11). At that point in time, I didn’t know if there actually was a GAO report, or actual newspaper article and I thought it came from nowhere into Cleveland Indymedia.

      That’s when I asked you, because I was curious about the timing, and intention behind the fake article.

      Turns out the GAO report and nydailynews article are real, so that blew most foundations from my hypothesis.

      BUT, the GAO report says, “In 2005, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) asked DOE to conduct a survey of the New York City metro area. NYPD officials were aware that DOE had the capability to measure background radiation and locate hot spots by helicopter because DOE used this capability at the World Trade Center site in the days following September 11, 2001.” [It seems on 12 Sept]

      That’s interesting. Although I don’t suppose the data is available to us. 🙂




    • duay khwaam nap theuu  October 13, 2012 at 6:25 am

      Just a note, since I ran across this… Aerial survey (by helicopter) of radiological intensities, following 1962 nuclear rounds fired from the Davy Crockett artillery piece in an exercise at a Nevada test site. This only shows the capability was available in 1962. No data given.
      See time marker approx. 11 min 10 seconds. At about 10:00 some results from the survey and ground survey are displayed in a non-technical manner.

    • duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      BTW, what caused the molten rock (the big areas of it we have pictures of, attributed by the press to glaciers) if not Dimitri’s devices? Where, in relation to the towers and buildings, is that rock located?

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      Clare Kuehn has offered the following observations: There were molten areas supposedly in the debris piles (unlike what Wood said she thought) but the rock hole area was in closeup a bedrock cavity (officially) from the Ice Age glacial effects. It is smoothed and layered but not glazed. If it was caused by anything in the explosives constructing the towers it wouldn’t look so worn and weathered, and if nuked — I believe — it would not look layered and weathered.

  12. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Except that it was physically impossible for any real plane to have entered those massive structures without crumpling, their wings and tails breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. They were intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete apiece (or an acre of concrete each) in the South Tower and seven (7) in the North. Do you know what happens when a plane in flight hits a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? What do you think would happen if it hit one of those trusses in the air? Have you actually looked at any of my articles about the planes’ impossible entry?

    I cannot believe the incapacity to appreciate elementary physics that I encounter time and time again. I have explained all of this many times in many places, yet you appear to be unaware of the arguments. The plane could not have entered completely into the building before exploding. It would have exploded on impact. Plus a plane that could cut through the structure that I have described with no deceleration should have passed through the building, yet it comes to a screeching halt inside it. Since the plane was 160′ and the building 208′ wide, it has to have gone from more than 500 mph to zero in about .056 seconds.

    Do you think that is reasonable? Yes, I believe that the use of remotely controlled aircraft was the original plan, until they discovered that it was physically impossible to get them into the building. Moreover, they had to coordinate those “crashes” with the explosions in the subbasements to explain them away as the effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. This was a stretch, since the main elevators were off-set every 30 floors, but that was the plan. They were 14 and 17 seconds late, however, as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong have shown in “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”. You need to give this more thought.

  13. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 6:54 am

    What should we call someone who ignores logic and evidence because of his stubborn, stunningly irrational commitment to beliefs that have been proven to be false? You have no proof than anyone died from being a passenger on one of those flights. How could they have, when we know that none of those planes actually crashed on 9/11? I regret that I mistakenly supposed you were displaying a glimmer of rationality. I certainly should have known better. You, alas, remain the complete and total flake we have come to know all too well.

  14. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 6:11 am

    This is a more rational post, Trow. Thanks for this. Two of the planes were not even in the air and the other two did not crash on 9/11. That means that no passengers died as the result of crashes on 9/11, because there were none. Phantom crashes implies faked passenger deaths. Since none of these planes was “hijacked”, there were no Islamic terrorists aboard them and no justification for the “war on terror”. 9/11 was faked to promote a political agenda.

    It would be a good idea to ascertain whether any autopsies were conducted on any of the bodies of those who are supposed to have died in these crashes. What was their cause of death? Because it cannot have been from plane crashes, when none of those planes crashed. There are many out there who will take any opportunity to receive money from their government. Many real people really died on 9/11, but not because they were aboard those flights.

  15. Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 5:33 am

    You are an embarrassment to every rational mind. I have explained this time and time again, but you are unwilling to look at the evidence. It is no wonder you continue to make one stupid post after another. I have recommended that you study “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, and “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11”. But I know you aren’t going to do that but will continue to make one dumb post after another anyway. So be it!

  16. bannerman  October 12, 2012 at 4:41 am

    Jim this situation, variously described by yourself as “bizarre” and “messy”, really speaks volumes about the inherent ludicrousness of your position and your theories, postulated elsewhere as “scientifically reasonable” conclusions about 9/11.

