May I be the first to thank you for taking the time to appear here on ATS and discuss your views with our community, and for your work thus far in
exposing those aspects of the 9/11 attacks that indicate the complicity of corrupt members of authorities and private interests.
It is my sincere hope that your contributions here, augmented as they are by the collective credentials, expertise and research of the Scholars For
, will go some way towards clarifying specific aspects of the phenomenology of the event that can be relied upon by members in making
arguments against the "official" conspiracy theory.
It is my intention actually to divide my questions into two broad topical areas, which I will separate into two threads, in which I hope to call
discretely upon your expertise as a historian and philosopher
and your knowledge of the physical sciences
separately. Any further
questions that arise I shall post on another thread hopefully utilizing your capacities in both respects.
I will begin on this thread with my questions that speak to the former set of your credentials.
And my apologies in advance for the length of this post – I have attempted to formulate my questions in such a way as to highlight the specific
facets of the issue raised that I feel are interesting and conducive to fruitful discussion, and of necessity this has required me to be a bit long
winded, but please by all means speak about anything you feel is relevant in your answers!
I am sure that many here on this forum, particularly those who do not believe the official account of the events of 9/11 to be truthful or exhaustive,
have variously heard the term "conspiracy theory" used by proponents of the official account to deride or undermine the validity and/or veracity of
the arguments and evidence presented by them.
This has also obviously for some time been a convenient device used by mainstream media in particular to stigmatise and anathematise those with such
views as contradict the mainstream paradigm.
In your capacity as a senior academic in the fields of history and philosophy, could you please give comment to the above and voice your own opinions
on this? In particular, could you please make specific reference to the prevalence and importance of conspiracies in shaping world history and how
this is currently broached (if at all) in the educational system up to and beyond high school level, the reasons and mechanisms by which this term
"conspiracy theory/theorist" has become a derogatory one in the mainstream, and your views on the general validity of the dismissal WITHOUT ARGUMENT
of non-mainstream historical discussion such as this as mere "conspiracy theory"?
Although I am sure that many members here have their own understanding of the above, I believe that a person with your academic background is in a
unique position to authoritatively speak on this issue to the benefit of all here.
It is the view of many here at ATS that the 9/11 incident, given the available evidence and the known motivations, associations and actions of certain
individuals prior to and following the event, was a "false-flag"
operation conducted with the collusion of elements of the government and
certain non-governmental organisations who have long been known to have a certain imperialistic geopolitical agenda.
In many of the heated discussions that rage over the above assertion on this forum and elsewhere, it is clear that many of its opponents' dismissals
of this assertion as "mere conspiracy theory" rest upon either a complete ignorance or a willful denial of the historical precedent for such
With reference to the issue raised in question 1
then, what is your view of the importance of the ample historical precedent (specifically
implicating the US in such operations) in dispelling the "mere conspiracy theory" counter-claim voiced by opponents of the above assertion?
Given your view on this, do you believe that (again, in light of the available evidence and known behaviour and motivations of certain key
individuals) on a forum such as ATS the burden of proof currently lies with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" or with the supporters of the
The description of the individuals and groups working to shed light on the events of 9/11 and other related and unrelated events as the "truth
is in evidence in both discussion forums such as ATS and also increasingly in references made to them in the mainstream media. The
implication is that this "movement" constitutes the nucleus of activism aimed at revealing the parties that this “movement” collectively
determine to be the true culprits, and bringing them to justice.
Numerous members of ATS have expressed the opinion that there is currently an organised counter-intelligence (or “information warfare”) campaign
being conducted by parties which are embedded within the intelligence services (and/or by private companies contracted to conduct such work) to
obfuscate and undermine genuine discussion and investigation into the events of 9/11 by the use of mis/disinformation and other tactics (on internet
discussion forums for example), including the compromise
of key individuals within the "truth movement" and their subsequent use as organs of
the said mis/disinformation.
Again with your knowledge of history, could you comment on your estimation of the likelihood of this being true, making reference to historical
precedent for such operations and the role they have had in previous events of political importance? Could you include in your answer, if possible,
your views on how we can best identify such individuals in such an anonymous forum as ATS?
Thank you once again for your efforts and your time, Dr. Fetzer, and I am sure that along with myself there are many here who would be very grateful
for your insights into the above issues as they are of critical importance in almost every serious debate that occurs here at ATS, especially on the
subject of 9/11.
PS: I will post my questions concerning the scientific analysis of the physical and other phenomena of 9/11 on a separate thread for your comment
[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]
[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]