The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: FS from the EU

Friday, March 28, 2014

FS from the EU

The World is Upside Down

119 comments:

Ian GreenhalghMarch 30, 2014 at 10:26 AM
A truly excellent show that starkly illustrates how an open mind, some common sense and rational thinking can cut through the official narrative and give one insight into the true machinations of the world we live in.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 6:51 PM
Ian said: "A truly excellent show that starkly illustrates how an open mind, some common sense and rational thinking can cut through the official narrative and give one insight into the true machinations of the world we live in."

Three quarters of the show was about how 9/11 planes could not have penetrated the WTC towers. What's so "starkly illustrated, common sense and rational thinking" about the no-planes theory? Are you all just now agreeing there were no planes? Furthermore, don't some of you still believe drones or missiles made the gashes in the facades?

The last quarter of the podcast was devoted to the international scene and the resurrecting of Russia as the great Satan. This was enlightening, so thanks for that. The Ukraine will be loaned billions of our dollars for weapons to fight the Russians and Syria will be left to its own devices. More money for the defense contractors.(Sigh.)

ReplyDelete
Replies
Clare KuehnMarch 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Great show. Thanks!
ReplyDelete
Replies
stevie.tMarch 31, 2014 at 6:11 AM
This dude sounds so much like myself.. So great to hear a layman of sorts speak with the professor Fetzer.. Brilliant as always. Thank you for these amazing podcasts. They keep getting better.
If someone can remind me of the podcast that was posted here a few years ago demonstrating the faked phone calls and reactions of persons observing the towers being 'struck', (that were obvious staged scripted
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 31, 2014 at 8:18 AM
Maybe a bit off topic but not really...

"podcast that was posted here a few years ago demonstrating the faked phone calls "

This reminded me of a statement that Alex Jones made on two recent shows.
Alex tells us that all the 9-11 cell phone calls from the planes have been proven fake, which is true, but then he tells us something I have never heard before, to wit, that there were two calls, made from air phones by stewardesses that were genuine calls that did go through. He said the message on these real calls from the planes was “There’s gas. We can’t breathe.” So this again is speech that supports the hijacker, real planes official story.

Alex Jones and other talk show hosts are never wasting a crisis in their using of the missing Malaysian airliner incident to subtly tell us about the "hijackings" of 9-11.
ReplyDelete
Replies
stevie.tMarch 31, 2014 at 1:37 PM
I think the no planes thing definitely has merit but I also think that trusting the video to be authentic of the building must also come in to question. I mean they didn't fake the plane graphics on live feeds the day of the event did they?? That debate a few podcasts ago with the European gentlemen really made me think about how far
ReplyDelete
Replies
stevie.tMarch 31, 2014 at 1:39 PM
- you can go once you accept that at least the planes were faked.
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaMarch 31, 2014 at 2:46 PM
nothing new whatsoever in this show. what was his beef with you again, ahjim? keep spinning those wheels, eh?
is FS from the EU our Clare in radio drag?
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 31, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Ian said: "...., it doesn't matter whether the gashes were made by....., it's a detail that isn't important;

what is important is getting somewhere with obtaining justice for the victims of 9/11 by establishing beyond doubt the culprits and their motives.

I think the billions allegedly paid out to the "victims" families is "justice" enough, Ian. I can't believe you don't know who the culprits were or what their motives were.

Are you sure you're not the troll? Whenever this group gets close to solving the important details of 9/11, the foot-dragging troops, of which you appear to be one, come out to name call and derail the discussion. Is the plan to delay resolution of the mystery by playing for time?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeMarch 31, 2014 at 11:03 PM
A few years before 9/11 there were some news stories describing how the US military was preparing to conduct psychological warfare (only OVERSEAS, of course) by fabricating whole TV news reports -- using the same state-of-the-art (at the time) computerised special effects that Hollywood had been busy showing off in spectacular fantasy-and-action movies of the 1990s.

So why, Lady Clare and her fellow (moderately doubting) travelers, is it SO HARD to accept the possibility that the "live" 102-minutes of network 9/11 television coverage WAS just a convicing, high-tech movie (with perhaps a half-dozen different sequential edits) prepared for the not-so-independent news channels to run -- under a government mandate?

