Monday, February 24, 2014

Frankly Speaking

9/11 TV fakery

273 comments:

  1. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2376235

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1131&start=300

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was a terrible interview. That guy's (Frank?) stutter-talk never completing a thought rambling incoherent speaking technique is impossible to listen to. Then he accuses Dr. Judy Wood of claiming "beams from space" caused the destruction. She does nothing of the sort. Nukes don't explain the evidence. The tech that brought down the towers is not in public domain!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NM,

      I agree that I stuttered. The issues are very complicated and I'm trying to give lots of expository to explain what I'm talking about. Also, the interview was done "on the fly" and if Jim wanted to say something, he takes the lead.

      Please persevere with my stuttering and try to extract the technical points that I'm making, that there is a "jacket of evidence" that shows that the hypothesis of no or very low casualties is the best one.

      Regarding the possibility of non-public domain technology causing the collapse, that is definitely a possibility, but nukes definitely ARE part of the mix.

      Delete
    2. Frank is correct, nukes are definitely part of what occurred, there is overwhelming evidence for both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission having taken place.

      Delete
    3. Frank, I thought you did a good job in presenting your views. It was a very interesting show.

      But are you not in a sense downplaying the need to pursue and prosecute the perpetrators? If all they are guilty of is destroying some empty buildings and playing a nasty practical joke on the world it sure casts them in a completely different light.

      My research into them shows them to be murderous thugs capable of and willing to perpetrate the most awful crimes against humanity imaginable.

      Why all of a sudden were they so concerned about casualties?

      It marks a profound departure from their m.o. both previously to and subsequently after this event.

      Delete
    4. There should be any victims, chris, if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up.

      What would you prosecute the perpetrators for? If they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, there isn't any conspiracy to murder here, and all the other possible crimes 911, like demolitions without permit and insurance fraud, have now expired.

      The gang who control the news networks are pulling these operations all the time, and it would constantly increase the risk of these operations if they include killings. Their very valuable news anchor actors et al, wouldn't like that in the long run, or even ones. So better and safer to fake all the victims the Hollywood way, all the time, every time. This is why their Weapons of Mass Deception work so well, all the time. Let someone else get blood on their hands instead.

      So with a pure deception operation, the operation will just be some fraudulent free speech - and we cannot prosecute them for that either.

      911 operation management knew this before 911, and definitely attempted to avoid any murders of course. Even 1 killed would be terrible for the 911 operation management.

      Delete
    5. Corrigendum: There shouldn't be any victims, chris,...

      Delete
    6. "So with a pure deception operation, the operation will just be some fraudulent free speech - and we cannot prosecute them for that either."

      El Buggo's main concern is that the perps of the 9/11 operation never get prosecuted for anything. Protect the Jewish Crime Syndicate at all costs! Even if they blow thousands of people to bits on 9/11!

      Frank I'm disappointed that you are falling for the disinfo BS that nobody died and all of the victims were simulated. Shack and the Clues crew are just as big of a bunch of shills as are Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson.

      Delete
    7. Don,

      Attack my arguments! I have outlined a Jacket of Evidence that shows that the great bulk of the people (2900 or so) are VICSIMs not victims.

      Can you dismantle my argument? I don't think that you can. As I said, the perpetrators are still scum and prosecutable. What I'm after is the physical truth of 9/11.

      Please, attack my argument.

      Delete
    8. Yes I can dismantle your arguments! Or more specifically Father Frank Morales can dismantle them. Listen to this clip of Frank on my blog describing what Ground Zero was really like. Not the myth that September Shills are propagating.

      Delete
    9. Frank, the Vicsims hypothesis does not withstand even modest scrutiny, there is a large amount of evidence that refutes it such as the radio transmissions from the firemen inside the WTC which mention encountering survivors as they ascended the stairs, the fact that those firemen were still inside the WTC when it blew apart. The survivors of Stairwell B of the North Tower further attest to the fact that the Towers were not empty on 9/11.

      Human remains have been found all over the WTC complex and continue to be unearthed to this very day. Billions of dollars were paid out by the Zionists to keep the families quiet.

      Kenneth Feinberg and Judge Alvin Hellerstein have waged a war of attrition against the 9/11 relatives. Of the thousands of families that could have used the courts to find justice and legal discovery for what happened on 9-11, Feinberg was successful in removing 98 percent.

      Of the 96 families that chose to go to court, all but one or two cases have settled out of court after enduring years of obstruction in the court of Alvin K. Hellerstein.

      Thanks to Feinberg and Hellerstein there may never be a trial for a single victim of 9-11.

      For the 96 families who initially chose to forgo the fund in favor of a transparent trial, Sheila Birnbaum was appointed special mediator between Hellerstein and the victims’ families. Birnbaum, another dedicated Zionist lawyer at the Israeli law firm Skadden Arps, effectively railroaded these brave families and forced them all to settle.

      Hellerstein recently effectively blocked the last victim’s family, the Bavises, from ever having a day of trial against the government and airport security, forcing them to settle out of court after a decade of his dedicated gatekeeping. His callous quote to the 96 families of victims of 9/11 will live in infamy:

      “We have to get past 9/11. Let it go. Life is beautiful. Life is short. Live out your years. Take the award.”

      The court records of all these legal proceedings are available under the FOIA, why doesn't one of the 'Vicsims' proponents bother to do some proper research and take a look at them?

      Proper, scientific research methodology is to examine all the available evidence in order to test a hypothesis, quite clarly, the Vicsims proponents haven't done that, instead they are basing their hypothesis on looking at videos and photos and very little else. Therefore their work is deeply flawed and cannot be considered valid.

      Delete
  4. Chris,

    I agree with El Buggo's outline for why the victims of 9/11 were faked, not real. I didn't get into the politics as I had planned to several weeks ago.

    I think that the cabal that did this are total inhuman scum, even if there were no casualties, because they started the wars that DID kill so many people.

    I also think that if new military recruits, active military, and retired veterans understand that no one died on 9/11, it would radically change their motivation to fight in these wars. I think it's hugely damaging to the concept of patriotism.

    I hope that from this understanding of the deception of 9/11, that a revival of genuine patriotism can take place, and the people responsible are held accountable.

    I think that people considering joining the military should understand what happened on 9/11. If individuals don't have the power to stop what is happening, at least they can "starve the beast" by NOT ENLISTING.

    I don't come from a background of opposition to the military, but if the military is called to do tasks that are immoral and based on deception, what am I supposed to think or say? All of that tech isn't so cool anymore. I think that I'd prefer democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frankly Speaking:

    Where have you ever read me mentioning anything like "Flat Earth"? Can you please point me out to where you have read such a thing? Wait - I know: you have read it right here - on this troll-infested "Real Deal" blogspot comment section - and NOWHERE ELSE.

    I believe it was Don Fox or Ian Greenhalgh who started the rumor that "Simon Shack believes that the earth is flat". I don't - and have NEVER done so: my only forays into astronomical matters have been confined to reviewing and reassessing the work of Tycho Brahe - perhaps the greatest astronomer of all times. And no - he did not propose that the earth is flat. Please look him up if you have never heard of him - and please retract publicly your totally unfounded claim that I believe that the earth is flat - RIGHT NOW.

    Thanks.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,

      I find it curious that you hold positions such as satellites don't exist and the Sun orbits the Earth. These are the major tenets of the Flat Earthers.

      If you truly believe the Earth is round then why do you have the same beliefs as the Flat Earthers?

      While we're at it why won't you debate Jim and I on 9/11? You guys find plenty of time to come here and clog up the blog with your nonsense why not show the courage of your convictions and debate us on John Friend's show?

      Delete
  6. Simon,

    Yes, that's true. I only read about it on The Real Deal, and nowhere else. I retract it.

    Don Fox, can you tell me why you told me that Simon said that the Earth was flat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank,

      He doesn't say it in so many words but you can tell his sympathies certainly lie in that direction. See my comment from 4:37

      Delete
    2. Frank I really dig you analysis in the general sense. And I think you make reasonable arguments for FEW casualties? But why the estimate of "less than then"? Why not less then 100 for example.

      I believe this to be a friendly enquiry.

      Delete
    3. I mean to say "why the estimate for less than ten. TEN (10) innocent victims of the twin towers take-down?

      Delete
    4. GMB,

      My estimate is vague, and doesnt have specific backing. I want to leave room for the possibility that there might have been stragglers, forgotten people, people that they were trying to assassinate.

      There is no specific reason to keep the number under 10, BUT what I was trying to do was distinguish it from the thousands who are supposed to be above the 81st floor and form a "swarm of bees".

      Delete
  7. And while we're at it, Frankly Speaking: Where have you ever read that OBF brings up "Israel, Jews" and such matters? Where? Please point us to any instance in which Onebornfree has brought up this topic - because I don't know that OBF has ever done so.

    Thanks.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon,

    This was the comment that motivated my response:

    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/frankly-speaking.html?showComment=1388209145967#c2871427097617567275

    And here was my response:

    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/frankly-speaking.html?showComment=1388253210720#c8305123338400129595

    ReplyDelete
  9. To properly and respectfully approach the research of the victims is going to require a huge amount of work, if done by one or two people, it might take them years. There are many data sources to be collated, examined and then cross-checked which would include the SSDI, the court records of Hilverstein and Mukasey’s legal proceedings, the financial records of what happened to the 3.5 billion doled out by Kenneth Feinberg, records of the 1,500 hearings that Feinberg attended with victims families, obituaries published in NYC newspapers, records of the 1,600+ body parts found plus other sources too.

    But of course, if you're very clever like Simon Shack, you can skip all that and jump to the conclusion that no-one died because you spotted some fake bits of video.

    Well, I'm sorry, but that sort of amateur-hour BS won't cut it here.

    Just one aspect to consider is that of the massive legal efforts that had to be put into paying off the families of the victims and survivors, if there had been no victims, then why were there over 1,500 hearings?

    Just eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress created the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. It was a unique, unprecedented commitment to compensate families who lost a loved one on 9/11 and survivors who were physically injured. In its haste, Congress provided very few guidelines as to how the funds should be distributed and set no limit on the size of awards. Instead it gave a single individual nearly unlimited discretion to manage the program.

    Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Kenneth Feinberg to administer the fund, handing him sole responsibility for calculating the dollar value of over 5,500 dead and injured in the worst peacetime disaster in U.S. History. In this he was supported by some 30 lawyers from his law firm and his wife, Diane "Dede" Shaff Feinberg.

    For three years working pro bono as head of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Feinberg reached out to all who qualified to file a claim, evaluated applications, determined appropriate compensation and distributed awards. Feinberg spent almost all of his time meeting with the 9/11 families, convincing them of the generosity and compassion of the program and calculating appropriate awards for each and every claim. He personally took part in most of the 1,500 hearings with survivors and victims' families and his staff of 200 spent 33 months investigating claims and deciding benefits.

    When the program was launched, many families criticized it as a brazen, tight-fisted attempt to protect the airlines from lawsuits. The Fund was also attacked as attempting to put insulting dollar values on the lives of lost loved ones. Those who participated in the Fund were required to waive their right to sue the airlines involved in the attacks, as well as other potentially responsible entities including the Israeli airport security firm Huntleigh USA/ICTS. By taking the compensation, the families waived their right to demand a real investigation into 9/11.

    More than 98 percent of the families accepted the money from the Feinberg-managed fund. The amounts of the payments and the amounts paid to Diane Feinberg and the 30 lawyers are not known. The American people deserve to know how the funds were used and who got paid.

    Estimates put the total settlement amount at less than $3.5 billion total for all the victims. Due to the lack of oversight, it’s anyone’s guess where the rest of the tax dollars have gone. Ellen Mariani, a brave and fiery widow and 9/11 plaintiff, included Feinberg in her lawsuit which was eventually forcibly settled. Feinberg’s inclusion in the suit was partially related to his success in bribing Mariani’s attorney to try to coerce his client to accept the fund’s payout and attempt to convince her that she was clinically insane.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Don Fox:
    I only rarely comment on this blog - as it is already clogged by comments concerning my research, mostly written by yourself, Ian Greenhalgh and Clare Kuehn. As far as I can see, the three of you just can't seem to stop advertising my research - on every single comment section of this blog. Keep at it, you people - by all means!

    As for Jim Fetzer's insisting / longstanding wet wish to confront me on his own turf (on live radio - and with snarling poodle Don Fox as 'moderator' at that! ) - here are my good reasons for declining such a preposterous proposal:

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389364#p2389364

    A bon entendeur

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My proposal to Jim was that either you show up to debate or you, OBF (aka Bob Bobson) and El Buggo should be banned from posting here.

      You can bring OBF to the debate and John Friend will moderate it.

      Delete
  11. Quite a few falsehoods in that 'explanation' there Simon.

    Jim Fetzer isn't a 'self professed professor' he actually holds the academic qualification of Professor Emeritus.

    Richard Hall isn't a Scotsman, he's from the north east of England.

    The Trident programme isn't phony at all, I know this for a solid fact, the Trident boats were built in Barrow-in-Furness, less than 3 miles from where I sit right now, I myself worked at the shipyard and watched the damn things being built from the keel upwards, I watched them being launched into the Walney Channel, my friends and relatives built those damn boats, so the only thing phony is your BS.

    The Stewart Ogilby piece of crap was only removed from VT for a few hours, then reinstated minus the link to your forum. The only reason it was deleted was because it was blatantly advertising your forum, which is against VT rules.

    There was no copying and pasting from the Let's Roll Forums in the VT article that debunked your disgusting 'Vicsims Report'

    You're just doing your usual act of trying to mislead people, well it won't wash anymore, people are wise to your game now Shack.

    Be honest, the real reason why you won't debate Jim Fetzer is because your theories are untenable and you wouldn't be able to defend them in a debate.

    Same reason you declined to go to the Vancouver hearings - you're not stupid enough to present your ridiculous BS theories in front of a well-informed audience because you know you'd be laughed out of the place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian,

      Attack my arguments, please! Get right to the point.

      Delete
  12. Ian Greenhalgh:

    This isnt the first time in history that this has happened. The Holocaust is one of the most momentous events of the 20th century, but *everything* is dependent on physically functioning gas chambers. But the gas chambers don't function.

    Everything that happens *downstream* of the gas chambers is false, but even the survivors of the camps believe it.

