|
The damage that Fetzer is doing The damage that Fetzer is doing
By Gerard Holmgren
August 23, 2006
The distortion of the stand down issue is a case study of the enormous damage being done by blowhard plagiarist idiots like Fetzer.
Lets have an overview of the situation. We now know that there weren't any hijacked planes, so there wasn't any stand down order because there didn't need to be. But that's not the point I'm making here.
Back when everyone still thought there were planes, the stand down research played a vital role in peeling back the first layer and showing that the official story was impossible to believe. I believe that this was an icebreaker which inspired many others to dig deeper.
The author's - Jared Israel and Ilarion Bykov - have done little on Sept 11 since , but they still have a place as very significant figures in getting things started.
Their research - in so far as went - was brilliant. Their only mistake - understandable at the time - was that having proved that four hijacked planes couldn't possibly fly around for that long without being intercepted had normal procedures been followed - was to assume that the plane story was true and that the military had been stood down, rather than also consider the possibility that there simply weren't any hijacked planes.
So what value does their research still have today, now that we know that the reason that there was no air force response was because there was nothing to respond to ?
1.It still has back up value in that some people who are too closed minded to accept some of the more comprehensive evidence, might at least get that part of it, so that at least they'll know that something is wrong with the official story.
2.It provides an excellent example of how to think critically, how to gather information, and how to present it. I studied their site to develop my own techniques and although I don't necessarily agree with them on everything, I still regard their site as excellent tuition by example for anyone wishing to learn how to bust bullshit. It encourages critical thinking, which is far more important than spoonfeeding people information without helping them to understand how they can work things out for themselves.
3.It is important to maintain the historical record of exactly what research was done when and by whom ? Why ? Because the subsequent cover up by the mainstream media, the alternative media, the so called political opposition and the untruth movement is now as big an issue as the attacks themselves. It is vital that we retain a record of who knew, said and did what and when. This is why full accreditation of the original research is almost as important as the information itself. For example, how would you feel if John Kerry was suddenly re-invented as an anti-war hero who had vehemently and relentlessly opposed the Iraq war from the beginning ? And ran for Prez again on that basis ?
Would you shrug and say " it doesn't matter who first realized that war was wrong. If he's against it, I'll vote for him" ?
4. Good research, even if found in retrospect to have missed an important foundation of the analysis is always useful in it's own right for the purpose of general public education.
So, my position is that I still promote Israel and Bykov's research - subject to the qualifications of what has been subsequently uncovered.That way, all bases are covered.
The bottom line is that either you think the issue of lack of air force response is worth pointing out or you don't. If you think it is, then do it properly.
It needs to be promoted through direct promotion of the original research, not through distorted inaccurate, watered down plagiarism from an idiot like Fetzer who tries to erase the not only the true facts but also the historical record of how long the general issue has been in the public domain.
By attempting to erase the research of Israel and Bykov - which was published between Sept 2001 and Jan 2002 - and fraudulently claim the distorted version as his own work, appearing years later,as the original, Fetzer is not only distorting the facts but erasing the fact that everyone and their dog should have known about this by mid 2002 at the latest. (Before Fetzer had been heard of BTW)
Fetzer is providing cover for almost the entirely criminal elite to say "we didn't know", profess outrage at this "new" information and hang out a few patsies.
He is providing cover for people who knew perfectly well in 2002 that the official story was a lie to suddenly become the new heroes to lead us on the next disastrous deception =- this one done in the name of 911"truth".
The proliferation of absolute bullshit, masquerading as "911truth" goes hand in hand with one of the more stupid political slogans I've heard.
"Anyone but Bush".
There seems to be an idea that any old bullshit will do as long as it accuses the official story of being a lie.
"Any bullshit story except the official one."
Good researchers like Israel and Bykov have been smothered by the crap of charlatans like Fetzer,opportunistically trading on the above quoted idea.
- If* one wants to promote the stand down evidence at all, then one has no excuse to not promote the original high quality research as it first appeared all those years ago. As an example of legitimate promotion of the research of others, you can see my page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html
where I simply link directly to the original articles by Israel and Bykov, merely introducing the articles with a brief comment in order to give the reader an idea of why they need to read the articles.
I have consistently done this whenever I promote the research of others. Where I have done original research which adds to a groundbreaking concept pioneered by others, then I begin by acknowledging and establishing what I am building from.
For example, in June and Oct 2002 I published two very important articles proving that no big plane hit the pentagon.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/physical.html
These articles were genuinely groundbreaking in that they dug up material and provided analysis which was completely original. Nevertheless, the basic insight - that no big plane hit the pentagon - was not my original work, but was brought to my attention by Thierry Meyssun, and I always made it clear that I was building on that.
Fetzer on the other hand has added nothing new. Zilch, zip, diddly squat, zero, naught, nothing, the big O , a big fat donut.
His research contribution is non existent, bugger all, a whole number less than 1.
This is OK if one simply wants to promote and distribute and argue the case for the research of others. There are plenty of people who restrict themselves to that and do good work. When I first started, it was my only aim, and my research happened more or less by accident, because I wanted to plug holes in what was known. A large part of my activity still involves distributing, arguing, promoting and generally making known research with which I had nothing to do with.
If you want to do this, the rules are simple.
1. Learn the subject well and represent the research accurately. Don't just make stuff up to try to make yourself look important.
2. Where possible always credit the original work. In forums where this isn't possible , then at least don't lie in actively claiming it to be your own work.
3. Don't cherry pick from other researchers, plagiarizing whatever suits you as a cover to attack the rest of the work of those same people.
Fetzer breaks all of these rules.
Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism and disinformation.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/scholars.html
He is a blatant plagiarist and cherry picker, a worthless cowardly parasite who attaches himself to the work of others, steals it, distorts it beyond value and then arrogantly issues edicts to the very same people who he stole his research from to get out of his way.
He also acts as chief protector for Steven Jones, who's behavior is identical. And for David Ray Griffin, who is more subtle and sophisticated in how he goes about things, but is still playing the same game.
The result is the good quality research - like that of Israel and Bykov is being drowned in a sea of distortion, smothered by the babble of dishonest, incompetent , stupid ,embarrassing idiots like Fetzer and Jones.
And what little truth emerges from it unscathed is being distorted into a dangerous double think cult.
We can have no plane hitting the pentagon *and* Andrews air base being stood down. We can have no Arab hijackers * and* missed warnings in relation to them.
And then, their fraudulent claims to be "researchers" and "truth heroes" are used as the platform from which to attack the most important fact of all - the one which busts everything open - that there weren't any planes, and that the whole stupid story was sold to the public by showing us a cartoon on TV and sticking the label "news" on it.
|