And if the teams of skilled CGI artists who prepared it (working, of course, to modify REAL images of Lower Manhattan shot earlier) were told that they were labouring to create good-quality supporting materials for an upcoming terror-response DRILL (just like the actors who performed on the "phone calls") -- of course the cyber-artists would do professional work.

Yet with time and budget constraints mounting (as that bright "September Morn" drew nigh) these skilled digital craftsmen ultimately did allow various "minor glitches" to remain in their finished product, such as mismatched or missing buildings, inconsistent backgrounds/foregrounds/skylines, cloned clouds, impossible air speeds, the hot-knife-thru-butter insertion, etc. For within the confines of their isolated workstations (and worldviews) these imperfections weren't viewed as crucial -- since the finished video product was only for a DRILL.

And then the long-awaited exercise was "flipped LIVE," requiring those understandably shocked computer artists to be either frightened into silence, generously bought off, abruptly liquidated, or easily convinced (if they were of the "chosen" ethnicity) that the gigantic 9/11 fraud was ABSOLUTELY (TALMUDICALLY) NECESSARY for the protection of the future of their TRUE, Mideastern homeland!
ReplyDelete
Replies
GMBApril 1, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Interesting that FS from EU comes to almost the exact same conclusions as me. There is something so natural about fractional reserve banking. Something so blameless at the start of the process.

What I want to bring to the table is that fractional reserve banking is actually, though it seems so innocent, the worm in the apple of liberty. I think I can explain conceptually that it MUST lead to this mess of infinite lies and satanic murder-as-masturbation that we have found ourselves in. I think I can explain how this is more or less inevitable, unless we go back to the source and never allow nor tolerate this practice, as innocuous as it may seem when it first kicks off.
ReplyDelete
Replies
GMBApril 1, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Getting right back to the gist of things .... Is it not a worthy thing to investigate the Huey Long murder? Because Huey defied the communist capitalist dichotomy. I'm not saying I'll sign on exactly to his suggestions. But note how they fall outside the communist, capitalist, big welfare spending trichotomy.

We were given big government welfare, total expropriation of everything, and state supported USURY supported by infinite imaginary PERSONS and derivative persons and derivative\s of everything and derivatives of derivatives.

Huey reckoned that that the small businessman made good ought to deserve his winnings. And maybe he ought to even have his a mistress or two. But he thought that their ought to be a limit on wealth. So he had to be murdered. Because with a few caveats this is a workable system. And we don't need great aggregations of wealth for capitalism to work. And we know this because Lichenstein is still the wealthiest state in Europe. If not the world. And its a place where nothing but small business is possible. Banking excepted only.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 1, 2014 at 2:23 PM
Your opinion of course Ian which is starting to mean less and less.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 2, 2014 at 8:01 AM
The powdering action of instantly dissolving concrete (and steel for that matter) from the top down in a specific targeted way with almost no outward blast projection of material ,only downward piling of dissolved material is really unprecedented . I have personally spent maybe 10 minutes listening to Judy Wood. I am using HAARP as evidence of Government developed energy directed hardware that we know about. With that alone in mind, considering the Govt, has advanced aircraft under wraps, advance weaponry under wraps does not reach the level of "wild speculation" in my view . This weapon from the top coupled with conventional methods is a clear possibility as sound as any.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghApril 2, 2014 at 9:41 AM
There was a lot of outward blast projection, the most obvious example being the projection of one huge piece of facade over 400 feet to land on and crush the atrium of the winter gardens.

HAARP is not evidence of anything to do with directed energy in a weaponised form, that is a leap you have made. What is HAARP? What is it's purpose? Until you can determine that then you have no basis for hypothesising that it is a weapon and responsible for anything to do with 9/11.