    Ian, in 9/11, *everything* is dependent on the physical possibility of the 2900 victims dying above the 81st floor in both buildings. But that is impossible without the furniture surviving, and the phony video and phony flyers casts doubt at the Center of the Center of the Event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but your take on the Holocaust is grossly over simplified. There were no death camps, there were no gas chambers, the Holocaust as has been portrayed didn't happen at all, so your analogy is invalid. It's too complex a subject to go into in ay depth here, but the only parts of the Holocaust myth that actually existed were the Einsatzgruppen and the Operation Reinhard camps - Belzec, Treblinka, Majdanek and Sobibor. Those parts of the myth are still open to debate, but the other aspects such as Auschwitz being a death camp are totally false and can be rejected out of hand. There is not one single surviving gas chamber anywhere, not even at Auschwitz, what stands there is a post-war 'reconstruction' built by the Poles.

      I don't understand what you mean by everything about 9/11 being dependent on the physical possibility of 2900 victims above the 8st floors. I think that again, you are grossly over simplifying things. What has the survival of furniture got to do with it? Why would you expect furniture to survive when 60% of the concrete and steel was dustified? The explosions were powerful enough to totally destroy both towers leaving smoking holes in the ground with temperatures of thousands of degrees persisting for many months and turned over half a million tonnes of concrete and steel into fine dust; office furniture is far less resistant to blast and heat than concrete or steel so little mystery in why there was almost no surviving furniture. They did find little pieces such as fragments of a telephone keypad and a crushed filing cabinet, but given the volume of energy put out by the explosions, it's hardly surprising there was very little identifiable debris.

      Delete
  13. Ian,

    We are in agreement about the Holocaust, just the Auschwitz and other camp portion of it. All of those gas chambers don't function, and never could have functioned, so *that portion* of the Holocaust is false.

    But its the technical failure of the gas chambers that makes it false!

    The great majority of the deaths attributed to 9/11 are people who are trapped above the 81st floor of both buildings. 1800 bodies are supposed to have survived, but steel furniture did not survive! It must have survived, but it didn't! How could the 1800 bodies have survived, but not the steel furniture, Ian?

    And if the furniture was removed, that means that 1800 people are milling pointlessly around an empty building, not at work with their furniture. Do you believe the 1800 people are milling around an empty building?

    Do you see the point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Frank

      Thanks for the further explanation.

      That 'gas camber at Auschwitz' is really laughably transparent in it's falsehood, and there have been two studies of the materiel of the walls, one by a US team and one by the Auschwitz curators, and both failed to find any evidence of prussic acid residue which refutes the use of Zyklon B in that building. However, if you go to the delousing building of Auschwitz, it's so heavily contaminated with prussic acid that the deep blue colour has seeped through the brickwork and is clearly visible on the outside surfaces of the building.

      I will have to check, or Don can chime in, but I think it was actually small pieces of bodies rather than bodies that were found.

      I don't think the furniture was removed. I am open to the possibility that some areas of the towers were vacant, some office space that was vacant as we know that the occupancy rate of th towers was less than 10%. However, I believe that the furniture was simply destroyed in the explosions and became part of the colossal amount of dust that was created. I'm not sure how one could go about investigating this however, dust is dust, tiny particles, so how would one be able to tell whether it was from the building's structure of it's contents without carrying out careful analysis of the dust?

      Delete
  14. Ian,

    Let me continue, here, with the Holocaust analogy. The Zionist powers behind the Holocaust took truthful events of WWII, the German concentration camps, and *built a phony disinformation story* on top of the truth.

    One example is Josef Mengele, who was by all German records at the time an SS doctor who cared for the internees, with an exemplary record. The story after the war was that he performed gruesome experiments on twins, and that he sewed two Gypsy girls together to make an artificial Siamese twin. There was a doctored photo to show this. Now sewing together two girls to make a Siamese twin is impossible.

    Nevertheless, 40 years after the fact, there were survivors who testified to Mengele's cruelty. These women were certainly actresses, who were never exposed to any cruelty by Mengele.

    The point is:

    The intelligence agencies such as Mossad and CIA ARE CAPABLE of creating "downstream evidence" that corroborates an earlier event, that did not happen.

    That is what is going on with the "body parts" scattered around Manhattan. They are either a total lie, or, they are cadavers actually scattered around Manhattan who are unrelated to the "victims" of 9/11. The reason that I know that is that the deaths of the victims do not stack up where it counts most, at the Center of the Center of the Event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank,

      Frank Morales and the workers at Ground Zero state that the soil "was rich and moist from the bodies of the dead." That wasn't cadavers spread around Ground Zero. That was people who got nuked in an office building.

      In the case of the North Tower smoke rose 15 stories above the original height of the building. The furniture and the people were nuked. Blown to bits or vaporized. In the case of the South Tower, that whole top 30 floors got vaporized after the tilt. Again no furniture is going to survive that. They found bits and pieces of people on the roof of the Bankers Trust Building. That's what happened to the people in the South Tower - they were blown to bits and ejected into the Bankers Trust building.

      Remember the debris cloud from the Towers was visible from space - that's how powerful the nukes were that destroyed the Towers.

      Delete
    2. There should have been a kind of a vortex on top top there, in the smoke, due to all the heat created by these (cartoon) nukes. But there isn't any. So the collapse sequence, as aired on "live" news, must also be fake for Nuclear Neutron Demolition Analysts if they are going to support their "findings". Frankly Speaking has explained this very well before.

      After all, we are talking about millions of degrees here (as we have been told), so there definitely should be possible to see some traces of all this heat somewhere in the collapse smoke - but we cant.

      Delete
    3. Don, here are two guys that are witnessing that they successfully have fired a homemade nuke based on the radioactive source in two old smoke detectors. Footage has a very natural feel. The operators sound like Ian. Could it be him here?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmHoWfwHiw

      Delete
  15. Don,

    I hate to say this, but you need to reevaluate the veracity of what you are hearing. "Rich and moist with the bodies of the dead" is EXACTLY the kind of psy-op language that grabs your attention and moves your heart, but isn't the way that people usually speak.

    Regarding the South Tower, how did the top 30 floor get vaporized? And most important, how did the BODIES survive well enough to be recovered, but not the steel furniture? Steel furniture is stronger than human bodies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank,

      Frank Morales wasn't the only person at Ground Zero to tell this tale. One needs to choose between Morales and Shack - they can't both be right. Frank Morales' story is consistent with other witnesses and the physical evidence. Shack's version of the destruction of the Towers is not supported by any witnesses or video evidence or the dust and water samples that were collected at Ground Zero.

      Shack is way off base and his account of the destruction of the WTC buildings should be discarded.

      Delete
    2. The bodies were only small chunks of human remains - not whole bodies. One inch or less chunks. Heavier denser material like metal and cement stays in place and gets vaporized by the blast and heat from the nukes. Lighter material blows away. The people were literally blown away.

      Delete
    3. Don,

      How about the carpet above the 81st floor? That didn't survive either. How is Morales' story consistent with the physical evidence of the lack of carpet? Carpet is a lighter material.

      And if the bodies were blown away, the furniture will be blown away too. If you put a doorknob near the center of the blast, you will get a flying doorknob.

      Don, your physics isn't working out.

      To be clear, if no one died, that doesn't get the perps off scot-free. They are still absolutely prosecutable. Also, I think that the real justice will come from the realization by We The People what is going on, and taking personal measures to effect change (like not joining the military).

      Delete
    4. Don,

      Also, don't make this about personalities, like Frank Morales versus Simon Shack. It's about the evidence and the Centrality of the evidence, not just the personalities of witnesses.

      Delete
    5. Frank,

      Shack states dynamite was used to demolish the Towers. Frank Morales' observations directly contradict that. There was no stack of pancakes left of the Towers. That simple fact is the end of the thermite and conventional charges as the main causal mechanism of the destruction of those behemoths.

      The North Tower was called "The 2,000 degree pit." Dynamite and thermite cannot explain that. Neither can non-existent DEWs.

      Only nukes explain all of the evidence and once conclude that the buildings were nuked that is the end of Shack.

      Delete
  16. Sometimes I think scientists should not be in the conspiracy theory business. They are too rigid and bound to tradition as well as fearful of their peers and their reputations.

    Not once was it established if planes crashed into the towers. Since there is no evidence in existence of planes having done this, other that doctored videos, almost all the special effects must be false. These would include:

    1. The smoke coming out of the tops of the twin towers. Notice how the black smoke is blowing from east to west and that it is constantly streaming in that direction, never varying. Real smoke in real wind would pause occasionally and change directions as wind does not stay in one constant pattern.

    Also the white smoke emanating from the sides of the towers is very strange and described by Judy Wood as "lathering." (Judy was the victim of this faked, doctored, tampered with evidence.)

    2. The fireballs and fires could not have happened unless real planes carrying jet fuel exploded. Since there were no planes exploding and starting fires, no people could have been trapped in burning towers above the 81st floor or anywhere.

    3. The only way to successfully demolish WTC towers would be with an implosion--a controlled demolition causing the towers to fall into their own footprint. (Since the towers were so tall, it might have been necessary to let them tip to one side when falling.) Therefore, the towers could not have been demolished as seen in the video. (See videos of implosion CDs on You Tube.) Also, if the buildings were empty as Frank suggests, they would be demolition ready.

    It takes imagination and willingness to abandon previous conclusions and theories to get it right. Maybe that is why the greats--the thinkers, the avant garde, like Simon Shack, are musicians or artists. So far, the academics and professionals are way behind on exposing the 9/11 crime and fraud on the American people.

    P.S. I still haven't heard the rationale for the used of nukes. What about the fallout and why weren't bystanders "vaporized"? You are just trying to prove the government and media version of 9/11. Nukes are very expensive, btw, when dynamite would do the job better and without expensive clean up and dangers of blowing up adjacent buildings or most of lower Manhattan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry Joan, but you're so far off the mark on almost every point you make.

      1. Real smoke in real wind does stay in the same direction if the wind doesn't change direction. Just look at some images o tall industrial chimneys and the smoke plumes they emit:

      http://www.businessgreen.com/IMG/305/163305/smoking-chimneys-370x229.jpg

      2. Again, not true at all, the fireballs were real, as were the fires in the towers, the simple answer is they placed kerosene or some other fuel in drums within the towers prior to the event and exploded them on cue. The three fires in the southtower were real and weren't all that large, the radio transmission from the NYFD captain just a few minutes before the destruction of the tower stated that there were two fires:

      "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

      http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm

      3. Completely wrong, the buildings were not imploded, they were exploded by bombs within their structure, most of the solid debris fell outside the footprint, large pieces were blasted hundreds of feet away, such as the large piece of facade that crushed the atrium of the Winter Gardens over 400 feet away. The destruction of the twin towers was not a controlled demolition in any conventional sense, they were blasted apart with more than half of the material being dustified, there was no debris pile, the destruction shared nothing at all in common with a conventional controlled demolition. Compare this to WTC7 which was a controlled demolition - the debris fell within the footprint leaving a pile approximately 13% of the original height of the building and there was no dustification.

      Still haven;t heard the rationale for the use of nukes? My god, you really haven't been paying attention. Just take a look at Don Fox' work on the USGS dust samples which proves that both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion occurred. Not only do all of the isotopes that would be created exist (tritium, lanthanum, strontium, barium etc.) but they exist in the proportions that would be expected, this constitutes solid proof of fission and fusion. Then there is the tritiated water, the very high temperatures persisting for at least 6 months below ground, the molten concrete and steel still being found for months afterwards, the colossal amount of energy required to dustify half a million tonnes f concrete and steel, plus more evidence. The use of nukes on 9/11 to destroy the twin towers is no longer a hypothesis, but proven fact.

      Dynamite would not do the job better, in fact, dynamite would not be capable of causing the destruction for the simple reason that it cannot produce anything close to the amount of energy required to dustify half a million tonnes of concrete and steel, and if dynamite or some other conventional explosive had been used then there would have been a pile of debris of at least 14 storeys in height at ground zero, rather than the smoking superheated holes in the ground that were left.

      There was no anger of blowing up adjacent buildings or most of lower Manhattan, that is completely fallacious. We know that sophisticated micro and mini nukes exist and that the blast radius of these devices can beset with a high degree of precision.

      Sorry Joan but everything you said is just plain wrong and demonstrably so if one only takes the time to study all the available evidence.

      Delete
    3. " The three fires in the southtower were real and weren't all that large, the radio transmission from the NYFD captain just a few minutes before the destruction of the tower stated that there were two fires:"

      "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

      If the towers were empty, what is the point of sending in the firefighters?

      If there were firemen sent into the building, someone should go interview them. This would be evidence for a hypothesis.

      Delete
    4. The firemen definitely encountered people in the Towers. That fact alone refutes Shack and Sept Clues - the Towers were not empty on 9/11. There are interviews with firefighters out there.

      Shack's version of 9/11 is demonstrably false. Shack is a gatekeeper Frank. If you want to maintain your credibility you need to distance yourself from Sept Shills.

      Delete
    5. Don,

      Firefighters were included among the VICSIMs so it's not theoretically impossible that firefighters were simulated themselves.

      The key point, which comes from Germar Rudolf who studied the Holocaust, is that physical evidence which is at the Center of the Center of the Event is of the highest priority in the hierarchy of evidence. Any witness testimony is lower in the hierarchy of evidence. That puts the firefighter testimony LOWER than the physical evidence, the lack of steel furniture, or carpet or toilets or anything. Only outer steel cladding and crushed gypsum was there. That's your physical evidence, Don.

      Once again, Don, if 1800 bodies survived, then the steel furniture and carpet should survive. And the part about the paper surviving stinks to high heaven.

      The Holocaust shows that intelligence agencies ARE capable of doing this. The stories about Josef Mengele came after the end of the war. They must have hired actresses to play the role of victims.

      Regarding Simon Shack, a gatekeeper is someone who keeps you away from a deeper truth. The deepest truth of all is that most or all of the victims were simulated.

      Delete
    6. The deepest darkest secret of 9/11, the Center of the Center of the Event, is that the Jews nuked the WTC. Tel Aviv nuked New York. All of the 9/11 shills deny nukes and deny Israeli involvement in 9/11. Shack tries to push the blame off on the media. Certainly they were involved in the cover up but Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer and Wolf Blitzer weren't planting nukes in the WTC buildings.

      Blood thirsty power mad Jews nuked the WTC buildings then used 9/11 as an excuse to kill more people in Iraq and Afghanistan. THAT is what happened on 9/11.

      The people in the WTC buildings were blown into tiny pieces. The medical examiner has THOUSANDS of pieces and parts that could not be identified. These weren't whole bodies Frank. Tiny pieces of former office workers. They were able to identify 1,634 people out the parts that were recovered.

      Shack and company are trying everything possible to distract researchers from the central truth of 9/11: Jews nuked the WTC and thousands of people were blown to bits. El Buggo denies nukes even exist. OBF and Shack claim everything is fake and we'll never know what happened. Bullshit. We know what happened. The Jews nuked the WTC and killed thousands of innocent people. That's what happened.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Well Don, technically I don't deny that nukes exist, I claim that there isn't any credible evidence for their existence.

