Monday, January 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(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:
---
I used to chew the fat regularly with Mark Bilk, who is the webmaster for the Taking Aim Radio research archive of my old friends Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone, see http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html. Jim mentioned Mark, a.k.a. Cosmic Penguin, as one of the people who continues to attack him. Mark seems to be a decent guy, but the only way he can see to keep his feet on the ground is to indulge in a huge dose of paranoia about most of the 9/11 community. I'd be prone to the same weakness if my thinking weren't grounded in logic and science - which is why I spend so much time at The Real Deal. We're very fortunate to have in our community a level-headed, but outside-the-box, thinker such as Jim Fetzer.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who hasn't examined the support for Khalezov should see http://ac31.blogspot.com/2011/09/support-ing-evidence-for-dimitri.html
ReplyDeleteJim, you didn't hear Dimitri Khalezov when he explained that the explosion goes up to a maximum height and in the process pulverizes [a Standard English word that MEANS "dustify"] the structure that it has passed through. If any of the building collapsed from the top down, it was a few inches of the outer surface of the building curtain and the spire of the South Tower.
Don, tritium's half-life of 12-1/2 years means that 1/2 of the original amount would be there after 12-1/2 years and 1/8 since the WTC groundbreaking in 1966. All the talk about blast radius is relevant only to an ABOVE GROUND detonation, not the detonation of the 77-meter-deep device Khalezov has described, which sends superheated debris UPWARD at supersonic speed, see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Nuclear_Demolition
Would Gordon Duff consent to an interview and give a defense of Dimitri Khalezov?
Khalezov's theory doesn't match the gross observable evidence. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out. Big underground nukes can't account for that. Not to mention that a hydrogen bomb buried for 30 years isn't likely to work very well if at all. Nukes were designed to last 20-25 years.
DeleteIf 2 150 KT bombs were detonated at the WTC site the slurry wall or "bathtub" would have been destroyed and Lower Manhattan would have been flooded from the Hudson River.
There were underground nukes used on 9/11 but they were not 150 KT.
But at least Khalezov has a theory to evaluate unlike Judy Wood....
I don't know whether to call Khalezov's contribution a theory since he claims that it's the report of what's contained in Soviet documents; but perhaps I will, since it's conjectural whether the relevant documents are correct or even exist. Khalezov does have an explanation of why the destruction seems to have been top-down, and the destruction's intrinsically inside-out. It's plausible that the nukes could have been serviced during the 35-year period from 1966. Khalezov's theory has the beauty of simplicity, and it offers a plausible connection with the Pentagon hit. The bathtub is not a problem for the theory since the explosion would have sent the pulverizing debris upward (there was no horizontal vector); a hole in the middle of the bathtub with a diameter of 30 meters accommodated this upward jet while leaving the retaining walls intact. This article confirms the hole but confounds it with the minor cracks in the retaining wall: http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/20029/workers-rush-to-repair-huge-hole-in-wtc--bathtub- Longer interview with Khalezov here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAV_BUQoGBw The web of intrigue linking the neocons, the Israeli state, and the U.S. Nazi underground (the Bushes et al.) complicates the puzzle so much that it requires a top logician such as Jim Fetzer working with still-breaking research* to sort it out; but Gordon Duff is no slouch, either, and he thinks Khalezov is on the level. *--such as the Collateral Damage 911 report, see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Collateral_Damage_911#The_War_Chest
DeleteJames you are the subject of a disinformation campaign conducted by friends of jw. they've targeted you since the beginning
ReplyDeleteI think it is safe now to assume that Judy Wood is the hub in a Government program to infiltrate and control the 911 truth movement. Obviously her book is ment to be the referense evidense, which means the photos are approved from the government to be publicised. I was always curious how she got all those photos. And it is interesting that she reacts aggressively when other photos are made public.
ReplyDeleteJudy says herself that she cant give a theory for what happened on 911 because of laws regulating how psyops are performed, she says that herself, amazing.
But why arw Santilli and others so sloppy?
Santilly comes across as deeply frustrated and sick of the charade, he doesent even try to make sense, he is just barely doing his job, under protest almost. Maybe he is a 'good' guy deep inside being forced to do this dirty work. I cannot explain his behaviour any other way.
Also this hologram business fits in perfectly with dew, another magical technology that there is no evidence it exists now or twn years ago. Supposedly supported by official radar readings handed to a researcher in holographic plane nonsense.
