Prager > Wood. She gets credit for bringing the FEMA pictures to everyone's attention, boring a speaker as Chomsky though.
Not sure who is harder to listen to, Judy or Chuck. I am slowly coming to realise this is by design. These theories are based on analyzing (video/static) images that you believe contain fake planes. It's then simply logical that the images of buildings they fly into are manipulated. You need both inputs to blend one output. Therefore all theories are based on imagery you already deduced as (mostly) fake, so all proposals are based on a false foundation. Therefore this and other theories are houses of cards that cannot stand.All future 9/11 shows should be on media fakery. Brian Stavely, Markus Allen, Simon Shack, Phil Jayhan are all names to search if listeners want to get closer to what really happened at the WTC.
I don't quite get it, AI. You are a great listener and I appreciate your comments, but surely understanding the engineering and the physics of why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed is not supposed to be BORING(?) by design. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses. Chuck may belabor the details and be repetitive, but I certainly cannot fault the content of his presentations. I hope you will elaborate.
Jim, you didn't adequately address the much more crucial (than whether or not Chuck was boring...) issue of the from-the-top-down collapse videos and still photos being essentially FAKE.Once a savvy 9/11 researcher discovers the massive image-fakery that has been circulated regarding 9/11, it should become obvious that all the "physics-based" analysis in the world about exactly HOW the towers collapsed, supposedly from the top down, is ultimately POINTLESS -- because such analysis is inevitably going to be based on faulty, deceptive, ARTIFICIAL depictions of the events being analysed.As Simon Shack has explained (again and again and again...) there were massive clouds of strategically generated smoke that were used to cloak the actual, from-the-bottom-up demolition of the towers, executed in synchronization with the (perp-participant) TV networks' showing us images from a high-tech, computer-animation SIMULATION (originally commissioned for wargames use) of the towers amazingly, mysteriously exploding in a top-down collapse.Yes, just as the images we were shown of full-size Boeings "magically" penetrating the towers were obviously CGI creations, so too were the subsequent images we saw of the towers exploding and collapsing from the top down.Back in the late 1990s the military was already contracting for, and sometimes even touting, their growing ability to "simulate news events and news coverage" for wargames and psychological warfare purposes. Their subsequent 9/11 "Arab Terror" simulation was pretty ragged (with some really impossible physics on display) but it still WORKED sufficiently to convince and confuse an unsuspecting public and to rev up the war machine to full tilt.Now, imagine how much more sophisticated and convincing the military's simulation skills have become a decade later -- as they are regularly being used to create so-called "activist" YouTube videos of ghastly atrocities allegedly carried out by each Mideast regime (and opponent of Israel and the Banksters) targeted for toppling (by NATO-assisted "rebels") in the contrived and manipulated "Arab Spring".
Man, Andy you are going to send me down another rabbit hole.... thanks! Jim, I think there is something to this perspective of 9/11. We truly have been bamboozled in ways we still do not fully comprehend. It sounds like you've had some issues with Jayhan and Shack in the past, which is unfortunate if that is true. I wish you guys could all get together and figure this out.
Thanks Andy for saving me the time to reiterate my point. Physics lessons don't apply to cartoons.
Further, I have learned from SeptembercluesDOTinfo that many so called 911 experts are difficult to listen to or follow by design, so as to make anyone who is curious about the facts of the day to simply stop listening and move on. Just another element of the greatest psy-op of our time.
So am I "difficult to listen to or follow by design"? Give me a break. There is some complete rubbish in this comment thread and, when even smart people like AI make remarks like these, it causes me a lot of concern. And they are not the worst here!