      The problem starts with the reported nuking of Hiroshima. We have still intact or undamaged flat roofs right below the reported epicenter, clean streets, flimsy chimneys still standing, etc, etc. What you offered as evidence for a Ground Zero was just some silly staged film reports by the Pentagon propaganda team that was engaged to report, and find or create evidence or support for the nuke stories. What you offered as evidence for a Ground Zero was about as credible as this report on shrunken heads and lamp shields of human skin. The problem with the nuke reports doesn't end with the Hiroshima story, that is just the beginning.

      Israel and Mossad could have played a small or tiny part of this operation, but it was run by other of the tribes departments. The US national media isn't controlled by Israel and Mossad - there are someone else that have some influence there too.

      Here is an example on how credible these super witnesses of yours can be. Actor in ultra clean firefighter costume interviewed 911: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG5n5NETOrU

      You didn't respond to my observation that there isn't possible to see any traces of some extreme heat escaping in the smoke there when the towers collapsed. Should be something there, unless you now claim it was COLD neutron mini-nukes that went of there.

      As Frankly Speaking has explained so well, it is not consistent for Nuclear Demolition Analysts to both believe in that Manhattan was nuked and the collapse as aired on "live" news could have been authentic. Told you so several times now Don.

      How many victims should there be Don, if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up?

      Very good post Joan!

      Delete
  17. Don Fox said: " My proposal to Jim was that either you show up to debate or you, OBF (aka Bob Bobson) and El Buggo should be banned from posting here.

    You can bring OBF to the debate and John Friend will moderate it. "

    The chronology of this proposed debate is as follows:

    1] after the recent Fetzer appearance on John Friends show , I proposed to John to appear on it with Fetzer.

    2] john thought it was a good idea and said he'd find out if doable ,Fetzer's end.

    3] John gets back to me with a couple of suggested dates and tells me you [Fox] want in .

    3] I tell John I'm happy to "debate" both of you.

    4] He tells me that now both of you want Simon to participate, and asks me to ask Simon

    5] I tell him that Simon must/will make his own choices and I have no desire to influence those choices one way or the other.

    6] I tell John to ask Fetzer/Fox exactly why they on earth they would expect Simon to "debate" them after the atrociously researched article posted about him/me/Septemberclues.info forum at Veterans Today.

    Bottom line:

    MY offer still stands: I'm happy to "debate" both of you at the same time on John Friends show.

    Bob Bobson, if you are out there somewhere reading, feel free to call in at showtime and we can both have some fun with these two. If you want, yo can email me at onebornfreeatyahoodotcom about this, or contact John Friend directly. If not, thats cool too.

    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBF,

      Jim has no interest in a debate with you - he's sick of your act. If Simon isn't involved he doesn't see the point in it. I tend to agree with Jim on that one.

      I get that English isn't Simon's first language but he seems to do fine on the Fakeologist's show. I'd like to see Simon defend his positions in a debate.

      Tell you what: maybe I will call in to the Fakeologist one of these Saturday nights and we can discuss 9/11.

      Delete
  18. Ole Dammegård - The Death Squad Network Behind the JFK Assassination
    http://www.redicemembers.com/secure/radio/2014/2/RIR-140226-oledammegard-hr1.mp3

    Great Interview!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don Fox said :"Jim has no interest in a debate with you - he's sick of your act."

    First of all ,it's not an "act".

    Tell you what Fox, I'll "debate" you both, no holds barred, on Fetzers show, anytime.

    Failing that , I'll "debate" you alone either on John Friends show or the Fakeologist show [assuming he's up for this kind of thing] .

    You set it up [with whomever].

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm looking forward to this, should be hilarious.

      Delete
  20. Were MARTY and MARY standing side-by -side?

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389379#p2389379

    Enjoy !

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say they had to escape the 9 second collapse, but by the time they stopped fearlessly capturing the moment, they had more 4 seconds before they would be hit by the "millions of cubic meters of very fine dust"

      Delete
  21. Don and Ian,

    May I ask, if you accept the revisionist version of the Holocaust due to the non-functioning of the gas chambers, then why is it such a big problem to accept this revisionist version of the WTC due to the evidence?

    Do you guys understand the importance of the evidence being untainted at the Center of the Center of the Event? And do you understand the importance of having no genuine victims, so that your opposition is controlled?

    If I were going to design a "shill" campaign, I would plan for each shill to solve only a part of the crime, then each would bitterly and doggedly oppose the other shills so that there would be no genuine convergence of the leading shill researchers.

    There would be guaranteed dissension.

    Remember when I said that solving 9/11 was as much spiritual as technical? As in, you WANT to get the right answer. Were seeing a lack of that here.

    If the victims are real, then there is NO NEED for the fake photos and fake flyers. Also, wouldn't the genuine victims raise holy hell about the presence of fake victims amongst them? No matter what they had signed?

    If you can accept that the traditional Holocaust story must be changed for technical reasons, then you can accept that 9/11 must be changed for technical reasons, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify my position here Frank I don't think ALL of the victims are legit. There were no commercial plane crashes so that's a good place to start investigating.

      Having said that you can't just say here is one fake victim therefore they are all fake. Ground Zero worker Matt Taraglia collected pieces of bodies out of the rubble. His teeth are falling out now due to radiation exposure.

      Real people died at Ground Zero Frank. If you are going to be a 9/11 Truther you need to pursue the truth of what really happened at Ground Zero. Not the way you think they should have done it or what makes sense to you but what actually happened.

      I haven't done much research on the Holocaust but from everything I have heard the number of dead Jews was greatly inflated.

      Delete
    2. Don, can correct me if I'm wrong, but he isn't actually a no planer. He fits Jim Fetzer's definition of no planes, which allows for planes... go figure. But Don still believes that actual planes hit WTC 1&2, just not commercial planes.

      Jim F, why can't planes mean exactly that.... NO PLANES? Why do you have to come up with this awful long-winded definition? Maybe to fit yourself and your buddies in the camp of no planers.

      Also, I have read Dimitri Khalezov's book. It seems to me that you have to either accept his theory as a whole or reject it outright. He did not come to any conclusions based on research but as a witness. He "knew" there were nukes underground because of his military service, and he got all his other theories from his friendship with Michael Harari. Cherry picking from Khalezov's book doesn't work, he is either correct or a liar. Since he is using CGI footage of the WTC collapse, and photoshoped images it is pretty easy to write him off

      Delete
    3. It's simple Frank, the 'evidence' for this revisionist version of 9/11 is largely rubbish.The Vicsims Report is one of the most ridiculous laughable things I've ever come across.

      Not all of the victims claimed by the official version of events actually died, that much is certain, because the people said to be on the planes cannot be included. However, there is no doubt that there were thousands of people killed when the towers were destroyed, there is too much evidence to reasonably claim otherwise.

      Simon Shack's work is terribly flawed, to the point of being irrelevant nonsense. The only question in my mind is whether it is due to incompetence or by design, whether he is misleading people deliberately or not.

      A glaring example is the ridiculous 'King Kong Man' analysis. Well, that took me all of 2 minutes to debunk. I simply looked up the width of a WTC exterior column (18.75 inches/48cm) and the width of a WTC window (22 inches/56cm) then took a ruler and measured how wide those two elements appeared on my screen and then measured how tall the man was in the same image and calculated that he was around 5ft tall, not the ludicrous 13ft claimed by Shack. Shack had measured the lower portion of a window as being 7 feet rather than the whole window being 7 feet, such an obvious mistake that one can only wonder, is this man really so incompetent or is he deliberately trying to mislead people?

      Take a look a my blog post debunking Shack's ludicrous King Kong Man nonsense:

      http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/shacks-king-kong-man-debunked-in-recent.html

      When Shack presents such blatantly incorrect rubbish one can only wonder, is he just incompetent or is he deliberately trying to mislead people?

      Delete
    4. Jim,

      I used to think that remote controlled planes hit the Towers but I don't anymore. No real plane can do what was seen on 9/11. I leave the plane debate for others to hash out.

      As far as Dimitri goes he is partially correct. There WERE underground nuclear explosions on 9/11. They weren't 150 kt but there underground nukes. Retained heat from underground nukes is what caused the persistently high temperatures for 6 months after 9/11. See my blog post from last year on Project GNOME.

      Delete
  22. Don,

    If you don't think that all of the victims are legit, then you think that some of the victims are fake. If that's so, then you think that there really are VICSIMs. Why did you trash Simon's VICSIM report?

    You necessarily agree that there are VICSIMs! So you substantially agree with Simon Shack!

    So why do you trash him so much, Don?

    Your position is incoherent!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My position is very clear: real people died at Ground Zero. No commercial plane crashes though so that raises suspicion about those passengers. Another possibility is that the passengers were killed somewhere else like an airport. Those passenger lists would be a good place to start investigating.

      I started looking up some of the people on the VICSIM report and found them to have been real people. Hoipilloi's "work" on that report is utter BS. Complete garbage.

      See Ian's post from 2:02 this morning. He does a great job pointing out how shoddy Shack's work is on the video analysis. I wouldn't base any of my work on Shack's. He is a complete joke.

      The reason I trash these guys is because I'm sick of them attacking me. OBF is forever clogging up the comments at Veterans Today and here on Jim's blog. Deny nukes, deny Jews. Wash, rinse repeat. When Judy Wood stopped attacking me these guys started in. Most likely they work for the same outfit. Judy is in tight with the ADL and SPLC so I'm willing to be that Sept Clues is also an ADL production.

      Shack is a Flat Earth disinfo agent who was putting Bin Laden stickers on his brother's race car in 1986. Why do you believe ANYTHING the guy says about 9/11?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Still waiting for your audio clip of Shack stating the earth is flat... you promised... Don't let us down Fox

      Delete
    4. Shack denies that Earth orbiting satellites exist. The only people that hold that belief are Flat Earthers. They don't like satellites because they can take pictures of the round Earth. The Flat Earthers claim all of those photos are fake. Sound familiar? You can hear the clip of Shack on our Veterans Today article.

      Delete
    5. So you define "flat earthers" as people who believe the world is flat .... but you also include people who believe it is round.

      Fetzer defines "no planers" as people who believe no planes were used on 9/11 ... but also includes anyone who believes planes were used on 9/11.

      Logic and critical thinking.

      Delete
    6. Jim,

      So you think that a guy that puts Bin Laden stickers on his brother's race car is a good source of 9/11 info?

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Before 9/11 i never heard of Bin Laden, my guess is most people never heard of him or the family. If someone called Bin Laden offered me money to put a sticker on car I would have said.... YES

      Delete
    9. Don,

      Simon has already denied being a Flat Earther, and you bring it up again! Why?

      And why do you accept the logic that if there is part of his work that you don't like, that "why should I believe anything he says".

      IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!

      You are screwing yourself and want other people to screw themselves on the parts of September Clues that DO stand up to good reason!

      Delete
    10. Frank,

      Shack professes to be a fan of Tycho Brahe who was an early astronomer who believes that the Sun orbits the Earth - another belief of the Flat Earthers.

      Shack is a high level disinfo artist. All he does is churn out BS. He's also a gatekeeper. You can't have a back and forth exchange of ideas with Jew run 9/11 gatekeepers. Look at how ridiculous Clare sounds trying to mix and match Shack's BS with real 9/11 research. She does such a bad job of it that she pisses them off more than I do!

      Ultimately a gatekeeper is a time waster. All Shack and obf do is waste enormous quantities of time.

      Their modus operandi is almost exactly the same as the Judy Wood Cult - toe the line or get attacked. After all of the attacks from Wood's insane crew I have very little patience for Shack's, obf's and El Buggo's bullshit. As soon as I see the shills in action now I'm going after them.

      Delete
  23. Exactly. Well stated, Frankly. Don is stating "no commercial planes", which means he is also by definition saying that, at least, 246 of the victims were fake. It is safe to say that a large scale amount of work would have to go into creating 246 faked deaths, complete with a fair few actors/agents playing grieving family members and given speeches to enhance the emotional and psychological impact of the day's "storyline". So, that means Don actually does believe the perps are capable of, and did, pull off such a scam on 9/11.

    So, what is the next logical step? Surely it is to investigate whether any of the other supposed victims could be fake? Over two hundred of them already are almost solely by definition, therefore the objective investigator should be willing to examine this line of enquiry immediately. It is hard to separate yourself completely from preconceptions, biases and emotions; but this is what we must try to do in order to be able to fully investigate and understand this giant scam.

    Upon proper investigation, can anyone of a sound mind really argue that the photos of Elizabeth Wainio, for instance, are genuine unaltered originals?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, we must investigate this giant scam, but what we mustn't do is promote the work of people like Simon Shack who discredits the 9/11 truth movement with his fallacious and misleading 'analysis'.

    We should be trying to open the eyes of as many people as possible, but when people see the rubbish Shack puts out, they are turned off and it makes it even harder to wake them up again, in this way, Shack is doing a huge disservice to the truth community and damaging the search for truth.

    The utterly ludicrous 'Vicsims Report' is a prime example of the sort of rubbish that we should all condemn, wok of that nature is damaging to the truth movement.

    Another prime example I just wrote about on my blog - this farcical 'King Kong Man' theory:

    http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/shacks-king-kong-man-debunked-in-recent.html

    Just imagine how the relatives of the victims must feel when they read rubbish like King Kong Man and Vicsims, they must feel that their dead loved ones are being massively disrespected and that they will never gain justice for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those lines are are a photo frame on the wall not on the window. Why didn't uou get your measurements from the closest window. Ian Greenhalgh, or is it Halghwit? What kind of photo expert are you?

      Delete
    2. Oh dear, you aren't very bright are you. Why do you think I chose the width of the windows and the width of the exterior columns as the two measurements which I used to calculate the height of the man? Because those two widths are known, fixed facts and therefore the ideal ones to use. There is no disputing the error in Shack's calculation.

      Whether those are lines on the window or a picture on the wall doesn't alter the fact that Shack's analysis was completely wrong and his measurements were completely wrong.

      Delete
    3. You are using the faked image to get the real measurement of the window.

      http://imgur.com/1Rt46AG the windows are 7ft. fixed.

      Delete
    4. I used the same image as Shack did, therefore it proves that he was wrong in his measurements. He didn't measure the height of the window, he measured the height of only part of the window, which should have been obvious to him because he also wrote that the ratio of height to width of the windows was 4:1 and the area he took his measurement from is nowhere near 4:1 in dimensions.