    That you saw no intial problem in appointing a self-aggrandising mega-crank like Webre as the “judge” in your “Vancouver Hearings” pantomine, merely highlights your own tenous grip on reality. That a confirmed no-planer, whose evidence seems consists of repeatedly declaring one’s tenditious and fantastic claims are “scientific” whilst demonstrating little or no science, would find someone of Webre’s calibre suitable, despite his “exotic” views is perhaps an excellent indication of the particular rabbit hole that your theories will lead you…

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 5:09 am

      This is another massively ignorant comment from someone who has not studied the evidence. I did not know this man to be a “self-aggrandizing mega-crank” until the bitter end. I have made the point that it was a mistake to involve him, where, given his participation in the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, which brought charges of war crimes against Tony Blair and George W. Bush, I was impressed by his apparent courage and integrity. That turned out to be a false impression when it came to his personal agenda, which I simply did not fathom at the time. All things considered, your comments strike me as completely ridiculous.

      And even more ridiculous in relation to “no plane theory”, which I doubt you could even define. We have BTS records showing that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day. We have FAA Registration data showing that the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005. Perhaps you would like to explain how planes that were not even in the air could have crashed on 9/11 and how planes that crashed on 9/11 could have still been in the air four years later? I have no patience for air-heads like you who ignore the evidence and are incapable of serious reasoning.

      And how are you going to explain away Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s discoveries that, while Flight 93 was in the air that day, it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that while Flight 175 was also in the air that day, it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly entered the South Tower? You appear to be one of those gullible saps who believe everything he is told by the government or sees on TV. NPT means that none of the crashes that the government claims to have occurred took place, which is further confirmed from the fabrication of the crash sites.

      The interesting question is how the videos in New York were faked. Since “Flight 175” is performing feats that no real plane could perform, it cannot be a real plane but could have been done using CGIs, video compositing, or a sophisticated hologram. The presence of witnesses who reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane BEFORE it hit the South Tower suggests it cannot have been done using CGIs or video compositing, which would have yielded images of planes only in broadcast footage. The most important work confirming the use of a hologram comes from Richard Hall. I lay out the evidence many places, including:

      “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

      Part 1

      Part 2

      Now if you want to show that you actually possess a functioning brain, then go through the evidence I present, cite what I claim that you think I have wrong, explain why I say it (so I can tell you have understood my argument), and then explain why I am wrong and how you know. I don’t actually expect you to do that, since it would require reasoning ability that, so far as I can ascertain, you simply do not possess. Because without an argument to show that your claim that I am somehow “detached from reality” about 9/11, this appears to be a case of projection that applies to you, not to me. I am calling your bluff. Put up or shut up.

  17. Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Your astounding ignorance exudes from every pore. Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled for flight that day. The planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11? and how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth have established that Flight 93 WAS in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was ALSO in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. Since none of those flights crashed on 9/11, none of their passengers died from non-occurrent crashes on 9/11.

    You never cease to amaze me with your perverse combination of arrogance and ignorance, second to none. You come here time and time again to make truly stupid posts, never flinching, never responding to the evidence, even when I spell it out for you. My guess is that you are past salvation, intellectually, where I will not speculate on the causes of your cognitive incapacities, which are apparent.

  18. Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 11:57 am

    This guy has no idea what he is talking about. OK, Trow. Here’s my challenge. What is “no planes theory”? What reasons do I offer for believing it? Has it even occurred to you that, if some of these were phantom flights and none of them crashed on 9/11, then no passengers could have died in crashes that did not take place?

    I realize you are not a rocket scientist, but you love to make abusive posts without any comprehension of the available evidence. What do we learn from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics? from FAA registration records? from research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth? Explain my position why I hold it and how you know my position is wrong.

  19. Raptor  October 11, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Jim read closely, I will not repeat this. I know people who claim you to be disinfo to the nth degree when it comes to anything associated with 9-11. AS FOR ME SIR, I am on the fence, I’ve no direct evidence of the kind that would prove the claim as being true. I hope you can grasp this as being an actual fact.

    Now that said…..I’ve read and done as much as anyone you know on the topic of 9-11. Most all of it I’ve done personally and privately, except for the occasional post here and there. If you are indeed after the truth, the real truth…………….whatever it may be, then you’d find me standing shoulder to shoulder with you and the like…………However your sensitivity and presumptive nature are a turn off, especially when you continually bash anyone with an honest assessment of the obvious.

    You were foolish to include this clown in any part of any credible activity associated with finding truth in regard to 9-11. I merely pointed that out in a subtle manner and you’ve once again leaped to conclusions.

    This isn’t a school yard and neither of us are real bullies, so let’s cool the defensiveness….it’s childish.

    By now one would think that rookie mistakes would be a distant thing of the past, but it seems they still exist. I have to ask why that is, or how it can be?

    Something else….Ventura gets pissed when someone mentions Wellstones demise as anything other than bad flying conditions, yet you say otherwise. So how can one fly off the handle when people question all of the left hand right hand back and forth BS ASSOCIATED with much of the theory that you guys push? It’s a simple thing to see and opens the floor for tons of questions that always seem to go unanswered.