What you are doing is the sort of unfounded theorising that we should actively discourage because it is counter-productive. Anyone can come up with a theory but is is rather harder and more labour intensive to come up with one that is fully supported by evidence and fact.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 2, 2014 at 11:14 PM
"There was a huge, seven-storeys high at points, debris field. No, there were only acres and acres of fine dust. But there was nuclear destruction from below ground level, proven by seimic records, USGS test data and Hellfires that raged for months down below. No, that's impossible, or the "bathtub" would have cracked and Lower Manhattan would have flooded. But we have lots of great pictures of the huge debris pile. No, the pictures are fakes, and there was certainly no debris pile indicative of a hundred-storey building collapse. But Giuliani's vast army of dump trucks cleared most of the debris away while the area was evacuated and cordoned off. No, that's just a planted, fake news story, because the buildings were thorougly dustified, with nothing solid remaining larger than a doorknob. No, they weren't; they left a gigantic rubble pile, and the smuggled photos of the fugitive FEMA photographer prove it. No they don't, and he's just another shilly actor." and on...and on...and on...

SO, AFTER A DOZEN YEARS WE STILL CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND, WHEN THE "SMOKE CLEARED AWAY".

A giant heap of twisted rubble? A vast field of fine dust? Authentic photos of the aftermath or just more PhotoShop forgeries?

I'll bet Cass Sunstein knows.

But he sure ain't tellin'!
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 3, 2014 at 6:21 AM
"SO, AFTER A DOZEN YEARS WE STILL CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND, WHEN THE "SMOKE CLEARED AWAY". "

I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years. I remember clearly that toward their beginnings they said that ALL OF THE AFTERMATH STILL PHOTOS WERE FAKED. They based that grand assertion on that special little device that the perps could have used that would have prevented cameras and camcorders from functioning. Now all of that has been dropped and the Shaksters make few or no claims regarding that special little device or the aftermath still photos.

This factoid is why I think it is futile to discuss the Shaksters' claims in this blog rather than in a non-anonymous professional dedicated venue.

The Shaksters and those who get caught up here and other places in responding to them produces the ideal Sunstein-like results -- chaos and confusion and diversion in 9-11 truth seeking.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 3, 2014 at 7:19 AM
"I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years."

And so has Dr. Fetzer, Jeannon. We live and learn -- sometimes.

But (to adopt Clare's mixed-fakery stance for a moment) let's remember that the 102-minutes of "live" network coverage (before the Shrub-response was shown, purportedly "live" from Florida) was but a very brief window in time -- during which Lower Manhattan was quickly covered over with a blinding, photography-impeding, toxic cloud.

The "tall rubble pile," or "vast dust plain" (choose your own meme) stood, behind a strictly enforced cordoning-off and evacuation, for a much longer period before it was slowly, or rapidly, (choose your own meme, again) cleaned up.

It's inexcusably cavalier of you to dismiss ALL the fakery claims made against the "rubble-pile photos," Jeannon. Some of those pictures absolutely scream "PhotoShop, PhotoShop!!!" via their impossible perspectives, bizarre size differences and blatant "rubber stamping" of cloned people or debris pieces.

And as to THAT curious bit of fakery, much more research needs to be done, to ferret out the perps' true motivations and the long-term effects that THIS aftermath-deception had on public consciousness -- including the ongoing nuke arguments, right here on the Fetzer site.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 3, 2014 at 8:35 AM
“"I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years."

And so has Dr. Fetzer, Jeannon.”

No, we are talking apples and oranges here in terms of changing. Dr. Fetzer has consistently and repeatedly stated that he is searching for 9-11 truth in as objective a manner as possible, evaluating all of the “relevant available evidence.” He has indeed set forth various possible “theories” over the years, even appearing so enthusiastic about some of these that he gave the appearance of totally accepting them, but he has always conveyed the idea that he too is “living and learning.” (Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood each know how important it is to avoid saying they have a “theory” or taking a clear firm position, though each in their own way.)

The Shackters have had only one issue, photographic/videographic fakery, but they have profoundly changed their claims or “thesis or theses” regarding the one, multi-faceted issue. The Shacksters always have a list of ready excuses as to why they have always kept their work stricktly anonymous and unprofessional. As I have stated before, they seem to confine their disjointed, hit or miss forum comments/observations to ostensibly attacking Dr. Fetzer. The Shacksters never claimed they had a thesis but to intelligently address some of the Shaksters claims and assertions, one has to try to identify their albeit undeclared thesis.

“It's inexcusably cavalier of you to dismiss ALL the fakery claims made against the "rubble-pile photos," Jeannon.”