      Delete
    5. He compared a real photo to a suspicious one. 4:1 comes from a real image, a control. The point he was trying to make is that it is not a real photo, the WTC is also fake, it doesn't even look like the WTC.

      The point I was trying to make is that, you, as an expert in image analysis or whatever you claim to be, thought a photo frame or an object on the wall was a window frame.

      Delete
  25. Haha that was your first post on your new blog? Terrible start... terrible...

    Haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll second that. And Don recommended it too!

      Delete
  26. Anyone know why Piper was fired by American Free Press? Mark Glenn reported it on his podcast, but otherwise there seems to be silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be because of his crazy, lunatic views on Sandy Hook and his abysmal behaviour in recent weeks on a number of radio shows, not least the absurd performance he gave in his debate with Jim Fetzer and John Friend on AFP Radio with Dave Gahary.

      Delete
  27. Ian Greenhalgh - you made me laugh today, thanks!

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So...the only thing anybody is guilty of is... a demolition without a permit?

      Or in other words, nothing to see here folks, move along.


      Delete
    2. LOL, you still can't measure a window correctly, can you. You're such an incompetent.

      Delete
    3. Ian,

      Simon is right on http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

      Look at the little picture box to the right. The man is tiny compared to the window. Then look at King Kong Man, and the rest of the page. Your argument is in bad shape.

      Delete
    4. Please do not be too hard on Greenhalgh. I don't want him to stop blogging, I've bookmarked his site, I can't stop visiting his page and continually refreshing hoping for another post. If he were to stop it would honestly upset me.

      Delete
    5. Frank, you're ether a bit stupid or deliberately repeating a faleshood.

      Just look at the exterior column the man is next to, it is 56cm wide, for him to be 4m tall as Shack claims, he would have to be 8 times as tall as that column is wide, which plainly isn't the case.

      Honestly, Shack's 'analysis' is so obviously completely wrong that anyone who supports is has to be either an idiot or a liar.

      Delete
    6. Greenhalgh, ignore the man, forget king kong. Look at the the two photos, cover the man with your hand... are the the same building with the same proportions?

      Delete
    7. Ian, before you continue making a complete fool of yourself, please read this page of my forum:

      http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=501&start=195

      Pay attention to where it says "THIS IS ANYTHING BUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER". If you don't get the point, there's no way I can help you. By all means, keep on exposing your forensic photo-analysis "proficiency" - and have a go at my Undebunkable Clues :

      http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=961

      Keep us updated about your efforts. Thanks.

      Simon Shack

      Delete
    8. chris, again, provided they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, what would you prosecute the perpetrators for now?

      Delete
    9. I dont actually subscribe to your theory, hence murder, conspiracy to commit murder and treason will do for a start.

      But Im not here to tell, Im here to listen, And right now Im somewhat curious about this notion that the perps were, well....good guys to some extent. Or at least not bad, bad guys.

      But in any event, can we agree that some sort of insurance fraud was potentially involved?

      Delete
    10. Chris,

      The perps were not good guys at all. They used VICSIMs entirely for their own purposes, to control opposition. Let's never forget the AMERICAN dead and wounded of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries with "Allied" involvement. And lets never forget the IRAQI and AFGHAN dead and wounded! And let's also think about the looting of the World economy, so that the world is mired in debt.

      I think that the idea of young people going off to FIGHT and DIE for computer pixels is enough to make anyone crazy. And how will history books record this non-event of using computer pixels?

      I have a friend-of-a-friend who died in Iraq and I met the friend recently and chatted. I did not mention what I have learned about 9/11 and computer pixels.

      Delete
    11. Thanks chris,

      Me and the Fakeologist himself have a really hard time believing in any real victims 911, and therefor it is very hard for us to see what the perpetrators could be prosecuted for now.

      This is one of the best arguments for why no one was killed in this operation. The 911 operation management pulled off an operation purely on TV with Hollywood animations and actors and scriptwriters REPORTS. They could air a really fake news report as many times as they wanted, and unfortunately, even if we don't like this, it isn't illegal at all as far as I can tell.

      Would have been a completely other story if 1 or more people was killed in this operation.

      Would also have been an advantage for the 911 operation management when they had 100% control on the victims family members part of the story. Mixing real and fake victims must have been a nightmare to cope with.

      The statute of limitations for insurance fraud in NY is 5 years (I believe). Too late to prosecute for that now.

      The 911 operation management knew all this, and it was baked into the operation.

      What else do we have...now? I'm not able to make a case for treason - possible maybe, but I cant tell how. Fake news could be free speech and perfectly legal.

      I think the gang who control the media et al are worse than all other criminals combined, and some more.

      Delete
    12. El Buggo states here what the true purpose of September Clues is: to put what is left of the 9/11 Truth Movement to sleep because well after all nobody died and we can't prosecute them for anything now anyway....

      Of course El Buggo is 110% disinfo and full of shit!

      I am not going to sleep and I don't buy the phony alternate myth that Sept Clues is advocating for one second.

      Nice try El Buggo but those of us with brains are not falling for your BS.

      Delete
    13. Well Don, provided they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, what could we prosecute the perpetrators for now?

      Delete
    14. They didn't evacuate the buildings and when they nuked the Towers a lot of people got blown to bits!

      There is no statute of limitations on murder so we could charge them with murder.

      Delete
    15. Yes, if they forgot to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, lots of people should be involved in a conspiracy to murder, with no statute of limitations, including some of the producers at Fox, and many of the national news anchor actors. Probably former POTUS too.

      The 911 operation management obviously knew this before 911.

      On the other hand, if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, so that no one was killed, we don't have anything now that I can see that we can prosecute the perpetrators for today.

      If they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, and no one would become involved in a conspiracy to murder, the recruitment to the operation should be much simpler and easier and cheaper I guess.

      Lots and lots of good reasons for the 911 operation management to not kill anyone in this operation, including 100% control on the very crucial victim part of the story. And why should they, when they could have faked them all in the usual Hollywood way? Just report a million times on national news that people died that day, and almost everyone will believe it anyway - I promise.

      Delete
  28. Both Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh seem to have one paramount goal: that you must discredit 100% of September Clues.

    What sense does that make? None. What if some of September Clues were right? Wouldn't you be screwing yourself if some of September Clues were right, in a critical way, and you threw away the information?

    Of course that's right.

    So Don and Ian, your academic behavior here is not normal, and I suspect that you form an interlocking shill system that is designed not to converge on an answer.

    Jim, when I asked him, has a policy of having an "always tentative" policy, where he won't give the Jim Fetzer position on the subject (which is his right), so it seems we have a merry-go-round here. Whether by accident or design, we have a system that is NOT converging on an answer.

    Do you guys want to get to the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why do Shack et al focus so much on video fakery? Because they want to limit the discussion to that level which, as I have stated several times before, is pretty pedantic and will never lead you to any understanding of what happened.

    Why do Shack,OBF etc keep saying the USGS data is suspect and probably faked? Because they don't want anyone to look further than the video fakery.

    They don't want people to dig any deeper than the superficial level, that's why they constantly bang on about the video fakery, it's superficial, it won't lead to any worthwhile discovery.

    Shack's work is fundamentally flawed and largely invalid for the simple reason that he doesn't do anything more than make up theories based on looking at the videos and photos, he doesn't look at other data sources like the USGS dust samples, the seismic data etc.

    Why do Shack, OBF etc keep attacking Don and Jim? Simple, because they are talking about Israel, the Mossad, the Zionist US Jews and the use of nuclear weapons. They are trying to disrupt anyone who tries to research in those areas.

    Shack, OBF and their cronies are gatekeepers spreading disinfo and disruption. They are using the 'analysis' of videos as a smoke screen, they want people to spend their time and energies looking at these faked videos rather than at other data that is far more valuable. They want to convince people that the videos are faked (which some of them are) and once they have hooked people on that fakery line, they then want to convince them that everything else is probably fake. Once trapped in this fake mindset, you can be manipulated easily, they can mislead you simply by pressing the fake button. A person discovers the USGS data - Shack simply presses the fake button.

    Shack, OBF etc are trying to programme people into a state of mind were they can easily be convinced that anything is fake. That is the key to their psyop.

    Once they have programmed a person with this fakery mindset, they can simply mislead them away from anything potentially sensitive by labelling it fake.

    They don't want people to realise that nuclear weapons were used on 9/11, hence they are pushing that nukes are fake.

    They don't want people to realise that mass murder was committed on 9/11 hence they are pushing that the victims were fake.

    In my humble opinion they are Gatekeepers, nothing more, nothing less.

    As to their credibility - it's fake...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ugh, Ian. You are a shill. Jesus. You don't get to the point and bring up Jews, Israel and nukes OUT OF CONTEXT to change the subject.

      The lack of furniture is NOT a Simon Shack issue. And the Flyers issue is not an imaging issue, and took it place and Simon recognized it. It's good data.

      And as Bob Bobson said, no one in their right mind would think that Elizabeth Wainio was a real photo.

      Ian and Don, you're done.

      The Truth is a combination of Nukes (good for Don Fox), and Image Fakery and VICSIMs (good for Simon Shack).

      Delete
    2. You have to realise how a gatekeeping operation works. In order to establish credibility and draw an audience, they first have to put out some good info. Once they have 'hooked' an audience with this, they can then begin to mislead them so that thy never approach the real truth. With Shack, the good info was establishing that there was fakery within the live TV transmissions. However, since then, he has expended a great deal of effort in misleading people. His ad nauseum repeated theory of dynamite being used behind a military grade smokecreen to demolish empty towers killing no-one while a fake movie was played on TV is simply a misdirection tactic. He doesn't want people to see the truth that nuclear weapons were used to commit mass murder, hence his 'nukes are fake' campaign and his 'Vicsims Report'. Both are crass attempts to diminish the scale of this horrific crime. Demolishing an empty building killing no-one is a far lesser crime than using WMDs to murder thousands of innocent New Yorkers. I also think that the reason why Shack puts out a lot of plainly fallacious 'analysis' such as the laughable 'King Kong Man' is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. People see this laughably poor work and it makes them think the 9/11 truth movement is populated with kooks and idiots. David Icke uses the same tactic when he talks about some of his lunatic theories like the Queen of England being a shape-shifting reptilian who drinks human blood in occult rituals below Windsor Palace; his presence in the truth movement is a cointelpro op to discredit the movement. Alex Jones does the same in a different way, his screaming and ranting like a crazy man is an act designed to make the general public think all 'conspiracy theorists' must be similarly crazed.

      We know the Zionists control the mass media, so we shouldn't be so naive as to think they haven't also deeply infiltrated the alternative media and the truth movement. Sometimes their cointelpro psyops can take years to uncover, Judy Wood being a prime example, we now know she has close ties to the ADL and SPLC, but that took years to reveal itself. We now have Michael Collins Piper and Deanna Spingola causing trouble over Sandy Hook, cointelpro agents and psyops are everywhere and we need to always be on our guard against them.

      Delete
    3. Ian,

      In an email, Simon stated that he doesn't care if it was done by nukes or done by dynamite. HE DOESNT CARE, and if he makes a technical error about dynamite versus nukes, that doesn't make his work worthless.

      You DONT NEED NUKES to prove Mossad involvement with 9/11. That can be done with the Dancing Israelis, which the Jewish Daily Forward, stated that 2 of the 5 Israelis were Mossad agents. Also, the Odigo warning points to Mossad involvement. So that issue is finished.

      Just work on getting the right answer, if you want it ! Take the pains! Stop looking for cheap answers, like "I don't believe anything Simon Shack says." Instead ask, what evidence that he provides is borne out by the facts! You have to WANT to get the right answer!

      Delete
    4. Wrong yet again Frank! They care! OBF will post hundreds and hundreds of times about how you can't claim it was nukes because ALL of the images and videos are faked. When I bring up the fact that I don't need one video or photo to prove nukes then he states that the USGS and DOE water samples are fake. Then I say there are multiple witnesses that back up what I'm saying. No we can't take their word for it they have no credibility. Yet somehow Simon Shack and OBF do have credibility?

      Everything was faked. The Towers destruction was hidden from view, no one really saw it, the Towers were empty, nobody died, Ground Zero was no mass murder scene blah blah blah!

      THAT IS ALL BULLSHIT FRANK!

      Delete
    5. Don,

      Here is a clip from an email send to me by Simon. I assume that because of it's general nature that there shouldn't be a problem publishing:

      "What, we must ask ourselves, do we hope to achieve - as far as determining exactly what type of explosives were used? Is this technical area of our humble, private investigations even worth our time? Would reaching a conclusion one way or the other (conventional demo, mini-nukes, nano-thermite, DEW or Chinese firecrackers) possibly lead to any sort of pandora's box which would magically reopen the case at official levels and fling open the courtroom doors? Of course not.

      Personally, I do not care too much whether my thesis (conventional demo) is right or wrong - and certainly won't engage in any fist fights to defend it. It is just my best guess dictated my logic and common sense, as I do not believe that anything short of ultra-tested and reliable methods would have been used to demolish any high-rise building in downtown Manhattan. It is in the very spirit of military MO to stick with the safest possibe option.

      What does concern me, however, is that this endless, circular bickering about the exact demolition method used plays into the hands of the perps - which we have long caught pants down airing fake imagery on all the TV networks. The (mostly phony) "9/11 truth movement" and its various 'sleuths' (think Fetzer and Gage - to name but two) are, frankly speaking, enacting a farcical théatre des Guignols, perpetuating debates of utter irrelevance towards establishing the truth and pursuing justice. Unless one believes that airplane kerosene fires caused the WTC complex to collapse, all people of sound reason already know that they were intentionally blown to bits - and that criminal action took place. What purpose is there in establishing precisely what destructtion method was used? Imagine a crime scene where an assassin gets caught red-handed / covered in his wife's blood in his own home, having slain her and sliced her up in small pieces: would it be ESSENTIAL to establish whether he chopped her into meatballs with a kitchen knife, an axe or a chain-saw? Would the investigation STALL indefinitely - until the exact cutting method could be proven?

      Lastly, rest assured that I am not calling anyone in the "9/11truth movement" names - this is not my style. All I do, from time to time and as necessary, is to indicate and call out those individuals I have every reason to believe (after years of careful and level-headed assessments) are professional gatekeepers on a payroll, employed to obfuscate and 'hijack' the 9/11 discourse.


      kind regards

      Simon "

      SIMON DOESN'T CARE. YOU are the one who is flinging around "denying nukes" as a big deal that DEFINES the shill. But the Mossad is already implicated! Nukes are no necessary to implicate the Israelis and Jews.

      Delete
    6. Go read OBF's last 873 posts on this blog and on my stories on Veterans Today and tell me again how much they don't care.