    Without question 9-11 is the most twisted, embellished, exploited, bag of crap ever opened. More people have come down with lock-jaw when it comes to this topic than will ever truly be known. Yet there are a select few that continue to thrive, spew, spin, and show up all over the place time and time again. It’s like whack a mole or something.

    Surely you can understand all of this. And about that piece of 300 ton facade atop the Winter Garden….wouldn’t that be 600,000 lbs ejected like a cotton ball? Wouldn’t that mean energy on the scale of that required to level ( not only those buildings ) but those in near proximity as well??????????

    It’s my opinion that after another decade said debris will weigh in at 600 tons… This is a massive turn off akin to Jones and his f,ing bullhorn.

    Good day.


    • Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 9:12 am

      My problem with you is that your posts offer innuendo rather than explicit claims. If you think I am some kind of op, then say so! This idea of “connecting the dots” as though Josh, Kevin and I were setting up The Vancouver Hearings for failure is simply despicable. I have accepted the primary share of responsibility for this: I thought that Alfred was an honorable man, but he betrayed me to promote his own personal agenda.

      If we had anything to cover up, it would be absurd to lay this out for publication in such detail. I am not impugning your motives as much as I am your style. Be a bit more explicit. We all know what happened, but we are aggressively pursuing 9/11 Truth. The findings of The Vancouver Hearings, which you should know by now, include establishing points that other 9/11 conferences are not even willing to address:

      (1) that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon;

      (2) that all four “crash sites” were fabricated or faked;

      (3) that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of mini and mico nukes;

      (4) that this event was authorized by the American government and carried out with the Mossad.

      If you can find any other 9/11 conference that comes close to establishing these results, I’d like to hear about it. You appear to me to be way off base. If you have a case to make, then MAKE IT!

    • DaveE  October 11, 2012 at 10:09 am

      Well said. Getting down to brass tacks is the only way to expose the truth and the disinfo. agents and you do both very well.

      Unfortunately, the more unusual a theory, the more people are not likely to accept it, right away. This gives the bad guys an opportunity to discredit genuine truth seekers. He’s disinfo….. no HE’s disinfo…… no, it’s really HIM who’s disinfo….. on and on, you know the drill.

      I think you made a STRATEGIC blunder in getting people like Webre and Basagio involved because doing so gave the enemy plenty of good reasons to discredit you. Injecting noise into the system is the only real weapon the zionists have for destroying anyone who starts to get too close to the truth, so we all need to be very careful.

      My point is, I think you’re a good hearted and open minded guy who made the mistake of going too far, too fast and forgot to keep your eye on the target.

      I’m not trying to lecture you however, I think it may be time to try and focus your arguments a little better. Specifically, you’re “no planes” theory, right or wrong, does you more harm than good. You may very well be 100 percent correct for all I know, but unfortunately, there’s a mountain of evidence on the other side, eyewitness testimony, etc. that will have to be refuted before people will buy it en masse.

      Please don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan about 95 percent of the time. I’m merely trying to say that I think you should use this ordeal as an opportunity to learn a tough lesson: that people need to be led through the details SLOWLY and in general are not nearly as analytical or open minded as you are. In going slow and trying to read the tea leaves as to how your arguments will be perceived, as well as the people you allow to represent you, I think you will be fighting a much smarter battle.

      Thanks for all the great work you do and please forgive me if I sound too “mother Teresa”. That’s not my intention. I want us ALL to expose the truth and get as many people on our side as possible, as quickly as possible, like you I’m sure. The question is HOW we’re gonna do that!

    • Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 11:07 am

      I also regard you as sincere and open-minded, but I can’t help believing that “9/11 Truth” is supposed to be dedicated to revealing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about 9/11. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction and doing these things in ways that come across to the scientifically illiterate public as “far out” or even “nutty” may even have been part of the scheme.

      Appealing to eyewitnesses suggests to me that you do not understand my position. I agree that many witnesses reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane before it effortlessly entered the South Tower. But it was performing feats that no real plane could perform. It appears to have been done using a hologram projected from a real plane flying on a parallel path 1,400′ to its right.

      I am absolutely dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, including “no planes theory”, which means that all four of the “official crash sites” were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways. If you can find fault in my logic or evidence here, then please share it with me, because everything I am claiming here, I believe, is not only true but proven to be true:

      “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

      Part 1

      Part 2

    • DaveE  October 11, 2012 at 11:51 am

      Not faulting your logic, never have. I’m saying that you have a tough battle ahead trying to sell that theory, with little or nothing to gain and a LOT to lose by giving the real disinformation artists free ammunition.

  20. Raptor  October 11, 2012 at 4:47 am

    This never ends and personally I think it’s all by design. Those who say they seek the truth have a passion for compromising themselves in the process. Anyone ever ask themselves why that is? Pity people never seem to connect the dots.