Straw Man!
I have NOT dismissed “all” the fakery claims (Equivocation! You are using the word “all” here in a different way than I used it. I was saying they dismissed all the photos and you are saying that I am dismissing all their claims!) made against the “rubble-pile photos.”

I am simply stating that the Shacksters and their claims need to be addressed in a professional, orderly, non-anonymous venue where they can be afforded the most respect and the most productive outcome, i.e., greater body of 9-11 truth.

Likewise, the nuke “theory” should be dealt with professionally and non-anonymously, as Don Fox and his site and the VT articles have tried to do. On this Fetzer radio blog comments, these big topics should only be addressed in a cursory manner and readers should be referred to the proper sites for quality in-depth discussion.
Perhaps it's inexcusably cavalier of you, o Solomonic judge Andy, to argue against me based on such reckless illogic.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghApril 3, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Another excellent post, well done. Great explanation of how the Shacksters work, I am very glad that others can see what their game is.
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaApril 4, 2014 at 7:56 AM
in reality, after the 9/11 dust settled, there must have been very little of any rubble pile visible from vantage points across the water.
I think the best explanation to date is that the buildings were pre-emptied and the whole structures were lowered down in one piece underground, elevator style.
the public were offered up a movie for consumption and have been said and lead by a 'truth' movement set up to come to conclusions based on faked video and planted evidence.

where the towers stood now stand 2 fountains, below which are 2 deep, deep pools.
I will hazard a guess and say that these deep, deep pools are due to rainwater that has collected in the twin tower 'elevator shafts' over the years since 9/11.

shut it ian.
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaApril 4, 2014 at 8:52 AM
it's true, isn't it ian?
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaApril 4, 2014 at 11:09 AM
who's your booboo doodoo?
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM
Why is there so much fuss over the evidence of what we all agree was a government hoax? What is so extreme about concluding the video was doctored and pre-taped? Why can't this be discussed without personal attacks and accusing posters of having agendas and being shills? The only logic for shilling is to protect the government fiction. September Clues exposes the fiction.

I have been independently "researching" 9/11 since it happened. I could not believe the plane story nor the suicide Muslim hijackers. How ridiculous if you've been following all the assassinations since the 60s, Watergate, the October Surprise, the invasion of Greneda, Panama, the destabilizations in El Salvador and Nicaragua, the CIA trained death squads, the OK City bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge--the harassment of the militia/survivalist groups, Iran/Contra, the Kosovo war with its DU bombardment of Yugoslavia and Iraq, the Gulf War, and on and on and on.

What we do know now in the computer age--this past decade and a half, TPTB don't have to have an actual event to gain support from the people. All they have to do is SAY something happened and an obedient media will report it as fact complete with actors playing all the parts. These fictitious characters are even writing books!

(See Scarlett Lewis and Wayne Dyer: On December 14, 2012, Scarlett Lewis experienced something that no parent should ever have to ... I Can See Clearly Now by Dr. Wayne W. Dyer Dr. Hardcover $21.13 .... Scarlett lives with her family on a farm in Newtown, Connecticut)

It is this recent fakery of events such as Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon which has shaken our brains into the realization that if they could just say hijacked planes hit the WTC towers among other lies, the videos shown on TV that day, might also be false. They might have even been pre-taped. The release of the archived footage showing CGI planes was plenty to go on.

I seldom go to websites like September Clues. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the format because I find it difficult to navigate. Also, the print is quite small. I don't see enough arguments or serious papers. I just want the facts and don't have time to wade through so many posts. There is some sniping and negative press directed at the so-called truth movement.

I did see SC videos early on and they were impressive but YouTube kept taking them down. Every discussion board I was ever on froze in horror at the mention of Simon Shack. Anytime you went near his theories, even your allies would put him down. I thought it very strange. At least this experience here has taken the mystique out of his views.

The false flag fakery of recent years should open the eyes of leaders of the truth movement like Jim Fetzer. Discussion should not be off-limits. If Jim can expose fakery that was Sandy Hook and Boston, why not 9/11?
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 5, 2014 at 5:42 AM
Correction"

change

"chain of command"

to
"chain of custody"
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Joan Edwards said: "Why is there so much fuss over the evidence of what we all agree was a government hoax? What is so extreme about concluding the video was doctored and pre-taped? Why can't this be discussed without personal attacks and accusing posters of having agendas and being shills? The only logic for shilling is to protect the government fiction. September Clues exposes the fiction."