      If you don't care how the Towers were destroyed then why research 9/11? If the 9/11 research community can't get that right then why bother?

      The larger issue is that the types of nukes used in New York were also used in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot more innocent people got nuked in the wars that followed 9/11. The Jews want to keep nuking anyone who stands in their way of dominating the Middle East.

      THAT is why I care about how the Towers came down.

      Delete
  30. I want to second what Simon said. Please review this: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

    And ALL of this page, on the King Kong Man issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, Frankly speaking. The closeup of this tower image could be faked elsewhere.

      That would allow nice shots of people who could not normally climb out like that.

      However, that does not mean all footage is fake. There is a confusion here: if this is fake, then it is a needed contribution to show more people than were in the towers say, if there were none or almost none in most parts of the tower. Not all things would be faked, because some (such as destruction) match debris left after for weeks and months, and match what everyone saw.

      Delete
  31. Ian Greenhalgh said : "You have to realise how a gatekeeping operation works. "

    I guess you should know, seeing as how yourself/Fetzer/Fox are running one :-) .

    Keep up the great work with your new blog Greenhalgh.

    Yet again, you've done an excellent job of debunking...........yourself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dr Fetzer, Why are you wasting your genius on this non-sense? We know who did it and why. This is just a silly distraction. With your intelligence, you should be taking a position on what should be done about it and how we best go about it. Please quit entertaining these clowns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this, Blue. But I don't have any confidence that the government will investigate (the chances are zero), so we have to realize that WE ARE THE INVESTIGATION, there will be no other. And the place that we are going to win is in the Court of Public Opinion.

      I think that the evidence of CGI in the footage will shock many people and create a kind of personal boycott of:

      1. Joining the military.
      2. Joining the CIA
      3. Phasing out the mainstream media, FOR EVER.

      Delete
    2. Re: WE ARE THE INVESTIGATION

      What an excellent point Frankly!

      Re: And the place that we are going to win is in the Court of Public Opinion.

      Another very excellent point there!

      Delete
  33. maybe jackie stuck a mini nuke to jack's head?

    ever think of that one jim?

    if not, you better put your experts on the case posthaste.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Note to genuine critical thinkers:

    Even if the people in the "jump" videos were the correct height in relation to the WTC windows [which they are not], and even if the building itself and its windows, looked proportionately correct for a WTC tower [which they do not], and even if similar videos/photos showing the same event[s] from different angles existed [they do], that would not, and could _never_ , conclusively "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt that _any_ of those videos or photos were genuine , and that they were shot live on location, on the morning of 9/11 at the WTC complex in NYC.

    Other tests would _still_ need to be performed to try to definitively establish any of them as authentic evidence.

    And every one of the alleged videographer/ photographers would still have to be deep-background checked , also.

    But Fetzer/ Fox/ Greenhalgh would have us believe that despite the glaring proportional flaws in the existing videos/photos, no individual technical analysis of either the videos themselves, or of the background their alleged authors, was/is ever necessary, and that they all can,and should be, merely because they exist [i.e. the videos/photos] , be automatically elevated to the level of trustworthy, genuine 9/11 evidence.

    Fetzer/Fox/ Greenhalgh and other "true believers" in "Fetzel Logic" - God help you all.

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good work, men--Frankly Speaking, El Buggo, Don Hollander. OBF.

    You've exposed Ian and Fox for the shills they are. They have been running defense for Jim Fetzer for a long time. Posting anything close to the truth about the 9/11 make Jim nervous and paranoid and so he calls out his troops.

    I'm tired of being questioned about who I am and what I'm doing here by Jim. Clearly, he'd like those of us who are trying to solve the 9/11 puzzle, to go away.

    So what to do? I think we are very close to solving this thing. It all hinges on those first televised 103 minutes which we got thanks to the television archives. Was it live or was it Memorex? Sandy Hook and Boston showed us perpetrators of these events don't have to actually carry them out, they just have to say they happened.

    Frankly Speaking brought up the "missing" flyers posted on what came to be known as the memorial wall. We haven't talked very much about that strange, unprobable behavior by family members. (Interesting to know they had to use ladders!)


    Jim Hollander shed light on the work of Khalezov:
    "Also, I have read Dimitri Khalezov's book. It seems to me that you have to either accept his theory as a whole or reject it outright. He did not come to any conclusions based on research but as a witness. He "knew" there were nukes underground because of his military service, and he got all his other theories from his friendship with Michael Harari. Cherry picking from Khalezov's book doesn't work, he is either correct or a liar. Since he is using CGI footage of the WTC collapse, and photoshoped images it is pretty easy to write him off."

    There is so much more to resolve about this puzzle. It would be nice if we could continue. If this were a true forum, guests would appear without being attacked and ridiculed.

    "Logic and critical thinking," indeed..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm so confused. Are they shills? Who would hire them? And more importantly why haven't they been fired?

      Delete
  36. Don, you stated in one of your comments that you "started looking up the people in the Vicsim Report and found them to be real people". Care to actually elaborate on this? Because honestly, those 'vicsims' are a real devil to pin down; you must be a truly amazing researcher if you managed to get a handle on them so easily!

    Don, the question that needs to be answered is, DID these people actually DIE on 9/11/01? Yes, whether they existed before is also important, but it comes as secondary to the primary focus. I have no doubt that it will emerge eventually that the majority of the victims are nothing but names on a page. However, I don't doubt that in amongst the plethora of fake identities and made-up names, there probably are a few people who actually DID/DO exist at some point or another.

    Whether this amounts to stolen identities, or a few people who were paid or otherwise convinced to disappear as part of the scam, who knows, as that is just my own personal conjecture. I believe that this is a deliberate safety net built into the 'victims' story, so that if this line of thinking ever hit mainstream; they can pick out one of the few people that were real (at one point or another) and use it as straw-man tactic: "Well, this guy definitely existed, etc." But of course, the truly objective investigator can understand that this does not at all equate to proof that said person actually died on the morning of 9/11.

    Either way, the point is that combined with the ridiculous fact that hardly any of the victims are listed in the SSDI, the plainly obvious photoshopping of the victim photos, the frankly laughable memorial guest books, the same old "personalities/actors" paraded again and again as 'family members' (Donna Marsh and Bob McIllvaine to name two), the strange algorithm anomalies in the victim names, the "Truth Movement" lookalike victims (I'm looking at you, Lukasz Milewski), the fact that the Internet is awash with people claiming they knew a victim or are related to one, yet when pressed they are never able to prove their assertions and it ALWAYS turns out to be "Well, my best friend's father's sister's uncle's dog knew him really!" and other such bullshit, not to mention the ridiculous "in-jokes" concerning the victims (Elizabeth 'Wino', anyone?). And, that's not even getting started on the unbelievably illogical and laughable 'survivor stories' and 'myths' that have been born out of the day (the elevators crashing down the lift shafts into the lobbies automatically springs to mind. It's just movie storyline bollocks). The list goes on and on and on.

    Essentially, anyone claiming that this avenue of thought is bullshit or not worth looking into at all is simply ignorant, naïve, plain stupid, or just doesn't want to take the time do any ACTUAL research and thinking. If you can make the effort to set aside biases and preconceptions (which have been deliberately created in the population via the continuation of this psy-op), no one can actually look at this research properly and state outright that there is absolutely no merit to it whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Additionally, as a matter of interest, Operation Northwoods has constantly been propped up by researchers and "9/11 Truth" pundits, such as, Alex Jones and others as some sort of confirmation of 9/11 being a 'false flag'. But, what they always FAIL to mention (deliberately, in my opinion) is that Northwoods actually states that the plan was to FAKE the victims! That they would create fake identities and print lists of names in the media! This INCREDIBLY important factor of Operation Northwoods is ALWAYS purposely omitted by those pundits who hold it up as evidence. The question is, why? Is it because they are gatekeeping and protecting the real heart of the 9/11 scam? In my opinion, the answer is Definitely.

      Delete
    2. I haven't had the time to research everyone who was alleged to have died at the WTC. I think it is disrespectful to come out and say this person is real and this one isn't unless you have really done your homework. The VICSIM report leads one to believe that Sept Clues has done their homework when in fact they have not. The report is BS.

      They found a lot of body parts and chunks of people at Ground Zero. To come out and say that nobody died and it's all fake is an outrage.

      September Clues is wrong about how the buildings were destroyed, wrong about nobody being killed and their "video analysis" is shoddy as well. They are either totally incompetent or deliberate disinfo.

      Shack keeps throwing out concepts like man-made satellites don't exist and the Sun orbits the Earth. That leads me to believe he is 100% pure disinfo.

      Of course the government and media lied to us about 9/11. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean September Clues is telling the truth though. Far from it. Shack is just as full of shit as the Jewish run government and media.

      Delete
    3. Don, you're full of shit. If you find something so ridiculous and can't show it is in fact ridiculous... you have nothing to stand on... it's so easy to prove shack wrong but you can't do it...

      When something is so alarmingly obvious and you don't use that opportunity, but instead say " I'm working on it. or check my next post" we know you have nothing.

      Timing it's all about timing.

      Delete
    4. Really Jim? Check out my blog post from the show I did with Kevin Barrett 10/26/12.

      You can see the charred remains of victims yourself. Nobody died at the WTC? Really?

      You sir, are an idiot.

      Delete
    5. Don, I have evidence that a bearded man from Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

      For all we know, you're definition of idiot includes the smartest of people?

      Delete
    6. Don, interesting photo from your blog. Is this one of the remains of the suicide bombers?...http://imgur.com/lzdPXm6

      Delete
    7. If you want me believe any photos you will not only have to link me to a jpeg but also the RAW file that i can download. If not then I consider it to be art.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. No-one owned digital cameras that recorded in RAw format back in 2001. The only digital cameras that recorded RAW were the Nikon D1 and the Kodak DCS series, but very few people owned these, they were restricted to newspaper paparazzi really and most ros were still shooting film. So if you want RAW images, then you're looking for something that likely never existed and the original images of 9/11 are either lo-res JPEG files from consumer digital cameras or 35mm film negatives.

      Delete
    10. Ian, most or all photos were NOT by unprofessionals, for there is plenty of evidence of media faking of impression of what they were doing, i.e., controlling what got seen and who was there photographing, not only what was faked outright later or reprocessed ...

      But that does not mean we have access to "RAW" format.

      Delete
  37. Don Fox said:

    "They found a lot of body parts and chunks of people at Ground Zero."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So your source for that statement is what? Newspapers? TV? (How simple your research must be when you rely on the mainstream media for your facts.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Exactly, Joan. Well said. And you beat me to it.

    Don, what a simplistic response you provide (yet again)! You are presented with a plethora of factors and evidence that suggest some serious investigation needs to be conducted into the 'supposed' victims. Yet, you basically ignore every word, shoehorn this tired "Jews, Jews, Jews, it's all TEH JEWS!" rubbish in. And just distract from the actual points by just throwing ad hominem at Simon Shack.

    Let's get something straight: I do not know Simon personally. Nor have I EVER mentioned his name in any my posts here. I, of course, am aware of his work and would certainly congratulate the vast majority of it. I believe that on the subject of 9/11, he has done excellent work exposing what a giant psy-op and scam the whole event was. That said, OF COURSE, I don't believe he's 100% correct to a T about absolutely every single little point he has EVER stated. Who exactly is!? I try not to deal in absolutes, and just like a sensible, honest researcher; I eat my meat, spit out any bones, and form my OWN opinions ultimately. I don't FOLLOW any specific person. I rely on a variety of sources, plus a great deal of my own digging and research, and THINKING for MYSELF.

    Simply attacking Simon Shack is not engaging in logical debate about these facts, Don. Attack the message, not the messenger. This is not a debate about Simon Shack, this is a debate about the legitimacy of the imagery and the legitimacy of the victims.

    The point is, Don, I HAVE done my homework. The question is, have you? It certainly doesn't appear so. And if you haven't, which is perfectly acceptable, then are you WILLING to do so? You state that the "Vicsim Report" is BS, but your only singular reason why is an empty claim about body parts being found at Ground Zero. Don, what exactly are you basing that assumption on? The WORD of an unverified witness? Or, as Joan stated, the NEWS media? Which you continue to remind people is run by those dastardly Jews, so why Don, are you trusting ANYTHING they say? Do you not see a problem with that? You're willing to question them about everything, but the victims and the footage? OH NO. Not that. They wouldn't lie about that! *Sigh*

    Why don't you go ahead and PROVE your claims? Firstly, how about providing some evidence that the video analysis conducted by September Clues is "shoddy"? You clearly aren't willing to even LOOK at the videos, so I don't think you can question years of research until you are willing to actually attempt to authenticate the videos yourself. But wait, don't you believe there were no commercial planes involved, Don? By definition, that should have you scrambling to investigate all the footage you can find, considering how much of a giant smoking gun that is!

    But wait, they must be wrong about nobody being killed, because: "They found body parts and chunks of people at Ground Zero." Really, Don? Really? THAT is your argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      Go read my blog post from my last show. Then tell me how great the September Clueless version of 9/11 is. That one blog post completely dismantles Shack.

      The VICSIM report states that ALL of the victims are fake. I found several cops and fireman that definitely died that day. Therefore hoipilloi is full of shit. Why don't you go over to one of those widows and tell her that her husband was fake?

      Go tell the victims families that nobody died that day. You'll be lucky if they don't punch you out. If one of my family members was nuked in the Towers I'd fly to Italy and punch out Shack myself.

      You're saying that finding tiny chunks of people at Ground Zero isn't evidence that people died there? The soil was moist with the bodies of the dead. What kind of a fuckin moron are you? Frank Morales and Charlie Vitchers are a lot more credible than Simon Shack. And yes multiple other witnesses corroborate their statements. NO witnesses corroborate Shack's version of 9/11. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

      Ian and others have dismantled Shack's "analysis" of the video and photo evidence. For me the bottom line with Shack is that he is 100% deliberate disinfo. I don't believe ANYTHING the guy says about 9/11. NOTHING.

      Bob, Jim, Joan and the rest of you guys are a complete joke. You're big hero thinks that the Sun orbits the Earth. DUH!! I think 9/11 is just a bit too complex for guy that can't grasp simple concepts like the Earth orbits the Sun.

      Delete
  39. Don Fox said:

    "You're saying that finding tiny chunks of people at Ground Zero isn't evidence that people died there? The soil was moist with the bodies of the dead."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The "they," who claim "chunks of people" were found at Ground Zero, are the same people who lied to us about Muslims flying planes into the WTC.

    Disinfo agents such as you, Don, make these categorical statements to distract us from the real issues.