    Dunne outed this guy years ago, I think it was because Dunne was pissed at having some of his thunder stolen…but anyway that’s a long story in and of itself. Something about mirrors, dimensions, and the human brain come to mind…lol

    Buried within this massive post is some suspect disinfo….one example simple to see is the portion of the tower that ended up near to and on a portion of the Winter Garden….recalculate the weight of that piece please…..300 freaking tons is pure rubbish. That’s how much mass, ejected how many feet?????

    And everyone seems to WANT to know why these wheels keep spinning, and why none with basic common sense and decency have the will to keep on digging.

    Like the bullhorn and 9-11 being an inside job…..which equals death by association….Folks if you think that’s an accident then you need to go back to bed and try all over again once you wake up..


    • Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 5:54 am

      What is “by design” is that I have been dedicating the rest of my life since I retired as a McKnight Professor to exposing corrupt acts by elements of the US government, including the involvement of the CIA, Joint Chiefs, anti-Castro Cubans, Texas oil men, LBJ and J. Edgar in the assassination of JFK; in the atrocities of 9/11, which involved complicity between the CIA, the Join Chiefs, the Pentagon and the White House; and the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who was taken out in a plane crash involving sabotage where those whom I believe were responsible included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove.

      Anyone who reviews my publications here at Veterans Today can confirm that for themselves. For someone like Raptor to suggest that this fiasco with Alfred was “by design” in relation to me, Joshua, or Kevin, displays a complete disregard of our history, character and commitment. That it turned out to be “by design” with regard to Alfred and his associate Basiago is obvious, since the point of this article was to explain what happened and “connect the dots”, as I have done above. There is an extensive disinfo and cognitive infiltration movement related to 9/11. Alfred may or may not be an op but has played his own idiosyncratic role.

  21. BarbaraHonegger  October 11, 2012 at 1:45 am

    As an expert witness-presenter at the Vancouver Hearings and direct eye- and earwitness to Alfred Webre’s dinner table conversation with me and another witness the last night of the Hearings, I know with 100 percent certainty that he is outright lying when he claims he didn’t make an agreement with Hearings organizer Jim Fetzer not to include Basiago’s absurd claims in the Hearings process. He did, and the proof is that over dinner the last night of the Hearings he outlined Basiago’s claims to me at length, to which I took notes as he spoke; expressed frustration that he had made the promise not to include Basiago’s information in what he was to write up for the Hearings; and asked explicitly how I thought he might get around his promise so he could include it anyway.

    Shocked that he would even consider including claims — sworn to or otherwise — of a delusional Cosmic ‘Forrest Gump’ who thinks he personally witnessed Jesus’ cruxifiction and Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and battled dinosaurs on Mars with President Obama, I told him in no uncertain terms, as did the other party at the dinner, that he DID have to keep his promise to Jim Fetzer to protect the integrity of both the Hearings and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Webre then not only went ahead and solicited an affidavit from Basiago, who was not a presenter at or even present at the Hearings, which he included in the Hearings docket, but sent ONLY the Basiago nonsense and NONE of the hard evidence presentations or affidavits of ANY of the 19 expert witnesses who actually testified at the Hearings — to a high-ranking European judge.

    This action caused immediate outrage by almost every Hearings speaker, and we immediately joined ranks to formally separate from Webre and any 9/11-related process he continues with. He is not a ‘judge’ of anything, except in his own mind. His claim in his posted comment to this article that Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett and I “distort what really happened in their passion to limit the 9/11 Accused to the ‘usual suspects'” is both provably false and ridiculous. It is Webre who completely distorts what happened, in fact outright lies about it, and knows that he is. He made a promise to Jim Fetzer and willfully, ‘in-your-face’ broke it.

    It is also impossible that his claim that I have “a passion for limiting the 9/11 Accused to the ‘usual suspects'” could be true when, precisely because I knew he was planning to discredit the Hearings process with Basiago’s Cosmic Forrest Gump claims, I had withheld my submission listing who should be accused from him. He doesn’t have it, so he has zero idea what is in it. Webre’s claims in other forums that I ‘lobbied’ him at the dinner the last night of the Hearings is also a crock. He asked to have dinner with me; it was his agenda; and it was he who lobbied me to try to help him come up with ideas as to how he could get around his pledge to Jim Fetzer. He just asked the wrong person. I will be preparing a sworn jurat affidavit including all of these points for the record. Barbara Honegger

  22. catch22  October 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    At best, Alfred Webre lacks judgement, discernment, and, to use a term, situational awareness (i.e. being aware of what is happening in the vicinity to understand how information, events, and one’s own actions will impact goals and objectives, both immediately and in the near future) At worst he’s a disinfo agent, right?. But who cares? He wouldn’t be the first or last of either. The trick is to move around these problems like water around the provebial stone.