Joan, apparently people do not like to have to admit to themselves[let alone to others :-) ], that all of their pet 9/11 theories, which they had put so much thought into to date, are all based on fundamental , never questioned assumptions that should never have been made in the first place.

This is doubly true of "professional" researchers with either scientific or legal backgrounds , for example, J. Fetzer; also: R. Hall, D.Fox, J.Wood, A. Johnson, A. Baker, S. Jones, M. Reynolds, D. Kalezov; all of whom have completely eschewed simple, basic, common sense evidence verification procedures in order to reach their grandiose, fanciful, and currently supposedly "incontrovertible" 9/11 conclusions [whatever they might be], and all of whom are therefor either no more than private charlatans, professional, paid, 9/11"gatekeepers", or just plain old dimwits .

Here are a few of those never questioned assumptions:

Never questioned assumption [1] :

that MSM does not/could not/did not lie en masse on 911, and that the original 911 network broadcasts were all true live broadcasts, as archived, and therefor never needed to be closely scrutinized _before_ any part of that graphic "testimony" is in any way considered trustworthy and useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.

Never questioned assumption [2] :

that all of the, to date, subsequently released imagery that was not part of the original "live" MSM 911 image pool, including all alleged "amateur" or "professional" photography [video or still], plus all N.I.S.T. imagery released to date, was/is also authentic, and therefor never needs to be closely scrutinized _before_ any part of that graphic "testimony" is in any way considered trustworthy and useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.

Never questioned assumption [3] :

that verbal eyewitness testimony from completely unknown persons [ whether media, government, or private], that confirms some part of the alleged events depicted in the available imagery is believable, and that [therefor] the background of the individual making the particular testimony does not need to be fully investigated _before_ their testimony is in any way trustworthy/useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.

Never questioned assumption [4]:

that government agencies [e.g. USGS and DOE] and their supposed 9/11 "reports"/"studies" are believable and should not be seriously questioned as long as they support what appears to be depicted in various conveniently selected 9/11 videos and stills [ from any/all sources].

Anyone [e.g yours truly :-)] , who points out the absurdity of making those 4 initial assumptions [ plus others, closely related] , is inevitably seen as a direct threat to any person who already knows "the truth" about 911 and has their own , "incontroverible", cut in stone, "conclusive" 9/11 theory, and who is either :

[a] a private charlatan [out to make a fast buck],

[b] a paid gatekeeper

[c] just your average know-it-all dimbulb.

Regards, onebornfree.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM
OBF, much of your above summary has real, solid merit, but your own, antisocial/anarchist/insutling attitude, so intensely expressed by not only you, but also by several other total-fakery proponents, in so many previous and angry posts has, unfortunately poisoned the Fetzer-ian well pretty thoroughly.

And I find substantial agreement with many of the sentiments and observations in BOTH Joan and Jeannon's immediately preceding postings, too.

Positions have so hardened here, and at comparably oriented websites (regarding either the relevance of the 9/11 fakery, its provability, or its extent) that consensus has become far, far out of reach.

And that's probably enough, anyway, to satisfy Cass and all the Little Sunsteins.

History (at least the truthful kind) will likely prove Simon Shack right someday -- at least regarding the TV networks' direct complicity in the 9/11 fraud via their transmission of prefabricated "live" coverage. Hoi Polloi's Vicsim Report may one day be heralded as the most ignored piece of accurate, investigative reporting of the early 21st Century. And Don Fox (and his fellow nukesters) may even be credited, in the long run, with being the first amateur investigators to convincingly uncover and document the covert/strategic use of nukes on American soil. (Outside of Oklahoma City, anyway.)

But it may take decades, even generations, to pass before such hard, cognitive dissonance-inducing truths are no longer rudely (and knee-jerkedly) contested by shills and the ignorant.