    I find the best policy regarding types like you and Ian is not to respond to your silly rebuttals as it only encourages you.

    I am convinced part of the 9/11 crime was to plant people to act as "witnesses" on message boards to counter the inevitable skepticism that would follow. These fake identity posters were effective and wasted a lot of my time. One posed as a survivor of and worker at the WTC.

    I'll bet when people say they know someone who was a witness to or survivor of 9/11, they have met the person online probably on a message or discussion board.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your patience is incredible Jim.. This guy was such a douchebag

    ReplyDelete
  41. Don,

    I looked at your photos of bodies on your website, http://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/p200047-1.jpg .

    And http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/jim-fetzer-real-deal-appearance-21014/

    Now IF this is truthful, then you need to come up with a credible physics destruction model to show how that body is where it is.

    I don't understand how a nuke can shatter concrete but leave a body this much intact. If the body comes from above the 81st floor, then there should be furniture. Remember, Don, that you have a wide range of furniture materials to choose from. Steel AND cloth fabric AND carpet AND leather AND wood. Just like humans have a wide range of hardnesses of flesh, ranging from bone to skin.

    There is no reason for the bitter fighting, unless you are a shill. Are you a shill, Don? Yes or no? You sure seem to have put a lot of time into researching.

    You already AGREE with some VICSIMs. So the question is: To what degree do you agree with Simon Shack? Nukes are NOT an issue, Simon already states that he doesnt care.

    Make your own physics destruction model, explain what the dead men in the photo were doing above the 81st floor without furniture, and why is the body intact if it was below the 81st floor.

    I think that your trashing of September Clues MUST END if you are not a shill. Start talking about the degree to which you accept VICSIMs and September Clues, OR else come up with Don Fox's explanation of fake identities, since you have clearly stated that some of the identities are fake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think things are going badly awry now. We've fallen into the trap set by OBF and the others in Shack's lunatic fringe - wasting valuable time and effort in arguing amongst ourselves.

      It's really obvious to me what their game is - they present some dubious 'analysis' and establish some half-baked semi-ludicrous theories which they will refuse to shift from. Then they will attack ceaselessly anyone who dares to challenge them. It's their way of throwing a spanner in the works and diverting serious researchers from worthwhile avenues of inquiry.

      They are deliberately provoking in-fighting among us in order to derail our work. Attacking Fox and Fetzer repeatedly as OBF has is a clear indicator to me that Fox and Fetzer are working in areas they don't want them to.

      I strongly suspect that there is a hidden agenda that is behind the work of Shack et al, that they are disinfo agents working against serious research. Just as Judy Wood turned out to be tied to the ADL, and there have been many instances of disinfo agents within the JFK research community, I suspect that we are being played here. The goal is to cause us to expend time and effort in engaging and debating them and their falacious 'research'. This is why I have scorn and derision for them. I can just find it very, very hard to tolerate anyone who I suspect is working to a nefarious agenda that is counter to the good and proper research being done.

      One big indicator to me that they are working against the search for truth is their attacks on Fox and Fetzer, particularly those on Jim, criticising his ability to apply proper scientific methodology, ridiculing his logical, rational reasoning etc. It all stinks to high heaven and makes me very, very suspicious.

      Another big indicator is OBF, I don't see what this guy does that is valuable or worthwhile at all, I don't see anything from him that even vaguely resembles research. All he does is pick away at Jim and Don, he seems to have really got a bee in his bonnet about Jim. he has made hundreds upon hundreds of longwinded comments at VT and the RD comments and to be honest, I fail to see the value in any of them, it's all spurious criticism and attacks. He's a classic internet troll, contributes nothing of value, just causes trouble and trolls others.

      So let's not fall into their trap by wasting any more time in-fighting, it's time to just ignore them and have faith that sensible, rational people will see right through their lunatic theories of no nukes, no victims, no rockets, flat earth etc.

      My personal opinion is that they are disinfo agents who seek to disrupt serious research efforts.

      If they are not agents, then what is their rationale for their attacks on others? The points on which they seem to be most keen to attack people are the use of nukes, the death toll and the involvement of Israel. If you were one of the perpetrators of this heinous crime then wouldn't you want to convince people that you didn't use a weapon of mass destruction to slaughter thousands of innocents? Shack's theory that we were shown a movie while they used military grade smoke generators to cover the demolition with dynamite of two empty towers, killing no-one, is precisely the sort of false notion the perpetrators would love to implant in the public conscience.

      Delete
    2. Ian nailed it! Very well said sir.

      For my purposes all I have ever needed to prove was that nukes were used to destroy the WTC buildings. I've done that in spades. I've proven the official story is a sham and Steve Jones is a fraud which is what I set out to accomplish when I started all of this. Along the way I've crushed Judy Wood and Simon Shack as well.

      The NY medical examiner has identified by DNA 1,634 people that were killed in the WTC area. They have a stack of 9,000 pieces and parts that they can't identify by DNA. 1,100 people were completely vaporized.

      Bob, Jim and Joan: if you guys want to prove that nobody died at Ground Zero then you need to prove the NY medical examiner is a liar. The burden of proof is on YOU. Not me. My research has proven to me that the NY Medical Examiner's office is far more credible than dipshit hoipilloi.

      Frank: attacking Simon Shack is NOT in-fighting. He works for the other side just as Judy Wood and Steve Jones do. 9/11 was NOT a completely media created event. Buildings exploded and people died. Lower Manhattan was not just a movie set. In order to be a 9/11 Truther you have to actually seek the Truth of what happened on 9/11. Shack has proven in spades that he has NO interest in seeking the Truth of 9/11.

      I can't believe how many people have fallen for the Sept Clues load of bullshit.

      The perps of 9/11 are not only mass murderers they are also war criminals for using nuclear weapons to kill unarmed civilians in office buildings.

      I have no interest in putting a palatable spin on the actions of these monsters as so many of you seem to have.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Do you think the Earth orbits the Sun or does the Sun orbit the Earth?

      Delete
  42. I've read your blog post, Don. Can you please explain to me how this one post, in your words: "Completely dismantles Shack." Because honestly, I think when you are willing to make statements like that, your content needs to ACTUALLY back them up. I mean, ALL you've got here is EXACTLY what I, and others, have explained to you countless times, in plain English, is unverified and not evidence of anything!

    Leaving aside the huge majority of your blog post that is dedicated to talking about the atomic bomb and nuclear weaponry (I thought this was a debate about the veracity of the footage, imagery and victims?), let's talk about the TWO things you raise that actually relate directly to 9/11 and this particular argument.

    1. Father Frank Morales.

    Jesus, Don, how much more simple can I make this?! Father Frank Morales' tale means Jack. Shit. It is UNVERIFIED and just his WORD. As Frankly aptly stated somewhere above too, normal people and witnesses don't use language like that. Saying "the soil is rich with the dead" isn't actually really SAYING anything. It's just loaded and emotive language designed to generate a psychological reaction. I'm tired of going over this point with you now. Just how ignorant of this do you want to act?

    Don, a question: do you believe that there WERE witnesses shown on the day and afterward who were plants/agents/actors designed to sell the official story? The infamous "Harley Guy" as one obvious example. Or, the "survivor" from one of the Towers who claimed he actually saw the "crazed face of the hijacker" in the cockpit of the plane. If you do believe this, then how can you accept ANY so-called witness on their WORD. Without an intensive cross-checking and background checking procedure to authenticate properly, not only the story they are telling, but they personal and professional background in detail; you CANNOT present them as credible evidence of ANYTHING, Don. End of.

    2. The photos of the 'crater'.

    What are these, Don? Are they IMAGERY? Yes. Did you PERSONALLY witness this? No. Have you tried to authenticate this imagery? Of course you haven't. You don't think you even need to verify it, do you?! You really are a joke. But, for arguments sake (and leaving aside for a moment the fact that you've only presented one unverified witness and a few unverified photographs and claimed that it "completely dismantles September Clues". Excuse me while I stop laughing!), let's assume for a moment that those photos are genuine. With that in mind, let's ask a few logical, simple questions in regards to the ACTUAL DEBATE that is in hand:

    Do those photos PROVE that the footage of the planes is genuine? NO. Do those photos PROVE that the footage of the both tower destructions are genuine? NO. Do those photos PROVE that the "Live" coverage of the day and the so-called "amateur" footage is all completely legitimate and authentic? NO. Do those photos PROVE that people actually died on 9/11? NO. What parts of September Clues do these photos actually "debunk"? NOTHING.

    So, what ARE you saying is debunked? Simon's opinion about the method of destruction? He has stated, as has been repeated to you many times, that he DOES NOT care. And the only factor that can be logically determined is that it cannot be confirmed at all until the footage is verified! But as the method of destruction is neither the focus of September Clues or this debate, then your point remains moot until we can see something that can actually be proven as AUTHENTIC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyway, continuing to the rest of your ridiculous comment. You state: "I found several cops and firemen that definitely died that day." Then, present your damn case, you imbecile! Stop throwing empty assertions around and back up what you're saying! Demonstrate the facts that support this statement, Don. Present the body of evidence that proves these people actually died. After all, I'm guessing you have that; as you're not the type of person to make claims without an iota of proof behind them. I think you are letting your biases and emotions get in the way, Don. You believe firemen died because: "They died, duh!" You don't feel like you need to present a case for this, because you are too emotionally attached to the 9/11 storyline. It's time you drop your preconceptions and biases, Don, and start THINKING like an actual objective investigator.

      Your entire post demonstrates your emotional and psychological attachment to "hearts and minds" Hollywood narrative of 9/11. Phrases and arguments such as "I'd punch you out if you ever said to me the victims aren't real." Or, "Try telling that to the family members! They will knock you out!" serve no purpose in a logical, intellectual debate. They simply serve to show me how invested in the 9/11 scam your mind is. You are reacting with your emotions to information and not logic and reason. You are almost a perfect example of how the 9/11 psy-op can work!

      You're just repeating sound bites from the news and unverified witness accounts layered with loaded language, and then calling people morons if they don't believe it! The only moron here is you, Don. You're certainly acting like one, when given your 'supposed' credentials in regards to 9/11, you should actually be acting like an intelligent human being.

      You say you don't believe ANYTHING Shack says about 9/11. But, haven't you by your own admission already admitted that you don't believe in commercial planes and that the victims of those are likely to be fake (at least, 246 of them). And on that point as a stand alone assertion, you ARE agreeing with September Clues. So what exactly IS your position, Don?

      And as an aside, I already stated my thoughts on Shack; that I don't FOLLOW any one researcher, and that this is about the message not the messenger. So continuing to play this ridiculous "big hero... he's a douche... yadda, yadda, yadda" card is getting very tiresome now. Your tactics are plain as day for anyone with a working mind to see.

      Delete
    2. And as a final addition to this: the photo of bodies on your blog. I have seen this photo before. Now, let's break this down, shall we Don?

      Firstly, let's just assume (again, for arguments sake) that this photo and its contents are genuine. Is this passable, provable evidence of death of 9/11? Well, no. For a number of reasons.

      Firstly, there is no time or date signature on this photograph. This means that a chain of evidence in regards to the author of this shot and the actual point in time it was taken are almost impossible to establish or verify. Someone could claim this photo was taken on 9/11, but without a verifiable time stamp or any access to metadata, this is impossible to ascertain.

      Secondly, again assuming the photograph is, at the least, a legitimate photograph of some bodies; the location and point of reference is also completely unverifiable. The shot is a tight close up with no way of authenticating where this photo was actually taken. And as we've also got no way of verifying the 'when' either, it leaves us with a very possible question:

      Couldn't this photo essentially be from any bombing incident, war zone, airstrike aftermath on buildings/bunker, etc., etc. Take your pick. The answer is yes. Without any frame of reference, chain of evidence, or verification of time, date, place and author; the only evidence we have to suggest this is a photo from 9/11 is someone's WORD. I.E. It is taken for granted. But, Don, you of all people should know by now, that NOTHING in regards to 9/11 should be taken as read.

      Delete
    3. Bob does the Earth orbit the sun or does the Sun orbit the Earth?

      Delete
    4. That's your response? How pathetic. Do you make an effort to be an obnoxious tool? If only you made that same effort as an investigator.

      To be perfectly honest, I've been more than reasonable with you. I've presented intelligent, structured debates and posed simple, logical questions. And, after tackling every one of your points time after time with intellectual retorts, you STILL play this ridiculous distraction game! Why don't YOU answer some of the questions I have put to YOU?! Personally, I don't see why I even need to rise to this considering you basically continue to ignore every single argument and question put to you.

      But, here's an answer to that question for you, Don: I don't give a shit. I have little interest in astronomy. And here's the other reason that I don't care one iota: that isn't relevant to this debate AT ALL. We are discussing the legitimacy of the footage and the legitimacy of the victims...

      Oh wait, that's right. I'M discussing the legitimacy of the footage and the legitimacy of the victims. YOU are acting like a clown, being plain ignorant, and using dumb ridicule and distraction tactics. Hmm... I'm seeing the MO of a shill personally, either that or the MO of an imbecile.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Bob,

      IT IS relative! September Clues is a bunch of Flat Earth knuckle-draggers! My point is you cannot have a logical debate with a cult of Flat Earthers.

      All of your arguments are complete bullshit Bob. Not worth the time to even type a response to. So you will get Flat Earth stuff from here on out.

      Delete
    7. Don, I think it is clear for everyone now, that you have run out of bullets. All you have left is the plates in the cupboard and the kitchen sink.

      Delete
    8. Don, you now remind me of the Black Knight in this Monty Python story:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg

      Delete
  43. I believe that any research into this subject must be handled with extreme caution and respect, something which Shack and hoi.polloi completely failed to do. Just imagine you are a relative of someone who died on 9/11 and you read that Shack and hoi.polloi think your dead relative’s name is so funny sounding it has to be made up by a computer program and think your relative’s picture was made by morphing from another picture. How would that make you feel? I’m sure it would be deeply upsetting.

    To properly and respectfully approach the research of the victims is going to require a huge amount of work, if done by one or two people, it might take them years. There are many data sources to be collated, examined and then cross-checked.
    Shack didn’t bother about doing things properly or showing any respect, and it is my contention that this is because the motivation for his Vicsims Report is nefarious, the purpose being to mislead people away from the simple fact that 9/11 was a mass murder event and therefore diminish the crime committed. He would like people to believe that no-one died and the towers were demolished with dynamite behind a military grade smokescreen while the TV played fake videos because demolishing a couple of empty towers is a far lesser crime than using nuclear weapons to vapourise thousands of innocent New Yorkers.