    Thanks for the article: good job, worth the read. Now let’s see if you can avoid getting drawn into a protracted, mud-slinger with Alfred. Because there’s a fine line between defending a position against dupes and disinfo, and actually generating a distraction, or feeding a problem yourself, if you get my point.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      Yes, I completely agree. Kevin did a brilliant job of satirizing the situation in his article, “Now It Can Be Told! The REAL Reason Obama Was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Plesiosaurs on Mars”, where I believed that the public deserved a through and detailed explanation of what had taken place. Thanks for a very thoughtful comment on a messy situation, which we are dealing with as responsibly as we can.

    • lola  October 11, 2012 at 1:32 am

      Keep those Project Camelot folks away from you too. Duff likes Kerry because she is cute. She has this dinosaur crap going on her site too. Just the worst. Duff, wake up, find a nice girl.

  23. James Robertson  October 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Regardless of the veracity about all the claims about Mars, the point is they have nothing to do with 911. Personally I found one aspect of the Kuala Lumpar Tribunal very disappointing, they failed to prosecute Australian Prime Minister John Howard, clearly complicit in the criminal invasion of Iraq due to the involvement (not secret or denied) of Australian troops in the initial operation.

    Further recriminations against anyone serve no real purpose. In the greater scheme of things these events are small but important stepping stones on the road to justice. The most important thing is to keep going. I take heart from Sumwoman’s comment, people are beginning to understand that this is not just another marginal cause embraced only by people they see as “the usual suspects”. This movement is growing and at some point critical mass will inevitably be achieved.

  24. mpennery  October 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    “Because the Martian landscape has traditionally been regarded as rather like a desert, with no obvious abundance of water, . . .” And how do you know that Jim? You’ve seen it or your government told you and you are just going along with it. You have no trust in some propoganda and total trust in others, have you noticed?

    When you know a truth that is higher than the truth that most others know, it is interesting and entertaining to observe them go through the motions of discovery. So certain are they at times. And without confidence at others. Sometimes touching on truth. Sometimes missing it wildly.

    Ah, 9/11.

    And, of course, what if Alfred is right? A lot of you were thought of as lunatics with your 9/11 ‘nonsense’, were you not? When I saw the towers fall and knew, as a builder, it wasn’t an accident but I didn’t have science or research to back it up, I was looked at as crazy, too. And I had to learn to take the label of crazy as a badge of honor because I KNEW even though it was all but impossible to ‘prove.’ Again, not that I’m agreeing with Alfred, just that you guys are ridiculing his ideas without any proof that he’s wrong, which makes you hypocrites.

    Not just hypocrites either. Listen to yourselves. Slow down for a second. Think. You’re saying the government is lying through it’s collective teeth about 9/11 and a myriad other topics but then you just assume NASA is telling you the absolute truth!! NASA is a military asset. That’s government. Oh, but you trust those images from Mars as being untainted. You trust that satellite is even there. Maybe it is but you don’t know that. Maybe there is more of this world than you know.

    Mainstream ‘out in the open’ science doesn’t even understand the composition of the planets or how they’re formed. No one can even prove planets are solid masses. Or so we’re told. Remember, gravity is based on this and maybe the theory of gravity is even wrong. Maybe most of science is a lie–part of an alternate reality/civilization concocted to keep us sleepwalking.

    And I don’t even care what Alfred is saying or your reaction to it. He might be a hero with the biggest set of brass balls or he may need to take a permanent ride on the short bus.

    All this is irrelevant distraction. The only thing that matters is that the official government 9/11 explanation is complete and total horse shit and that is the one and only place nobody wants to stay focused on–by design I suppose. Makes me wonder if anybody really wants to get to the truth.


    Lexington, ky

    • Jim Fetzer  October 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm

      As I explain in the article on which this is alleged to be a comment, Alfred no more knows that Basiago is right than do you. He has simply begged the question by TAKING FOR GRANTED that Basiago is telling the truth. But even if Basiago sincerely believes what he claims to have experienced, those memories could have resulted from the implantation of false memories by means of hypnosis or exemplify a case of “false memory syndrome”. Alfred is entitled to believe whatever he wants, but it is obvious that he didn’t want those paragraphs about methodology and epistemology included in my formal response to Russell Scott because they exposed the soft underbelly of his position. What we were presenting during the conference was throughly research and empirically testable, unlike what he and Basiago were maintaining.

      That meant the introduction of his affidavit corrupted the proceedings in a relatively obvious fashion. Perhaps you place a lesser premium on knowledge as opposed to belief and research as opposed to speculation, but Alfred made a promise to me to keep his exotic personal beliefs out of the hearings, which he violated as blatantly as possible by accepting Basiago’s affidvait AS EVIDENCE when its standing remains in serious doubt. You really need to give this more thought. And I have to ask how anyone could have any doubts about our commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11? How many articles have Kevin, Josh and I published doing this right here at Veterans Today? Simply go to “Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer”, for one refutation after another. You have demonstrated you don’t know what you are talking about.