How refreshing to read these comments. I think we are finally reaching breaking point regarding the realisation of the actual fakeness levels of everything 9/11.(but unfortunately I fear it may be too late). Jim has been informed on numerous occasions (by myself, here, and others elsewhere) as to the fake nature of ALL collapse video but he still insists on shows like todays. He even had a guest, Evelien Gilbert, detail the hows and the whos in their recent 'Storyboarding 9/11' (even though she herself failed to carry the implications of her understanding through to their most logical and supported conclusions). Jim also has been informed on numerous occasions as to the fake nature of the vast majority of victims, but he still insists, along with the likes of Kevin Barrett, that 3000 prople really died that day. I am afraid now that I am beginning to believe that Jim is not as genuine as he comes across, and that something is seriously wrong with his whole picture - I am sorry to have to say this but what other conclusion can I come too. There are strong reasons why all incriminating indications of government complicity in major events over the years have been made so blatant and accessible. This is not the form of master criminals. Anything obvious in terms of incriminating evidence was meant to be obvious.Over the last century, using federal reserve (1913-2012) fake money, they have bought up the world. Using the U.S. military as their frontmen/bulldogs, they have carved up the world. It is now time for the destruction of both, as was always the plan.9/11 was a (completely faked) symbolic 'kick-off' to the beginning of the endgame that involved the pillaging of the treasury, leading to the collapse of the dollar, and ultimately culminating in the destruction of the U.S. itself.The U.S. was always meant to be destroyed from within, and shortly now, IMO, information on the 'official conspiracy' version of 9/11, JFK etc. will be released by the MSM, and revolution must swiftly follow. Combined with the timely collapse of the dollar, the destruction of the U.S. as we know is assured.Please comment Jim, as time is short. It is 11 years after 9/11, and 11 is very important to those responsible for orchestrating/fabricating our reality over the last century and beyond.JFK's death was also faked BTW http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127.html?s=56e577be76f3c6c3089cebb64e420429& , and all the obvious incriminating evidence for government conspiracy was deliberately put in place to be easily unearthed. Oliver Stone is an insider. No-one has done more to highlight U.S. government complicity in (non) events like JFK and 9/11 than Jim Fetzer.So the question is Jim, 'Are you a 'useful idiot' or are you an insider (like Richard Gage, Judy Wood, Dylan Avery etc. etc.). I am sorry to be so blunt, but time really is really short now, and before this year is out, all finally comes to pass.And who is behind everything? Well the Answer is ROME and it's age-old and now more powerful than ever Empire. They have a huge club worldwide, and you are either a member or you are not. And All the top players in societies worldwide are members. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread564758/pg1The power seats have now moved to the East. The West has always been pencilled in for detruction (excepting the independant principalities like the City of Lndon, Vatican City etc.) before rebuiling and re-integration into (at long last) their One World Empire.Chemtrails come into their own this year, when the 'sound of silence' weaponry upgrade, Silencio - (remember Mulholland Drive?) is released on the populice with a vengence.God help us all. Prepare in every way you can.
"Jim has been informed"! What does that mean? Someone sent me THEIR OPINION about something far fetched? Do I have to point out that THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE! And it is a nice example of begging the question by assuming that you are right and I wrong while committing an ad hominem that functions as a smear. Give this some thought, please!"God help us all", indeed! So now not only is all of the video of the Twin Towers destruction fake but the death of JFK is also fake and I am supposed to be some kind of "useful idiot" for not believing this drivel? I am sorry, but comments like these are beyond belief. One of us may be an idiot, but it ain't me. I can't believe I am reading rubbish like this here.I collaborated with one of the physicians who was present when JFK was treated in Trauma Room #1, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to view the body as it was being wrapped in sheets and placed into the bronze casket. He closed JFK's eyes. We know the man was murdered and we know how it was done. Does anyone believe this guy?I am sorry to be so blunt, but this kind of garbage belongs in a trash bin, not here masquerading as serious comments on one of my interviews. That someone should write this stuff at this late date is simply dumbfounding to me. I really don't have time for non-sense. I will consider inviting Simon onto the show, however, so we can discuss his research. I think the destruction of the Twin Towers was virtually impossible to fake, but I will be fascinating to learn why he thinks so.