That's an interesting take on Santilli - they're forcing him to do the dirty work. That does make some sense. He doesn't seem to too thrilled with having to debate us in the Amazon thread that isn't read widely except for to quote Santilli "the minds of 4 people who stumble onto this 3000+ psy-op thread."
DeleteIf you listen to the shows he does with Wood he really kisses her butt. It appears that they own him. Since it's important to Judy to attack Fetzer he attacks Fetzer. Judy wants him posting on Amazon to attack the rest of us so he posts on Amazon.
You can tell that Pete wasn't even that interested in 9/11 until a few months ago and now he's on a rampage. How much of that rampage is coming from him vs. being inspired by Judy is an excellent question.
Listen to this Don, this roundtable with Judy Wood and some other disinfo agents-infiltrators.
DeleteThey try their best to argue that the controlled demolition hypothesis is the perpetrators smokescreen for what really happened, lol.
-
Then Judy forgets to bite her tongue and starts explaining what a disinfo agent, as herself, can and can not do, and she slips up a couple of times if you listen carefully. She didnt have to go there, but she couldnt resist it. Great stuff, you hardly need to read between the lines to hear her confess.
http://www.spingola.com/2012-06-07%20Deanna%20Spingola%20-%20Dr%20Eric%20Larsen%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20-%20Andrew%20Johnson%20-%20911%20Cover%20Up.mp3
While the question as to exactly what happened on 911 is interesting, it is purely academic, and the more important question is how to inform as many people as possible that the official story is a lie. Anyone who stresses the first question is doing a disservice to the second. And to be sure part of the psyops/disinformation program is to make the people who know the official story is a lie waste as much time as possible arguing and nitpicking over the details instead of expending their time and energy in trying to alert more people to the lie, and thereby to the truth.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thermite sniffers' take on 9/11, Stooy44. There's a major problem with going for critical mass that ends in an independent public tribunal that could really challenge the system without some assurance that we know how the 9/11 attacks were accomplished. If a wrong theory has the momentum and predominates, such a tribunal could be the means of effectively putting an end to the 9/11 movement if the 9/11 perpetrators supplied the true facts to the advocates for the defense. We're at a high point in the learning curve, but we don't yet have a theory that we can have complete confidence in. Evidence is still coming in. The new evidence is not only attracting increasing public attention, but encouraging more scholars and whistleblowers to come forward.
DeleteIt's not an academic question if you're a first responder dying from cancer due to radiation exposure at Ground Zero.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Jim Fetzer has stated simply saying that the official account of 9/11 is a lie isn't good enough. While we'll probably never have all of the answers a lot of the puzzle pieces have been assembled.
It's not a pretty picture. We have PROOF of fission AND fusion at Ground Zero. I think the research community should be able to convey to the public that the WTC was nuked on 9/11.
Nukes rule out jet fuel fires and terrorists with box cutters as a cause for the buildings demise.
I think once nukes at the WTC get more exposure there will be public outrage and we might be able to get a real investigation launched. Then the whole house of cards will come down.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"While the question as to exactly what happened on 911 is interesting, it is purely academic, and the more important question is how to inform as many people as possible that the official story is a lie."
ReplyDeleteStart by telling them the alleged cell phone calls made from one of the alleged hijacked planes were BOGUS, FAKE. The FBI even confirmed that. That fact right there shouts CONSPIRACY and INSIDE JOB.
WLP
Don said:
ReplyDelete"Not to mention that a hydrogen bomb buried for 30 years isn't likely to work very well if at all. Nukes were designed to last 20-25 years.
DK never said that. Read his book and/or watch his videos. When Dimitri explains why the first tower 'hit' went down second, in doing so, he also responds to your last statement.
WLP
I found some support for planted H-bombs following a link on Dr Judy Wood's own website at http://drjudywood.com/articles/soldier/soldier.htm "Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11". Dr Wood's links are broken, but I searched the Finnish site Wood's links targeted and found this apparent support for something similar to Khalesov's theory (although his name is not mentioned and the arguments are couched as a rebuttal to someone who rejects the theory), here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm
In the article, the term "mini-nuke" is apparently referring to one each of single H-bombs planted "in the cellars" of the respective towers "at the last moment", rather than to several mini-nukes on the tower floors or to a buried nuke. In the "Finnish military expert's" theory, cutting charges were also used to prepare the demolition, although no reference is made to "the Huchinson Effect" or other particulars of the Wood school of mystification. The theory is expounded here:
http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm
Is this yet another whistleblower from a foreign military, and can we expect more?