    • mpennery  October 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Jim, did you forget to take your meds today? Settle down mate. I’m on your side… or am I (see orignial comment). You so missed my point. I value yours, Kevin’s, Josh’s and many others’ opinions much more so that Alfred’s. But being open minded means being open minded. Not still selecting what to ridicule and what not to. And if I’ve demonstrated I don’t know what I’m talking about, please let’s be more specific and get it on. Those are the taunts of middle schoolers.


    • Jim Fetzer  October 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      It’s very simple, Matt. Let me distill it into three propositions for your consideration, namely:

      (1) Alfred made a promise to me to keep his personal opinions out of The Vancouver Hearings;
      (2) by introducing Basiago’s affidavit, which is massively speculative, he violated that promise;
      (3) he indicated his “consciousness of guilt” during his conversation with Honegger and Rodin.

      This is a question of the epistemic integrity of the proceedings, which he grossly violated. OK?

    • robert  October 11, 2012 at 4:39 am

      Jim Fetzer needs to revisit WW2 rather than Nam. He should relearn the lesson of the “Bridge of the River Quay” exercise.

      In building a bridge for the Japanese in Burma, (to keep up the morale of his imprisoned troops by keeping them employed), the British General became obsessed with his bridge to the point of losing sight of his main objective, being to win the war by trying to prevent its demolition.

      Jim, do not lose sight of what the end game is. To reconvene another independent enquiry to get the evidence needed to bring the criminals responsible for the despicable acts of 9/11 in front of a court.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 5:55 am

      We are continuing to pursue indictments, Robert, where Alfred and Andrew are not going to alter the pursuit of truth and justice re 9/11.

    • duay khwaam nap theuu  October 12, 2012 at 11:46 am

      Jim, has a good set of reports been sent to the jurist in Italy yet? (I hope he has not been put off by this affair.)

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      That’s a great question. I will consult with others and decide what to do about this. Thanks for asking.

  25. Excalibur  October 10, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Jim – I am sorry but you have screwed up badly with this one my boy. Don’t waste any more time on what is very obviously a cabal agent. CLOSE AND SCRAP ALL THE VANCOUVER PROCEEDINGS rather than letting any of it stand. This should be done on the basis that some of those responsible for the catastrophe are actually interfering in the investigation process.

    Paste up, patch up, dress back and start again. Modern judges cannot reach ‘judge’ status without kneeling before the satanic entity. You don’t need a judge anyway – all you need is a Chairman and a committee to assess the evidence.

    DISTANCE YOURSELF – as well as VT – from this creature. You need to place clear blue water between yourself and this cabal prostitute and start again.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 10, 2012 at 10:31 am

      This is quite a ridiculous stance. The hearings were completely successful in exposing the atrocities of 9/11 and their cover-up:

      (1) we established that no Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon;
      (2) we established that all four “crash sites” were faked;
      (3) we established that the towers were done using nukes;
      (4) we established that the Mossad and US neo-cons did it!

      I can’t imaging how much more anyone could expect from a single conference, where this one was historic! You want us to scrap it?

      Those who adopt a more rational and less bizarre stance than Excalibur may want to review what we accomplished. Places to start:

      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”

      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”

      “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”

      “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset”

      “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and O’Brien”

      Alfred Webre had no influence over any of the presentations. His subversion was a late event that had no affect upon our findings.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  October 10, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      You’re right Jim…just keep the moonbat out…he’s purposely distracting fm the main issue…in my opinion.

    • Excalibur  October 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

      Jim – I am on your side my friend! If you now feel that Webre has had no ill effect on your investigations at the end of the day then fine. I understood that he was acting as a judge with the evidence. All I am suggesting is that any investigation needs to be focused, ruthless with the truth and unblemished. You need to quickly distance yourself from such a creature nonetheless.

      The input of those who are primarily trying to sell books; people who are away with the fairies; – and government agents bent on discrediting and misrepresenting any honest inquiry should not be tolerated.

      Do not misunderstand me Jim – I very much respect you and what you are doing. The culprits for 9/11, however, need to shake with fear when the name of an investigation is mentioned – not breathe a sigh of relief.

      I hope that you value well meant and constructive criticism.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 11, 2012 at 9:06 am

      Yes, I welcome criticism. In this instance, I have accepted the lion’s share of responsibility. My belief is that by exposing these things we can become more effective in the pursuit of 9/11 truth and justice. We are certainly doing everything we can. Many thanks!

  26. sumwoman  October 10, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Tomorrow, weather permitting, i’m going to jump into my ‘9/11 was an inside job’ tshirt and hit the streets along with my truther homies. We’ve been doing this every 11th of the month, for years. Every Sunday we meet for brunch and over the years, we have had visitors from all over.

    Used to be people would avoid us on the streets. In the summertime, just after a short 😉 meeting, we roll back out on the street and it feels like a garden party right in the center of town.