Well, Able, I wouldn't go so far as to assume that Chuck is a perp-paid disinfo agent just because he seems to accept all the tower-collapse imagery unquestioningly. I'm more suspicious of the bizarrely behaved, foul-mouthed "Dr. Wood" character in that regard, but I still recognise the possibility that she might be sincere in her total trust of the fakery too.A great deal of intense thought, hard work and verbose explanation has been employed over the past decade by all sorts of self-styled "tower-collapse analysts," both credentialed and amateur, some absolutely brilliant and others frightfully dense or even outright duplicitous (think NIST). And as these people have become "wedded to their work" it becomes increasingly difficult for them to accept any questioning of the basic assumptions (in this case, the integrity of the tower-collapse imagery) on which their years of investigation and theorising have been founded.
Pshea, your apocalyptic vision is even broader and more frightening than my own paranoid worldview, but I must admit that the occultic "revelation of the method," or "making manifest of the hidden" social-destruction mechanism that you confidently predict (the perps' eventual, intentional, public confession of ALL their hideous deceptions -- so as to violently destabilise the USA) makes for a very compelling movie plot or alternate-reality future.IF you are correct (and that fantasised rabbit trail about JFK faking his own death, which originated in the pages of the uber-incredible Weekly World News, is a needless distraction from your more plausible points) -- then we indeed are all doomed to a boot-in-the-face future even worse than propheised by Orwell. So let's give up, kick back, and watch the fascinating horror show to come... until the roof caves in, the bottom falls out, and we sink and drown in the abyss.But seriously, if you are still reading these comments, Jim -- it's way past time for you to directly acknowledge and confront the MASSIVE fakery of 9/11 (including all those bogus victims with morphed memorial portraits and unverifiable identities). Or do you WANT us to suspect, as Pshea obviously does, that you are one of the perps too?Say it ain't so, Jim. Say it ain't so.
I I never really thought Chuck was a shill per se, but I think odd personalities with odd deliveries may be highlighted or promoted to help distract and or discredit. I've always held Jim in high regard for his intelligent conversations and great guests and hope there is a good reason for him not pursuing total media fakery on 9/11.As I've told him it fits the KISS principle perfectly and also relieves me greatly knowing 3000 people did not die as promoted.
Here's a very revealing flashback for Dr. Fetzer to study closely -- from "America's Finest News Source":http://www.theonion.com/articles/fbi-terrorist-attack-on-golden-gate-bridge-may-hav,2737/
Andy. Go through the excellent 'JFK faked death' link I provided and you may not be as quick to write off as ridiculous that now certain (in my mind) reality. JFK was an elite, and the elite have always stuck together. That Oswalds death was faked also, as well as that of JFK's lover Mary Pinchot Meyer (as proven in the same 50 page Culto link) should indicate to you the reach and depths of these gross deceptions, and the extents and interconnectivity of all major psy-op and other events of the last 60 odd years of U.S. history.Look at a plan view of the WTCs. WTC1 and 2 represent (in 3D) the double lines of the dollar symbol, and the rest of the buildings (in 2D) form the 'S'. Clear as day once you see it.And what occured at the WTC? A crash/demolition!9/11 was a symbolic representation for the beginning of the endgame that is the crashing or destruction of the almighty dollar, culminating in the destruction of the U.S. itself. All 'obvious' (U.S. government (and zionist/Israeli)) incriminating evidence was made purposely 'obvious' for very sound and specific reasons, as I related previously.The criminally outrageous and overt nature of the last 11 years of U.S. worldwide bull-dogging has not been undertaken without a certain endgame/scenario in mind/place.If you really wish to escape what is to come, move East (China, India, Kazakhstan etc.) or to a country that has not been exposed to chemtrailing (of which there are many).Outside of that, I don't know what the individual can do.All i can do is hope to high hell that I am wrong about all this.I too eagerly await a comprehensive response from Jim on the issues raised in this comments section (but I won't be holding my breath).Spotlight is on you Jim. Time to shine.I was such a fan, and was so grateful to you.
