I'd like to point to your signature which reads:
Originally Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein
Dr. Judy Wood is being attacked on all fronts especially by Jim Fetzer and Richard Gage.
Anybody who attacks Dr. Judy Wood's textbook is, in my opinion, a full fledged disinformation tool.
Buy WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S. , Ph.D. and empower yourself with this textbook and its evidence of how the World Trade Center was "dustified".
It's not accurate. Leaving aside Wood's history with Fetzer which has been documented, I found this review at Amazon by Fetzer praising Judy Wood's book:
Masterful argument by elmination, May 20, 2012
James H. Fetzer
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (Hardcover)
Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that appropriately functions as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done in this masterpiece has classically been referred to as a "prolegomenon", or as a prelude to further research. The word "indirect" belongs in her subtitle, since "Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" is exactly right.
She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite either. And she offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using mini or micro-nukes, although there is room for dispute as to whether or not she has actually shown that they cannot have been used.
What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go--and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds--they are all going to be measured on the basis of the stupendous accumulation of photos, graphs, diagrams and studies that she has assembled. This is an exceptional work that moves us far forward in the study of 9/11.
--James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Hardly the words of someone "attacking" Wood.
My question: why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is attacking Wood when that's obviously not true?