    Just the other day, the local newspaper ran a story about making some of the streets car-free. As a selling point, they mentioned, “… you’ll have a nice quiet walk along the car-free road, maybe happen upon the truthers and enjoy some interesting conversations.”

    Some of the folks we’re worried about under-covers. i told them, the best place for an under-cover is right beside us…where we have their ears.

    i’m a college drop out, late morning on sept 11 2001, i phoned my trusted nutty conspiracy wacko friend and we talked about the Bush family crime syndicate, patsies, remote controlled planes, NORAD, demolitions, mini nukes, cutting edge weapons and the coming wars.

    Keep it short, keep it funny, down deep people know something is wrong, very wrong. The state has lost a lot of its power. Used to be, what passes for mild conspiracy theories now, was enough to get your head lopped off.

    Nowadays? … LOL! Eat my web traffic!

    • robert  October 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm


      You are an inspiration.

      Someone who is willing to walk the talk.

      Keep up the fantastic work

    • markboughton  October 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm

      Don’t know if you saw my other post suggesting ‘Google Building 7’ T-shirts, etc sunwoman ? I feel Building 7 may be the weakest point, and intend to chip away at it.

      We should start a global skywriting campaign !!! (Brilliant idea No. 60394821765906879503)

      Anyone got a pilot’s licence ?

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm

      WTC-7 has been the subject of discussion FOREVER. See “This is an orange”. EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT BUILDING 7. It has not caputured the public’s attention. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon; that all of the crash sites were faked; that the Twin Towers were taken out with mini nukes; that the Mossad was acting with the US neo-cons to bring us 9/11–THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT MATTER. The rest is so much window dressing.

    • sumwoman  October 12, 2012 at 9:17 pm


      yah, wtc7… we’ve got the flyers, banners, the bumperstickers, etc,.

      if people … maybe that’s a stretch…if the herd had any sense of right and wrong, they would had questioned the whole notion of catching and convicting 19 images of Arab men in between a pizza commercial and a car commercial.

      Somewhere on YouTube, you’ll find a clip of Ehud Barak accusing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, just hours after the attack. In a sane world, that would have been enough to bring him in for questioning.

      i read somewhere online, Big Pharma was one of the biggest donors to Bush Jr’s 2000 election campaign. Shortly after Sept 11 2001, the GOV approved a bill – Big Pharma got over 3 billion dollars in federal money to hand out Prozac, and was just for the state of New York alone. Don’t know how much the rest of the country got.

      Now it’s the chemtrails which are full of nano aluminium particles. Heavy metal build up in the brain causes Alzheimer’s.

      At least now, people avoid me on the street because they don’t want to be hassled about 9/11. Soon, i’ll go up to somebody with a flyer in my hand but i’ll forget why I approached them in the first place.

      That person won’t avoid me because they will have forgotten that 9/11 even happened. We’ll look at each with wide eyed blank stares, maybe we’ll both drool a little before wandering off in separate directions.

      Thanks a bunch Robert.

      Thanks for all your work Mr.Fetzer.

      Does the mini nuke theory have a explanation for levitating cars and people? How about that hurricane off the coast?

      PS: don’t sweat too much over Webre… he’s all over the anti-chemtrail movement talking about greys and martians. I’m surprise you didn’t hear about it before. He’s a fixture on the alternative scene, almost like a mascot. It’s not a legit movement until Webre shows up to talk about exo-politics. After all, we’ve got the indo-politics all squared a way.

  27. Canuckfreedomlovers  October 10, 2012 at 8:22 am

    To err …

    Keep hammering away. This area is absolutely key, as you are fully aware. Webre is merely an unfortunate distraction. Keep you’re eye on the prize – the beautiful, immutable TRUTH.

    And you’re welcome – but it’s all of us who thank you.


  28. Canuckfreedomlovers  October 10, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Taken out of this discourse and examined as a stand alone area for discussion, time travel, life on other planets etc is not complete fantasy – your own editor, Mr Duff, has mentioned ET’s and even time travel / event manipulation in his articles. Personally, I remain open-minded. With regard to this matter though you have openly admitted that the basic mistake was trusting the guy. He obviously has his own agenda – whether he believes it as truth is down to him – everyone is entitled to their opinion – which you guys obviously respected, even though you didn’t agree with him. Formal contracts prior to attending may have helped – ditto due diligence re his actual qualifications – but ultimately you knew about his beliefs and simply believed him. Lessons learned.

    I agree with the other writer – just get all the detailed evidence out to as many people as possible – many humans still believe the establishment nonsense re 9-11 so you may as well be writing from Mars. Dratzo!


    Keep up with your work – it is the straw of truth that will ultimately break the cabal’s back.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 10, 2012 at 7:40 am

      Thanks for this very thoughtful commentary. Yes, I was attempting to respect his right to unusual beliefs, but he was not respecting our right to conduct the hearings as we saw fit. I committed a blunder in trusting him and believing he was an honorable man. We are making great strides in spite of this.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 12, 2012 at 5:27 am

      I should add that I knew the man from the Madison conference in 2007, where I invited him to speak at the suggestion of Leuren Moret. He came across as quite reasonable and very mild-mannered. I had no idea he held extraordinary views until Russell Scott raised the question.