Here's even more evidence that I am some kind of "op":9/11 and Zion: What was Israel's role?", by Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/22/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/"9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset" by Susan Lindauer (with Jim Fetzer)http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-confessions-of-a-former-cia-asset/"9/11 J'accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O'Brien" by Jim Fetzerhttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-jaccuse-zelikow-cheney-rumsfeld-bush-and-obrien-2/#comment-449918
I'm open to exploring the claims made here. Where can I view the best evidence for fakery of the footage of the towers' destruction?Andy Tyme wrote, "Simon Shack has explained (again and again and again...) there were massive clouds of strategically generated smoke that were used to cloak the actual, from-the-bottom-up demolition of the towers..."What evidence does Shack provide for smoke, its strategic generation, and bottom-up demolition? (photos and film being obviously inadmissable)
"Simon Shack has explained (again and again and again...) there were massive clouds of strategically generated smoke that were used to cloak the actual, from-the-bottom-up demolition of the towers..."The aftermath of the Towers' destruction was not faked video but real still photos, and the rubble pile was way too small and short to indicate a conventional controlled [gravity] demolition of 110 story buildings.If the specific destruction-in-progress videos that were interpreted and studied as top-down destructions can be verified or unverified, then of course that should happen and happen now. I do not know who could do this and how it could be done. Doing this, if it were possible, would be something I would think Dr. Fetzer would consider of utmost and primary importance in keeping with Dr. Fetzer's advice to "investigate all available alternatives" in a complete and open manner for the scientific method to be applied to all aspects of 9-11.Simon Shack has many interesting ideas that I think should be taken seriously, but he sort of fires them in random fashion, hit and run, and does not ever offer to or endeavor to research any of his ideas himself, to say nothing of his never forthrightly identifying himself.Not only does the "3,000 people were killed" statement not appear to be substantiated, I have often heard that "eleven hundred bodies were vaporized" and there are absolutely no remains, even of the most minute size, to be found. I have never found any proof for that statement either.What exactly happened to the Twin Towers is a subject I have withdrawn from, for the reason that we just do not have enough solid data, much less anything that could rightly be called "evidence." We can do a good job though of saying for sure what did not happen to the Towers. If any real data and evidence were to present itself at this stage of the game, I would be extremely suspicious of it.The whole issue of video veracity is compounded by what I understand Dr. Fetzer's current stance is regarding hologram planes at each Tower. Sounds like accepting that hypothesis, even in the scientific tentative and fallible way, throws all of the videos we saw on TV on 9-11 into limbo. What is now being held regarding those videos regarding not only their method of inserting a plane on the video but also about the realness of the background buidling destruction-in-progress part of each video? The guy in Britain who researched the hologram hypothesis said he had 50 or 60 video clips to work with regarding planes going toward each Tower. I wonder about that large number since so few unique videos were shown on TV and also in light of Simon Shack's idea that there was a device in use that day, or most of that day, that prevented people taking videos. (Also, September Clues video showed “nose out” and vertical black line outlines of buildings and those are features of faked videos that I do not think holograms could accomplish.)Not much can be proven scientifically regarding what happened to the Towers and I wonder if that is where we should be investing our diminishing 9-11 truth seeking resources at this time. Same goes for Building 7 stuff and calling for a new investigation.