    Shack’s Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish. It contains some ludicrous stuff such as the theory that they morphed from one face to another, my god, what a load of baloney.
    Shack’s approach of looking at pictures and names and saying they can see something suspicious is not a valid one imho.

    The way I would approach further research into victims is by finding as many different sources of data as possible then cross-checking them. Off the top of my head, that would include the SSDI, the court records of Hilverstein and Mukasey’s legal proceedings, the financial records of what happened to the 3.5 billion doled out by Feinberg, records of the 1,500 hearings that Feinberg attended with victims families, obituaries published in NYC newspapers, records of the 1,600+ body parts found plus other sources too. It’s a vast job, far, far more complex than anything Shack has done and needs to be done with far more respect and pathos than Shack and hoi-polloi applied as we are talking about mass murder and the loss of innocent lives.

    In short, all we can credit Shack for is the initial concept of fake victims, he hasn’t done any credible or valid work to investigate that theory however, the Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish. In order to properly refute his theory however, will take a vast amount of careful research and then very careful cross-checking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really for my purposes all that needs to be proven is that ONE person died. That's it. Hoipilloi failed to prove ALL of the victims were faked so their BS about nobody dying is just that - BS.

      VICSIMs doesn't take into account the people that died of radiation exposure cleaning up Ground Zero either. Yet another blow to the "movie set" theory bullshit.

      Delete
    2. Don,

      "Really for my purposes all that needs to be proven is that ONE person died. "

      Good!! That's a start.

      Remember that Simon Shack says "perhaps and probably none", which means that he EQUIVOCATES. And he's right to equivocate.

      http://www.septemberclues.info/deconstructing.shtml

      Now you, Don Fox, have stated that all that needs to be proven is one.

      And I said "a low number, probably under 10".

      So we have room for agreement here.

      Don, TO WHAT DEGREE do you agree with September Clues?

      Do you agree with Elizabeth Wainio? Luis Mariani? Lukasz Milewski? The King Kong Man analysis?

      Get off your duff and tell us points of agreement with September Clues, and come up with your own understanding of how many died? Don't forget the furniture issue.

      Delete
    3. The furniture issue is a non-issue, it was destroyed, dustified because it was within the blast radius of the nukes.

      King-Kong Man is a simple case of incompetence on the part of Shack, he simply can't measure properly.

      There is no room for agreement with gatekeepers like Shack, they are disgusting creatures who deserve nothing but scorn and derision. if you have thrown your lot in with them than you have no credibility ether.

      There is simply too much evidence of people in the towers for your ridiculous argument of no victims or less than 10 to be tenable. However, you seem to be ignoring all that evidence and instead basing your crackpot theory on incompetent and incorrect 'analysis' by Shack.

      Therefore, you are wrong and unless you do consider all the other available evidence your theory is untenable and not worthy of any consideration.

      Delete
    4. The furniture issue is an excellent point.

      Ian, can you refer to any demonstrations of this effect where furniture stuff is dustified? Some indications of this effect you can point to maybe? The question is; how do we know that you are not talking about some science fiction stuff here?

      There is simply too much evidence for that the holocost happened too. We have millions of witnesses, and billion of news reports, at least several million films and photos from the event. It is in the schoolbooks, and holocost museums everywhere, heck, we even have a international holocost day! And don't forget the nurenberg trails. With all this evidence for the holocost, it must have been real right? There is simply too much evidence for that holocost happened to be faked? They couldn't have faked all that stuff, therefore it must have been real? So anyone who doesn't subscribe to this idea must be nuts and should be put in jail too?

      Delete
  44. Don Fox wrote:

    "My research has proven to me that the NY Medical Examiner's office is far more credible than dipshit hoipilloi."

    You mean these folks here - don't you, Don dear?
    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=139&p=2389386#p2389386

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon, unfortunately this thread neither fully discredits the medical examiners nor clarifies what happened.

      Let's back up:

      clearly, they have lies to maintain -- if there were very few victims found (due to nukes and/or few victims in the towers themselves, aside from some rescue workers).

      But they also could well be telling the truth about the coroner reports for some persons.

      The possibility is that NO-ONE was rescuing anybody and present at the scene, which is your position.

      But the realistic possibility is that some WERE, were collateral damage, and Don is merely over-trusting the evidence while you are under-trusting it.

      Delete
  45. @ don fox: ouch...maybe you should bow out of this internet brawl, you're leading with your chin.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Don Fox said: "For my purposes all I have ever needed to prove was that nukes were used to destroy the WTC buildings. I've done that in spades. I've proven the official story is a sham and Steve Jones is a fraud which is what I set out to accomplish when I started all of this. Along the way I've crushed Judy Wood and Simon Shack as well."

    Wow. I'm beginning to think that you are actually delusional. Yes, Don. Whatever you say. I mean, I concur, you've certainly proven your case and "crushed" Simon Shack to no end in these comments. Hell, I haven't been able to move for the mass of evidence you've been presenting, and the intellectual genius that you have demonstrated. I hope you're familiar with the concept of sarcasm, but if not, I'll spell it out differently: what a crock. You have nothing but empty claims and ad hominem.

    Did you actually just claim that the New York Medical Examiner is CREDIBLE? Tell me Don, exactly how deep does your 9/11 investigation actually go? I'm curious, because you prop up Charles Hirsch as if he is in any way an upstanding and competent pathologist who ISN'T in somebodies' pocket! Do you actually KNOW any of the utterly ludicrous statements that man has made in relation to 9/11? He actually claimed that many of the victims have been rendered into dust! I guess it's easier for them to claim that the bodies "vaporised" (what a laughable, meaningless concept anyway: what is this, a sci-fi movie?); after all, then they don't have produce sod all physical evidence. Hirsch also kept the Medical Office's "investigation" under tight lock and key, and steadfast privacy. And for good reason: they didn't want anyone being able to probe this too closely. It might've given the game away!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm wiling to bet the NY medical examiner believes that the Earth orbits the Sun so that would put him miles ahead of Shack and September Clueless!

      Delete
  47. seu bobo said : "@ don fox: ouch...maybe you should bow out of this internet brawl, you're leading with your chin."

    More like leading with his ass ! :-)

    regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bob Bobson said: "Did you actually just claim that the New York Medical Examiner is CREDIBLE? "

    According to Agent Faux, so is the DOE and the USGS :-) .

    One has to admire his religion-like faith in government entities and their "reports" and "studies" etc.

    Way to go, Faux!

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 911 was done from the inside. Move on please.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm for banning Simon Shack from this forum. He's taking advantage of this forum. Shack takes it for granted that he will be allowed to fully express his ideas here, while extending no such courtesies to members of his own forum, i.e., Simon Shack is running (by definition) a Limited Hangout disinfo website. His behavior has discredited himself. Whatever Shack has to say, he's not necessary to the truth movement. In fact, Shack is distracting, which is precisely why he posts here.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 9-11 = Solved... Here's how they did it according to Frank. I guess Israel and the Pentagon were in desperate needs of new door-knobs is their facilities. Problem solved, remove all existing door knobs from WTC1 2 7 and what have you. The only problem left is that WTC 1, 2 & 7 no longer havd door knowbs, so the best way to handle the missing door knobs were to fly either remote control drones, missiles, or whatever and destroy tower 1, 2 & 7 so that Israel could have some much needed doorknobs in their facilities.

    I mean sure they could make a bulk purchase of door knobs from Home Depot or Lowes, but chose is use the whole false flag angle.

    make up some stories about arabs flying jets into WTC and Pentagon to justify all our war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the biggest modern day catastrophe also known as Syria, now Ukraine is angry.

    All over some god damn door knobs that the Jews were in high demand of.

    Frank i think you are the perfect male counter part to Judy Wood, I appreciate your unique off the wall views but you are just a little too wacky for me.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Don Fox said: "Bob,

    IT IS relative! September Clues is a bunch of Flat Earth knuckle-draggers! My point is you cannot have a logical debate with a cult of Flat Earthers.

    All of your arguments are complete bullshit Bob. Not worth the time to even type a response to. So you will get Flat Earth stuff from here on out."

    Oh, give it a rest, Don. You seriously ARE delusional, aren't you?! All you've got are these tired ridicule tactics: "Duh! Flat Earther! Duh!" Which is exactly the same as the mainstream media using the tactics: "Duh! Holocaust Denier! Duh!" YOU are the person not having a logical debate, and instead just acting like a moronic tool.

    In case you didn't get it the first time (which you probably didn't), here's why it isn't relative: I. Don't. Care. I don't give a shit. You can call September Clues a 'cult' or whatever other names you want; but here's the thing: I don't care what you think of Shack or Clues. I've already stated that I don't follow anyone, I take my information from a large variety of sources, my own research and investigation, and my own cognitive reasoning and THINKING.

    You know why you won't deal with my arguments? It's because you CAN'T. You can claim my arguments are bullshit all you want, or that it's not worth your time to respond to; but we all know that is just a cop out, Don. You do not have the debating expertise, intelligence, or breadth of knowledge on this subject to engage this. So, you ignore it, hoping it will go away. And your only reaction is just to call bullshit, use ridicule and distraction tactics, and call people names.

    Your level of thinking and debate is the same as a bloody child in a school yard: "I know you are, but what am I?", "Well, you smell!", "Well, I don't care because your mum is fat." You're a damn clown, and you prove it time and time again. So, why don't you either step up to the plate, or settle down with a warm milk and let the adults talk.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Allison Hunt wrote:

    "I'm for banning Simon Shack from this forum. He's taking advantage of this forum."

    As I've mentioned before, I would be glad to be banned from this place - please go ahead and do so now if you will. Ideally, Fetzer may then copy-paste into his blog's rules of conduct this explicit warning published years ago in the Loosechange forum rules :

    http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/LooseChangeForumGrab.jpg

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ian Greenhalgh said: "We've fallen into the trap set by OBF and the others in Shack's lunatic fringe."

    Oh Ian, did you actually use the term 'lunatic fringe'? Come on, I thought we were more sophisticated than using these ridiculous labels designed only to suggest that people are nuts, whenever they raise controversial or 'taboo' topics amongst the so-called "Truth Movement". It's the exact same hollow tactic that the mainstream media use when they want to discredit alternative thinkers. And the same tactics that air-headed shills like Alex Jones throw at people who even question the planes one iota: "Anyone who thinks this way has a mental illness" being a prime example of his own brand of crap. Hell, you might as well have called Shack and others "tin-foil hatters"!

    And, engaging in open debate and investigation of ALL angles of 9/11; not just the ones deemed 'acceptable' by The 9/11 Truth Movement, is NOT a waste of valuable time. This is about the SEARCH for truth. The difference between that and the shill-infested 9/11 Truth is that they adamantly believe they have already FOUND it, and thus their agenda is to gatekeep and prevent anyone from asking the REALLY tough questions and getting anywhere near the ACTUAL heart of the scam.

    Ian said: "they present some dubious 'analysis' and establish some half-baked semi-ludicrous theories which they will refuse to shift from. Then they will attack ceaselessly anyone who dares to challenge them. It's their way of throwing a spanner in the works and diverting serious researchers"

    Refuse to shift from? Don, you, and others have given NO reason to "shift" from asking these questions, and presenting this evidence. Instead of dealing with the subject or attempting to enter into any kind of logical, reasoned debate; there has been nothing but empty claims, ridicule, distraction and ad hominem in response. So, exactly what reason/s have we been given in order to reconsider? Oh wait, I get it. That we are nuts. That's the only reason we should need, right?

    Yes, Ian. Because I have been doing nothing, but 'ceaselessly attacking' the incredible works on Don Fox and others. Because raising alternative hypothesis and research is the exact same thing as attacking researchers on a personal level. What a spurious assertion. Oh wait, you think it's the same because this research could (gasp!) possibly contradict the research of Fox, Fetzer and others! Oh, we couldn't have that, could we?! This all must just be personal attacks by shills who want to 'divert serious researchers'. Are you including Don under the blanket of a 'serious researcher'? Because honestly, his actions on these comments are akin to that of a ten-year old; and his responses to these arguments are some of the most moronic, childish, ignorant, and otherwise ill-informed and unintellectual claptrap that I think I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian said: "The goal is to cause us to expend time and effort in engaging and debating them and their falacious 'research'."

      Oh, God forbid that you might have to expend some time and effort into debate and investigation! Whether or not you THINK that this research is 'fallacious'; that doesn't mean that alternative thesis' and evidence are not worth the effort to discuss, debate and investigate. Different theories are a GOOD thing as they encourage rational and logical thinking, and enable us as truly independent and objective investigators to be able to separate from our own biases a little, and absorb and consider alternatives (no matter how controversial or 'taboo' they may seem).

      Ian said: "it's time to just ignore them and have faith that sensible, rational people will see right through their lunatic theories of no nukes, no victims, no rockets, flat earth etc."

      Yes. Sensible and rational people. You mean, like Don Fox maybe? Because, of course, he has acted like the epitome of sense and rationality in these comments! The kind of researcher whose idea of a rational debate is... well, not to debate at all and instead act like a petulant child who has just been told he needs to do his homework before he can go out and play.

      As for the 'flat Earth' rubbish. Enough already. The only people here mentioning 'flat Earth' are Don, you and a couple of others using it as an empty, ignorant ridicule tactic. Sensible and rational, indeed!

      Delete
    2. Agreed, except that Simon and OBF and so on do become uncareful, due to imposing an hypothesis of "all-fake" and forget that parts can be real. In fact, most can be real but set up -- fake only in the sense of camera angle, when what is reported is reported, editing, overlays of falsensess, etc., but not no real footage.

      Delete
  55. Clare,

    You mentioned before that a certain percentage (was it 50-60%?) of the identities are fake. Can you say what was the basis of your figure? What is your best synthesis of the discussion that we've been having?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Don,

    IF

    1. September Clues is 100% false, and IF,
    2. Don Fox believes that there are SOME fake identities, THEN
    3. What is the Don Fox Theory of fake identities, and how does it differ from the Simon Shack theory of fake identities?