The September Clues guys, and several of the Let's Roll dudes as well, have presented a very strong case for virtually all of the widely publicised videos and stills of the towers' collapse, plus the too-small aftermath/rubble-pile shots, being unreliable due to sophisticated (but far from perfect) digital modifications and/or outright forgery.
ReplyDeleteThese skillful and tireless researchers have also put forth some very persuasive proof that a large portion of the 9/11 victim identities are fabricated as well -- so as to cash in on a combination of private and Congressionally funded insurance payouts to supposed "relatives" and corporate beneficiaries. As Simon Shack and others have argued repeatedly: The twin towers may well have been brought down via CONVENTIONAL (bottom-to-top) demolition technology -- once their heavily augmented smoke clouds, (preceded by an early and near-total evacuation of the buildings) became too dense for any genuine eyewitnesses to see precisely HOW the structures came down. Then the "national memory" was saturated by the complicit TV networks' endless repeats of Hollywood-quality, CGI animation footage purporting to show a pair of top-down, collapsing towers... and the fix was in!
So, all this endless and impassioned arguing about DEWs vs. Nukes could be ultimately pointless, very time-consuming, divisive and even suggestive of Dr. Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" team being hard at work, starting and spreading fights between both the genuine and the fake truthers. And then there's the bizarre distribution of NYFD deaths, with just a couple of names per fire house/engine company, distributed quite evenly all across NYC -- instead of the sizeable concentrations of fatalities that should have occurred in those "first-responder" fire crews that were allegedly "trapped" in the collapses.
The big nuke theory is impossible on several levels. Perhaps the biggest reason is that if a 150 KT bomb would have been detonated 77 meters below Ground Zero there would have been a giant crater. We don't see giant craters at Ground Zero.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Sedan nuclear test. This was a 104 KT bomb 100 meters deep and it left a massive crater.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA major difference was that the Sedan test was done in desert sand, whereas the WTC devices would have been planted in solid bedrock and probably between strata. See http://www.newyorknature.net/Geology.html where it's stated that, "The island of Manhattan is built on three strata known as Manhattan Schist, Inwood Marble, and Fordham Gneiss." Schist and Gneiss are especially hard. But your point is one to ponder.
DeleteELES VIVEM - THEY LIVE (1988) - FULL MOVIE
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPmgR5ituU4
I am developing concerns over how often almost everyone, Jim included as well as his guests, keep telling us to do our research on Youtube. As if all of the videos you see there are to be believed????? Come on boys, anyone who uses Youtube for their research will NEVER come close to the truth about anything. Same goes for everything else you see online, including the so-called "alternative" media, Wikipedia and everything else. You cannot trust the "mainstream" news either, in fact you cannot trust anything except possibly your own guts. Research??? Ya right!!! Anyone who keeps suggesting this is suspect, and should probably not be trusted. Logic and reasoning, apart from trusting one's guts is the best approach. We can no longer believe what we see and hear... too much fakery, right Jim!?
ReplyDeleteA solid grounding in logic and reasoning, yes. And trusting one's guts, because everything we see and hear and submit to logical analysis isn't registered immediately in our conscious awareness but is often carried around in our unconscious as unfitted parts of the puzzle, as a military tactician keeps forces in reserve waiting for the appropriate moment to commit to the fight. As a problem one sleeps on. One thing you didn't mention, though: the publishing industry in the U.S. is dominated by Betelsmann: the same company that served as publisher for the German S.S. And I'd disagree about one thing: logic and reasoning can't get you anywhere without researching the evidence and mercilessly scrutinizing it.
DeleteWith respect to the nuke theory. What about the dump trucks. There were dozens of them, I am told, coming into Trade Center after they fell and they were full not empty. Could they have brought in nuclear material to spread around? Could that explain all that radioactivity in the dust?
ReplyDeleteActually you've got it ass-backwards. They were bringing in fresh dirt and removing contaminated dirt. And the landfill where the contaminated dirt went was under armed guard so no one could test it.
DeleteThey were cleaning up a Ground Zero after all.