The aftermath of the Towers' destruction was not faked video but real still photos, and the rubble pile was way too small and short to indicate a conventional controlled [gravity] , bottom-up demolition of 110 story buildings.If the specific destruction-in-progress videos that were interpreted and studied as top-down destructions can be verified or unverified, then of course that should happen and happen now. I do not know who could do this and how it could be done. Doing this, if it were possible, would be something I would think Dr. Fetzer would consider of utmost and primary importance in keeping with Dr. Fetzer's advice to "investigate all available alternatives" in a complete and open manner for the scientific method to be applied to all aspects of 9-11. Simon Shack has many interesting ideas that I think should be taken seriously, but he sort of fires them in random, hit and run, fashion and does not ever offer to or endeavor to research any of his ideas himself, to say nothing of his never forthrightly identifying himself.Not only does the "3,000 people were killed" statement not appear substantiated, I’ve often heard that "eleven hundred bodies were vaporized" and there are absolutely no remains, even of the most minute size, and that also appears an unsubstantiated assertion.What exactly happened to the Twin Towers is a subject I have withdrawn from for the reason that we just do not have enough solid data, much less anything that could rightly be called "evidence." We can and have done a solid job of saying for sure what did not happen to the Towers and we can all agree they aren’t there anymore. If any real data and evidence were to present itself at this stage of the game, I would be extremely suspicious of it.The whole issue of video veracity is compounded by what I understand Dr. Fetzer's current stance is regarding hologram planes at each Tower. Sounds like accepting that hypothesis, even in the scientific tentative and fallible way, throws into limbo all of the videos we saw on TV on 9-11 as well as videos that were used for all 9-11 truth study by researchers. What is now being held by Dr. Fetzer, our guide here, regarding all of those videos regarding not only their method of inserting a plane on the video but also about the realness of the background building destruction-in-progress part of each video? [ I KNOW that the most famous video of the destruction in progress of Building 7 was a real video, not faked, and it certainly appears to be a conventional controlled demolition, though I do not think that is solid reason to presuppose that the Towers were destroyed in the exact same manner. ]The guy in Britain who researched the hologram hypothesis said he had 50 or 60 video clips to work with regarding planes going toward each Tower. I wonder about that large number since so few unique videos were shown on TV and also in light of Simon Shack's idea that there was a device in use that day, or most of that day, that prevented people taking videos. (Also, September Clues video showed “nose out” and vertical black line outlines of buildings and those are features of faked videos that I do not think holograms could accomplish.)Not much can be proven scientifically regarding what happened to the Towers and I wonder if that is where we should be investing our diminishing 9-11 truth seeking resources at this time. Same goes for Building 7 stuff and calling for a new investigation.
Jeannon, you appear quite sincere in your criticism, but also under informed. Simon (Hytten) "Shack" has identified himself by his real name, has written extensively about his family history, and has even posted several photos of his villa in Rome, where he often invites serious 9/11 researchers (even me) to visit (although I haven't been able to accept as of yet).He has also made a very strong case for many of the destruction-aftermath "photos" of the WTC to be fake, as well as images of their "plane strikes" and "collapses".Rather than initially get bogged down in the lengthy and sometimes arcane discussions/arguments on his web forum, cluesforum.info, I recommend you first do a thorough examination of the summary documents (particularly his associate Max "Hoi" Konrardy's amazing "Vicsim Report") and key videos hosted on Simon's other website, septemberclues.info -- and the same goes for the good (and intellectually open-minded... usually) Dr. Fetzer, if he is still reading these blog comments.
Andy,Of course you know that I believe all four of the crash sites were fabricated and have explained that many places:“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/And the presentation I gave (with Nick) in Seattle prior to The Vancouver Hearings:Part 1http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320Part 2http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320Reply"Fakery and Fraud in the 'Official Account' of 9/11"http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jim-fetzers-vancouver-powerpoint/So I am not averse to the use of fakery--fake planes and/or fake videos--on 9/11. But the very idea that ALL OF THE VIDEOS AND PHOTOS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS ARE FAKES is just a bit more of a stretch for me.