    ReplyDelete
  57. You have to realise how a gatekeeping operation works. In order to establish credibility and draw an audience, they first have to put out some good info. Once they have 'hooked' an audience with this, they can then begin to mislead them so that thy never approach the real truth. With Shack, the good info was establishing that there was fakery within the live TV transmissions. However, since then, he has expended a great deal of effort in misleadng people. His ad nauseum repeated theory of dynamite being used behind a military grade smokecreen to demolish empty towers killing no-one while a fake movie was played on TV is simply a misdirection tactic. He doesn't want people to see the truth that nuclear weapons were used to commit mass murder, hence his 'nukes are fake' campign and his 'Vicsims Report'. Both are crass attempts to diminish the scale of this horrific crime. Demolishing an empty building killing no-one is a far lesser crime than using WMDs to murder thousands of innocent New Yorkers. I also think that the reason why Shack puts out a lot of plainly fallacious 'analysis' such as the laughable 'King Kong Man' is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. People see this laughably poor work and it makes them think the 9/11 truth movement is populated with kooks and idiots. David Icke uses the same tactic when he talks about some of his lunatic theories like the Queen of England being a shape-shifting reptilian who drinks human blood in occult rituals below Windsor Palace; his presence in the truth movement is a cointelpro op to discredit the movement. Alex Jones does the same in a different way, his screaming and ranting like a crazy man is an act designed to make the general public think all 'conspiracy theorists' must be similarly crazed.

    We know the Zionists control the mass media, so we shouldn't be so naive as to think they haven't also deeply infiltrated the alternative media and the truth movement. Sometimes their cointelpro psyops can take years to uncover, Judy Wood being a prime example, we now know she has close ties to the ADL and SPLC, but that took years to reveal itself. We now have Michael Collins Piper and Deanna Spingola causing trouble over Sandy Hook, cointelpro agents and psyops are everywhere and we need to always be on our guard against them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian- I've never been a follower of Judy Wood, but this is the first I've heard of her close ties to ADL and SPLC--do you have any links?? Also, fyi, Deanna Spingola is a heavy promoter of Judy Wood, so much so that on her recent show with JW, one of DS's followers suggested the show should be called "3 Shills and a Mic" (see comments here: http://grizzom.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-spingola-zone-at-afp-2252014.html)


      And sorry to go off-topic, but on the issue of Sandy Hook, lots of people have been going through the CT photo/video evidence of the interior and exterior of the school, and it's certainly looking as though the school was not operational for many years. I've started posting on this here: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65846-new-shooting-Newtown-Conn-details-breaking/page120

      And here's a great comment that sums things up:

      Stephanie Sliwinsk -- Ask ANY teacher, janitor, school administrator, etc it is common practice for public school districts to use a decommissioned school as a storage yard for old furniture and items the district has little use for. This exactly what this is. The Fire Marshall inspects each and every classroom each year (especially THAT close to a fire station where they were driving past it daily) and there is no way in Hell he would approve of all that large and bulky, old furniture boarded up against the windows. What if a fire broke out in the hallway and fire blocked the door? How would small kids escape? The windows at ground level of course. This story stank from the first five minutes. As a former public school teacher for ten years I have never ever seen a working school look like that. Especially not an elementary in an affluent area. Fake fake fake as the day is long.

      Delete
    2. I don't have the info regarding Judy Wood to hand, I'll see if I can find it.

      You are spot-on about Sandy Wood, it appears that the school was disused for many years, possibly since 1980. The events of Sandy Hook were clearly years in the planning and they made such a bad job of it that a hell of a lot of people have seen straight through it. It appears that the perpetrators have realised this and are using people like Spingola and Piper to counterattack in a rather desperate move.

      Delete
    3. @Ian- If you happen to find a link, that would be great, but don't trouble yourself. I'm honestly not at all surprised by the info--it makes a lot of sense to me

      Delete
    4. Amanda, hi. Judy did a talk at the ADL when few would have her -- either a credit to at least some at the ADL for entertaining such ideas, or as a disinfo misdirection for their members from thinking it was Israeli nukes.

      One way or the other, she has been protected by them to some degree, since then at least.

      However, the argument from Ian is guilt by association.

      He forgets that her own prejudices of mind about types of weaponry could well account for her behaviour in being glad for ADL support (and she has some bias, toward "weird weaponry" as the only answer, thinking it is the only reasonable answer, which would of course prejudice her towards that in future).

      Ian also is forgetting, do remember, that sometimes very few will listen to one's ideas, and doing the "weird interview TV circuit and Jim's shows" was not going to be happily her only options if she could get others, if she was never an agent FOR the ADL.

      Delete
  58. Ian Greenhalgh wrote:

    "I also think that the reason why Shack puts out a lot of plainly fallacious 'analysis' such as the laughable 'King Kong Man' is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole."

    Ian Greenhalgh is apparently still standing by his silly debunking effort of the "KING KONG MAN"... Fantastic. I guess this is how the military mindset works:

    "DENY, DENY, DENY - even when your pants have been pulled down."

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  59. LOL, your 'analysis' is utterly laughable Simon and anyone with half a brain can see that, you can't even make a simple measurement:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CWjmyMBs4UQ/UxBTdYMQvJI/AAAAAAAAACg/CfhYcTBsEfU/s1600/King+Kong+Mn+debunked.jpg

    The only thing op to debate now is whether you are deliberately misleading people or are just completely incompetent and hopelessly arrogant.

    Either way, you are a figure who deserves nothing but scorn and derision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you need to do is show why Simon's group was wrong about that, not only show a different angle.

      Also, Ian, MISTAKES from prejudiced thinking or from pure confusion in method ARE NOT DISINFO.

      Delete
  60. Wow. Ian, for once, I actually agree with you to an extent. I understand how controlled opposition tactics and gatekeepers work, I just disagree about WHO those gatekeepers are and WHY they are operating. But, to your credit, I will say that I certainly agree with the sentiment that the perps are operating on all sides of the dialectic and the so-called "alternative media" is heavily infiltrated. In fact, personally I would argue that it is SO infiltrated and controlled by the opposition that very likely 99% of the personalities and pundits within it are shills/agents running very clever disinformation campaigns in a variety of different ways. In fact, it is my considered opinion that the 'alternative media' and "Truth Movement" was actually set up from the start to BE a controlled opposition trap in order to contain any kind of awakening.

    I also agree with you about both David Icke and Alex Jones. I have never supported those two clowns, and openly expose them at every opportunity as the shills that they most clearly are. That said, you speak at the "9/11 Truth Movement" as if it is some kind of beacon of light. Personally, and it may shock you to hear this, I don't give a rat's ass about the 9/11 Truth Movement being 'discredited' (in fact, as far as I see it, they are ALREADY discredited!). I never align myself with that 'movement', nor have I ever declared any support for them. It is nothing, but an agent-infested gatekeeping operation through and through (again, I would argue it probably even began as such). I am an independent researcher, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, of course, I actively search for the truth behind 9/11. I just don't think I need to align myself with those fools in order to be in support of 9/11 research.

    So, you agree that there WAS fakery in TV transmissions? If that is the case, Ian, then what IS your overall position on the purpose and extent of that? As for Shack's "towers demolished using dynamite behind a military smoke screen": I believe he has openly stated on many occasions that it is just that: a theory. His best guess on how the destruction COULD have taken place. The issue is, the main point being made is that due to the fact that the footage is unverified and can be shown to be illegitimate; the method of destruction cannot be conclusively proven at all by analysing the imagery. I think that's a pretty easy concept to grasp, personally.

    As for the research into the supposed victims (vicsims), the plethora of information, evidence, research, and reasoned thesis presented in these comments that suggests a scam on a massive scale when it comes to the deaths has not been countered AT ALL. Or even debated on any logical, rational level by those who disagree. The only responses have been ignorant foot stamping, ad hominem, and resorting to childish "Flat Earth nuts! Duh!". To me, this demonstrates how powerful and effective the 9/11 psyop was, because these are exactly the kind of emotional and ignorant responses it was designed to invoke.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hi everyone,

    Jim Fetzer says: "I've got a lovely bunch of nukes. Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head" [sings like that character in the Lion King movie] ;)

    Here is my latest article on the 9/11 Big Lie to help people to distinguish right from wrong:

    http://jahilliya.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/knowing-right-from-wrong/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we don't know what kind of nukes exist in the world, exactly, but there are nukes used in building demolition by the military now, as per their declassification -- not the types but the fact of usage.

      We also have nuclear weaponry as particle beams.

      Delete
  62. Has anyone ever taken the time to read James Fetzer's personal Wikipedia page?

    It's a quite interesting read, imho:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear, you really are tragically ill-infomed aren't you? It makes your trolling attempts all the more laughable.

      Jim has written an article about wikipedia that is well worth reading and explains quite a lot about how wikipedia presents deliberately misleading information:

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/30/james-henry-fetzer-wikipedia-not/

      Delete
    2. Simon, that Wikipedia page has been mentioned again and again on the show. Do you listen to your "enemies" at all?

      It was completely redone by Spookipedia.

      Go to the link which Ian has given.

      Thank you for your work, again, by the way; the extent of your conclusions I disagree with, due to some of the extent of your mid-conclusions (about specific aspects of the media control), but the value is high that your group raised that the media in some levels were in on it in many ways.

      Delete
  63. I agree with you Bob, about the very high level of penetration and infiltration of the 'truth movement' (a term I dislike, but I don't have a better one to use.

    You may well be right about the movement being controlled opposition from the start, certainly there are other examples of controlled opposition that point in that direction. I'm not a UFO/Aliens person, but I have friends that are and one of the main reasons why I've always shied away from all that stuff is because it has always been apparent to me that the majority of 'researchers' into such things are cointelpro shills and gatekeepers. Stanton Friedman is a prime example. The obvious reason being that guff about Aliens is perfect cover/distraction for the many advanced tech black ops.

    My position on the TV fakery is that it was necessary to broadcast fake footage of the planes striking the towers because no planes hit the towers. However, I don't think it was necessary to fake much else because it actually happened. No need to fake the tower destruction footage because it happened, and if they had faked that footage, they would have made it consistent with their story, which it isn't in any way, shape or form.

    The vicsims thing, well, as I have said several times before, it has a fundamental flaw - it does not follow the proper scientific method which entails studying ALL available evidence and then cross-checking and correlating. I listed some of the data sources that should be looked at, and one big indicator that there were victims is all the legal proceedings that went on. Kenneth Feinberg was appointed to dole out the compensation/hush money to relatives and survivors, there were 1,500 legal hearings, they handed out over 3.5 billion usd. Now, when there are any legal proceedings, there are records that are a matter of public record and can be accessed through FOIA requests. That's just one area that could and I think should be studied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, are you ever going to admit that the vicsims idea is perfectly proved to be at least partly the case?

      There were many fake photo records, for one thing, and missing SSDI at the same time.

      Would this be done if ALL victims were real? No.

      So we have vicsims.

      The issue becomes only, then, the extent of the fraud, not the fraud as such.

      Delete
  64. Ian said: "My position on the TV fakery is that it was necessary to broadcast fake footage of the planes striking the towers because no planes hit the towers. However, I don't think it was necessary to fake much else because it actually happened."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Ian, are you saying only the images of the planes were faked and nothing else? Did you study the archived tv footage broadcast on all the networks and compare them? Did you notice the path of the planes was different in some of the footage? How do you account for that?

    Did you notice the plane-shaped, cookie-cutter gashes in the buildings? Did you notice the fireballs which appeared following the so-called hits and the smoke pouring out of the buildings?

    Since there were no planes, how were the gashes made? Jim has posited drones with lasers on the wings flew into the buildings and made the cut-outs.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Ian said: "No need to fake the tower destruction footage because it happened, and if they had faked that footage, they would have made it consistent with their story, which it isn't in any way, shape or form."

    But IT WAS CONSISTENT with their story. The planes hit near the top floors, setting them on fire. The fire was so hot, the trusses failed and the building "collapsed." The 'collapse" started at the top and fell as quickly as a demolition.

    NOTE: NO DEMOLITION EVER STARTS AT THE TOP. Look at you tube videos of CDs and see if you can find a demolition from the top down. Do you chop a tree down from the top expecting the tree to fall over? Sure, there was thick pyroclastic stuff spewing from the tops of the towers indicating tremendous force--force enough to vaporize 3,000 people--looking like an atomic bomb. Judy Wood made this connection early on and was looking for evidence of a nuclear event. She posted pictures of nuclear explosions and similarities to the explosions of the towers. The nuke theory has been revived lately by Dimitri Khaselov to keep hapless researcher nuts busy. How many interview sessions are there with Fetzer on You Tube?

    BUILDINGS DO NOT FALL LIKE PEELING BANANAS
    FROM THE TOP DOWN. You have to take out the support columns at the bottom, not the top to fell a whole building. Also, it must be imploded so that it falls in a manageable pile. Note in the CD videos the rooftops folding in on themselves.

    Since the towers must have been imploded and brought down in an obvious controlled demolition, knocking out the support columns at the base--the safest and least expensive way--this had to be hidden from the public. Doing so could be as simple as a drill keeping people away from the scene. Don't forget the almost 18 drills going on that day and FEMA arriving early on the 10th.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Do you really think the special effects above were created live, at the last minute? The gashes, the fireballs, the smoke--all of it? Think of the skill, the synchronization necessary to pull off such a spectacle. This would be like opening night on Broadway and without a rehearsal. \

    No, they wouldn't risk it for a lousy 103 minutes to convince a few "witnesses," who could easily be bought from the actors pool. They pulled off Shanksville without any effort at realism and they did have witnesses who backed up the official story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on all the way, Joan.

      Delete
    2. No, the gashes could be done in situ, not at all at the last minute.

      The fireballs and smoke would be possible with real events.

      Some images could be doctored later for effect, but these are fairly obvious late interpolations, with re-edited sections.

      There wasn't so much non-rehearsal.

      All you'd need is a missile through a point, a homing beam. Blast charge thermite could well be set to cut blasts in a rough area like a wingspan.

      The rest of the demolition would be set. And ... if there were problems, maybe there were some weapons which helped accelerate certain parts of the destruction, such as nuclear emf weapons, called particle beam weaponry, which can be mounted form anywhere in this scenario.

      Delete
  66. ? "CDI - The Art of Demolition" - YouTube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TARNVwF7Yg

    I dare you to find just one demolition that looks like the 9/11 video. Find just one with dust flowing from the roof tops. There are some pretty tall,narrow buildings like the WTC towers which are taken down by CDI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, your point would be more to the point if you didn't suggest the dust has to flow from rooftops, since CDI is usually done from the bottom up, with the middle and upper elements being destroyed in sequence down after the main columns and bottom sections are started.

      The issue is FLOWING. The dust in NYC flowed, as if nearly congealed, very fine, and left strange steel, spread afar and most of the rest was missing, with no debris in situ (pancaking) worth mentioning.

      Delete
  67. Thanks, EB.

    I forgot to mention the improbability of so many professional photographers on the scene on such short notice. How did they get so many shots at just the right moments? How were they positioned perfectly for such impossible shots? What are the odds of that happening? Zero, that's what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being on the spot does not mean pure faking, by definition.

      It means pre-planning. It ends up being a fake impression of naturalness, but it does not mean fake images, or all-fake images necessarily.

      Delete