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 email@example.com
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.
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.
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:
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:
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
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:
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.
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:
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
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.
1. MY LETTERS TO JIM FETZER AND TO ANDY BASIAGO DATED FEB 23, 2012 ABOUT INCLUDING THE BASIAGO AFFIDAVIT IN THE 9/11 VANCOUVER HEARINGS.
2. MY LETTER OF APRIL 30, 2012 TO JIM FETZER DISCUSSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE BASIAGO EVIDENCE TO 9/11, AFTER I HAD BEEN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE 9/11 TRIBUNAL.
THESE ARE A SAMPLE. I COULD SUBMIT MORE,.
NOW MY QUESTION TO YOU AND FETZER IS:
1. WHEN ARE YOU BOTH GOING TO START TO BE HONEST ABOUT THE TRUTH OF ANDREW D. BASIAGO, QUANTUM ACCESS & THE 9/11 VANCOUVER TRIBUNAL AND STOP HARASSING THE TRIBUNAL AND OUR WITNESSES WITH FALSE ALLEGATIONS?
IN LIGHT AND IN TRUTH, ALFRED 😉
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
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:
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.
James Fetzer firstname.lastname@example.org
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:
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 <email@example.com> 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.
Posted by Jim Fetzer 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.