  29. Charlotte NC Bill  October 10, 2012 at 2:53 am

    Time travel….Obama on Mars…along with aquatic dinosaurs…Oh boy…duff is right..The 9-11 truth movement is as infiltrated as the KKK in the 1950’s…( only they deserved to be )….Fetzer and Barrett are wearing the white hats….If we had the power to water-board the RIGHT PEOPLE ( Dominic Suter, Zakheim, Hauer, Silverstein etc ) all these problems would fade away..

    • lola  October 11, 2012 at 1:27 am

      Why bother water boarding them? Just keep them underwater……for a looooong time. Drown the rats.

  30. Martin Maloney  October 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    “Perhaps the most astonishing failure of the 9/11 movement has been its inability to align with the anti-war movement…”

    I think that you have it backwards, Dr. Fetzer. It’s the anti-war movement that rejects 9/11 disbelievers. A quick review of the last names of major figures in the anti-war movement might provide a clue.

    I find it curious that a camera and/or paper and a writing implement were not teleported to Mars. Wouldn’t one want to document such event with photos and/or sketches?

    Perhaps Basiago’s plesiosaur ate his homework!

  31. Allesandro  October 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm


    Sorry for all your troubles. You are trusting and that’s a good quality, and what happened is not totally your fault. We still believe and did from the beginning and will continue to the end.

    Thanks for all your efforts, and those who believe that 9/11/01 and the period directly before constitute what I firmly believe was a Coup d ‘Etat with the Supreme Court of the U.S. placing Bush ll in office. The treacherous “Plan” was well defined, established, on-line to go, from way before the phony election of 2,000. The rest of the world knows it, we know it, they know we are figuring it out, and are very worried about the consequences. Thus they have pulled out all the stops to discredit anything that comes close to what really occurred.

    No-one would go to these efforts to discredit all 9/11 believers, unless they were/are guilty and feeling the pressure.

    Rest assured that the good guys will win.

  32. LC  October 9, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    BBC: Is this a missile going through WTC-2? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEct4q4z9o&NR=1

  33. LC  October 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    George Noory is just an outright double-crosser. See my intro to him at bottom of page: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/01/now-it-can-be-told-the-real-reason-obama-was-nearly-devoured-by-carnivorous-plesiosaurs-on-mars/comment-page-1/#comment-454121

  34. lola  October 9, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Webre has always been batshit crazy. He is just a fool. Inviting him to a serious event would be like inviting Manson Family members to Thanksgiving Dinner. Forget it. I am surprised Jesse Ventura had him on his show but then he had Horowitz there too…another Manson Candidate for mental stability equivalence. Best to just avoid these wackos. They are Neutralizers. Might as well quote Bigfoot too while one is at it…or George Noorey ha ha ha ha! Naw…..George is a nice guy. Just havin’ fun there.

  35. joesigur  October 9, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    until more sheep look elsewhere for news besides the zionist media-things are limited. The zionist media won’t deal with the issue until they are convinced ppl are leaving them in droves

    • markboughton  October 9, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      I am well aware of the Zionist stranglehold on the media. After all, I live in The Land of Murdoch.
      We must strive tirelessly to find other methods.
      I have noticed increasing awareness on other forums due to the regular and insistent words of just a few with the courage to question, and to provide links which take curious sheep out of their comfort zones.

  36. markboughton  October 9, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    I don’t know why you are not concentrating more on disseminating the evidence you have already collated amongst the general public.

    It could totally disrupt the election, sink the Neo Cons and put the Obama administration on notice.

    We will have far more chance of finding out exactly how things were done if there is a greater public demand for truth, ie a real 9 11 Commission.

    This is where our energies should be directed (pun intended, just to get a little steam coming from your ears Mr Fetzer).

    Have you considered hiring a spin doctor?

    • robert  October 9, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      Absolutely Mark,

      It seems the argument here is focussed on the method of enquiry rather than on the mountain of evidence already available to start an independent investigation.

      It smacks of mischievous distraction.

      I am backing the 9/11 truth movement which has qualified people doing real work to get to the truth. I suggest more people sign the petition to give them traction.

  37. catch22  October 9, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    The important lesson, in my view, is that the tribunal approach is vulnerable and should be reevaluated.

  38. DaveE  October 9, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    The “usual suspects” expose themselves even further when they expect us to take bozos like Webre seriously. They seem to be grasping at straws, these days. The seem unaware that their arrogance and contempt for truth and decency are waking people up to their true nature, more by the minute.

    Same old broken record. Some things never change. Great work, however. It’s quite ironic that by playing defense from these pathological liars, you are actually playing offense! We all know who the liars are and you are helping to prove it.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network