Well, thanks Andy, for telling me their real names. Also it is interesting about the claim that the aftermath still photos of the rubble are also faked. I guess I could search for that info but am not much inclined to because I already know how he supports his similar claims regarding the videos and that has always lead to a dead end.I read and am quite familiar with the VicSim document on first publication on the web years ago. I think Max Konrardy first published it years ago on Killtown's forum.I am indeed sincere in searching for 9-11 truth. However, I never pursued in depth September Clues discussions and related forums and sites because, I like many others, perceived an intollerant combative tone from these two fellows from the very beginning. They never engaged reasonable questions and discussions. Their schtick appeared consistently to call anyone who did outright and fully accept their ideas terms equal to "a fraud" or "an idiot." Naturally, many people, many of whom were definitely intrigued and interested in their initial ideas, decided to just stay away from them since they were not truly open minded in an real sense of the term. I am also quite familiar with claims and statements and assertions Simon Hytten has made. Many of them can only be described as "fantastic" or "incredible" or "way out there." But to me that is OK. They must be investigated and explored as much as is possible. Mr. Hytenn has not shown much real effort to reasonably research his claims and he issues his claims in an accusatory and devisive tone.I do not know the nature of the dispute(s) Dr. Fetzer has had directly or indirectly with these two people but that too has apparently obstructed the open nature of 9-11 truth seeking under Dr. Fetzer's tutelage on these particular issues.I personally feel that if there is a way to ascertain whether the important videos real or faked, then that should be done, and I would wonder why it has not been done long ago. Think how much wasted time and effort would have been avoided if the videos were indisputably and accurately judged to be fakes.Even establishing that the videos have been faked does not tell us anything about how the Towers were or were not destroyed. They still could have been destroyed top down even though all the videos we have show that in faked format.There are so many facts that have been clearly proven, and many more that have almost been proven, and I think at this time we need to focus on, and proclaim and publish widely and repeatedly, those facts even though none of those facts even approach proving exactly how the Towers were destroyed.Proving that no or almost no people in the Towers were killed is something that involves getting much more data from the government to even begin to check and show the data to be false or dead-end. Fat chance for getting complete and accurate data from the perps! That is why I do not devote much time to pursusing that important area of 9-11 truth.
Jim,Maybe I wasn't clear: Chuck is difficult to follow and listen to. You on the other hand are my favorite host for your candid nature and wide range of guests, and tackling of difficult questions. While it would be great we all believed the same thing (but boring), the vast lot here in this thread are hoping you put your vast knowledge to work on what WE THINK may be the most likely explanation at the WTC, namely total video fakery. Since it appears we will never KNOW, since our leadership will never apparently investigate themselves or THEIR SUPERIORS ("them"), we look to active participants like yourself to help. Even if I thought you were deliberately steering away from total media fakery, I certainly don't toss your whole research career out of hand. The whole JFK assassination is new to me, but since I can't trust anything the media puts out, I can't dismiss it out of hand either. We've been fooled too many times.
There have been several episodes of Real Deal about the fake 9/11 victims.
Shack has, IMHO, taken a rather severe "burden of proof" stance on every single one of the available photos, videos, and victim bios -- sort of like a defense attorney would mount in a criminal trial. In other words, he challenges the prosecution's witnesses and evidence at every opportunity, repeatedly saying to the jury something like: "How do we know that ANY of this evidence and witness testimony is genuine, accurate, and has not been tampered with?" "Just look at all the suspicious flaws, logical and scientific contradictions, blatant examples of forgery, and obvious lies the other side has already inflicted on us!" "So... is there any reason not to doubt EVERYTHING they have presented -- without scrupulously testing it for verification first?"
If you listen to my shows, you must also view the slides to understand what exactly I am talking about as much of the information is technical but most of Jr. High, High School level. If you are listening to my show without the great, great advantage of viewing the slides I can see where you may think I am boring. My shows are specifically designed to be audio and visual slides oriented as we discuss them in detail. Not viewing the slides as you listen is inappropriate and can be most confusing, especially if you are not scientifically oriented and with a scientific background.All, please view the slides with the audio to get the mostest out of my presentations which number at least 16, now, with more to come...Chuck Booldwyn
The videos and photos of WTC-7 and the Twin Towers show the complete sides blowing dark smoke out from top to bottom, which is the Thermate boiling the columns down in a prep manner before the high explosives and mini nukes are applied.Why would that aspect of the photos and video be faked?Mr. Shack has completely mis-interpreted these photos and videos of top to bottom vaporized steel sphere and Aluminum Oxide very forceful smoking ejections.Mr. Shack has missed the whole picture as the ejections, mentally and analysis-wise, when completely over his non-scientific head/brain.....
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: