James Fetzer: Questions?

Mr Fetzer welcome to ATS...and thankyou for taking time out of your schedule to come and speak to us. I have a few relatively simple questions that I believe out Government has not answered adequetly.

First, it was reported that numerous civilian and foreign person(s) within the WTC were warned upwards of Four hours before the attacks via Instant Messeges. Can you substantiate this claim? And if so, how does this change the offical position of the UNited States Government?

Second, the Pentagon. Why wasn't the window broken? Why was the hole cylindrical? etc? there are numerous problems with the offical story of what happened at the Pentagon. Personally I do not belive that a 757 hit the pentagon. What theories if any do you have in regards to the plausibility of a 757 being able to get that low to the ground and preform the maneuvers similar to those purportedly achieved by the hijacker.

Thirdly, in regards to comments made by the president, "No one could have anticpated this..." seeing as these were almost the same comments he made after the Katrina Disaster it is not illogical to assume that they did know and either did nothing about it out of pride and stupidity or they did nothing so as to incite fear. Do you have any physical evidence showing either A) That senior Adminstration officals were cognizant of the attack before it occured or B) that Officals played key roles in either bringing about the attack or in the planning of the attack?

On a less serious note, the Lone Gunmen, a spin off of the Wildy popular X-Files aired an episode in which Government officals rammed Remote controlled airplanes into the WTC....other than being a stark coincedence....have you or your team found anyother "odd" coincedences in the WTC attacks?

Thank you again for your time and I look forward to reading your response.

David Ray Griffin has a chapter on adanced notice in his book, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS, to which I defer in relation to the first of your questions. It would have been aeronautically impossible for a commercial plane like a 757 flying at high speed to get as close to the ground as the official government account requires. PLUS a large plane could not have entered such a small hole. If it had hit there, the quanities of debris would have been enormous. But instead we have no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, no tail--not even any engines! The smooth, green, and unblemished lawn is the smoking gun of the Penagon. Not only would it have been massively disrupted if the plane had been able to come in low to the ground, but if it had come in at an angle, it would have created a massive crater. So, either way, the lawn would have had to have been seriously damaged. But it is not. In addition, neither the five frames nor the two videos show a 757 hitting the building. If a 757 had hit the building, it would have been conspicuous in those videos. But it is not there, as even Bill O'Reilly acknowledged when he showed one of them on Fox. So it is simply absurd, in my judgment, to dispute the finding that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I am therefore extremely distrustful of those who continue to support the government on this point, which is among those on which it is most vulnerable. I like Norman Maneta's testimony about Cheney's performance at the bunkder beneath the White House during 9/11. Michael Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON lays out a powerful case for Cheney as the key player in the events of 9/11. I believe that he is right.