After all, even half a century after Dallas we still have to contend with all the Bugliosi's (and similar intellectual vermin) who monomaniacally defend the Warren Report.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 12:13 PM
Look what I found on SC by PShea: (At last a breather from the criticisms of ALMOST ALL of the 911 researchers. There is something wrong with a research site that spends so much time knocking other researchers. I have gained much from the people they ridicule such as Morgan Reynolds, the first no planer and advocate of Newton's third law and even Judy Wood who did so much analysis of the evidence both photographic and verbal.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I find him [Fetaer] to be polite, informative, honest and passionate. 9/11 is just one of the many areas of across the board
corruption exposed on the real deal, and I am grateful for the knowledge i have acquired and the education i have gained from listening to his podcasts. (I was directed there about 3 mths. ago through a link in a post here. I am doubly grateful to SC).

"He admits openly that he was slow to incorporate the notion of media fakery into his thinking on 9/11 and
has on air expressed regret at this reluctance, and his resistance. For me, the last step for jim fetzer is to
investigate your Vicsims report (with his usual, exceptional vigour) and, of course, we would know from
his subsequent actions, whether he was controlled opposition or not. (I feel he is not, after having just listened to 3 years of twice weekly 2 hour shows in 3 mths).

"I really think it would be worthwhile if both You and Simon could broach the idea of appearing on the real deel. I believe that he would be very receptive, and all here know the justice that You and Simon (among many others) can do for the persuits and truths associated with SeptemberClues
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Andy Tyme said: "OBF, much of your above summary has real, solid merit, but your own, antisocial/anarchist/insutling attitude, so intensely expressed by not only you, but also by several other total-fakery proponents, in so many previous and angry posts has, unfortunately poisoned the Fetzer-ian well pretty thoroughly."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andy, I was thinking the same thing. OBF, as much as I hate to say it, you will not let go of hostility towards Jim following the podcasts you were on. It is time to forgive and move on in a constructive way. Too bad when Simon posted here on your behalf, he did not explain his thesis on the fakery and also other startling claims. I don't like coyness and evasion. They have no place in scientific discussion.

And the other side needs to loosen up and be more flexible when it comes to new material and new ideas. There is no need for rudeness and insults--ever.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Andy Tyme Said: "After all, even half a century after Dallas we still have to contend with all the Bugliosi's (and similar intellectual vermin) who monomaniacally defend the Warren Report."

That is perfect, Andy! This has been my grievance with the JFK thing for years. How is it there are so many books and personalities supporting Oswald as the lone gunman? Not only books written by that idiot Bugliosi, and Gerald Posner, G. Robert Blakey, but the countless others, TV documentaries not to mention the presence of Arlen Specter and his big mouth until recently at last mercifully silenced.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 5, 2014 at 12:53 PM
Andy Tyme said: "Don Fox (and his fellow nukesters) may even be credited, in the long run, with being the first amateur investigators to convincingly uncover and document the covert/strategic use of nukes on American soil. (Outside of Oklahoma City, anyway.)"

Andy, please relate exactly what you'd label as "research" by "Fox (and his fellow nukesters) ".

I can't wait. :-)

I have seen none- just the verbatim regurgitation of 2 government reports that is supposedly verified via entirely unverified imagery.

Nukes at OKC? Oh please, give me a break! :-)

Regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Joan Edwards said: "OBF, as much as I hate to say it, you will not let go of hostility towards Jim following the podcasts you were on. It is time to forgive and move on in a constructive way. "

Joan , FYI, I have no intention of backing off Fetzer .

I don't forgive, no way.

He deserves everything I throw at him [and a whole lot more] as far as I am concerned.

I'm sick of his name-calling and pontificating/talking down tactics, and have been for quite a while.

He started publicly insulting me 8 or 9 months ago for no reason whatsoever, and has not stopped since.

"All" I have done in " retaliation" is to try to expose the blatant and ongoing fraudulence of his supposed "scientific" methodology , which he has used in order to reach his 9/11 conclusions to date [i.e . mini-nukes, Israel, and holographic planes].

The fact that my repeatedly pointing out the complete fraudulence of his "scientific expert"- from- on- high claptrap obviously bugs the crap out of him [and his near mindless acolytes, Fox, Greenhalgh, jeannon etc.], and pleases me no end.

One day I might tire of this trivial game, but for right now I plan to continue until I find other, better ways to amuse myself.

So forget the illusory "peacemaker " crap [unless perhaps, Fetzer publicly apologizes to _me_ ] .

I've tried to tell the truth as I see it, nothing more - unfortunately for Fetzer, in real life, the truth often hurts.

obf
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Ian Said: "Because they were paid to write them of course! There has been an on-going campaign of disinfo to cover up the truth ever since the assassination took place."
+++++++++++++++++++++++
No kidding, Ian? The real question is why those in the know won't or can't speak up and make it clear THERE IS NO EVIDENCE Oswald did it. Jim Garrison and Mark Lane were saying this on talk shows in the middle 60s. Here's a rebuttal by Garrison to an NBC editorial in 1968: It could have been written yesterday.

? Jim Garrison Response - Kennedy Assassination - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM
PShea Said: "well, he hasn't budged an inch since I wrote that joan. I do not trust him now to deliver the real deal."
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, we were all young and idealistic back in 2011. I thought it was nice the way you defended Fetzer. They were beating him up pretty good in this thread.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=bbbb7b1fca978baba8412c3398310460
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM
Oh my gawd!

Speaking of 911 scamsters/gatekeepers, now Morgan Reynolds, who had a post on his site titled "Fed Up with Fetzer" not so long ago, is now, just like Uncle Fetzer, apparently busy promoting Richard Hall's holographic plane theory:

http://nomoregames.net/2014/03/24/richard-d-hall-talks-about-911-video-evidence/

Sure looks like Fetzer and Reynolds were just pretending to disagree for our benefit- a variation on the old "good cop bad cop" routine maybe ? :-)

regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 5, 2014 at 6:02 PM
OBF, what is preventing you, Simon or others from SC from posting their thesis of what really happened to the WTC on 9/11?

I think the main and first objective was to destroy the WTC because it was old, outdated for the computer age and that it would be too expensive to destroy legally. Since it was a publicly owned building, as have been most of the "terrorist" destroyed targets, they figured out a way to have the government pay for this demolition by creating the fiction of the Muslim hijackers to alibi an invasion of Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. But primarily, I think it was done for the money--especially the insurance and the terrorist plot was an after thought.

The focus, then, was on how to demolish the WTC safely. Therefore, a lot of thought went into this process. Now, if you study how CDs are done, you know the buildings have to be prepped and empty for a successful CD. They had to keep people away from the site early on. Also, the building had to have been emptied of all impediments such as utilities, fixtures, furniture, electronics, partitions, etc.

They created a TV movie for each of the networks--all similar but with some variations--which were run AFTER the building preparations--to voice overs by each network's main anchor. Note that all the stars were there that day--Bryant Gumbel, Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, etc. The videos lasted one hour and forty-two minutes, enough time to countdown to the demolition. The videos complete with CGI planes were shown on a huge screen in Times Square. The plane-shaped cookie cutter gashes on the towers were photoshopped in--an easy process.

These early reports kept the public busy and anyone foolish enough to go to the scene was probably met with a huge smoke screen and lots of police and firemen. They were not looking for gashes or planes or fireballs, so lots of smoke and police presence would have seemed normal.

The buildings were demolished in the safest and most inconspicuous way--not only WTC 1&2 but 3,4,5 and 6. Note that most of the tenants were government agencies and brokerage houses and their numbers had been dwindling. They had probably been moved from the premises little by little. It is a practice to use chutes probably in the elevator shafts to move tenant's belongings.

Lots of footage of witnesses/actors had been pre-filmed probably during drills of some kind. Footage of fleeing crowds and dust filled streets were shown during the rest of the day and weeks that followed. Let's remember the south tower hit that is thought by some to have been a hologram was not shot on 9/11 but was a clip, one of many, shown later in the week.

How is this so far?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 5, 2014 at 6:17 PM
That's a very good start, so far, Joan, although it doesn't account, of course, for lots of "loose ends" such as the (NON-photographic) nuke evidence cited by you-know-who, the very in-your-face occult/Masonic/Kabbalistic symbolism of the destruction ritual, the selection of the anniversary the Pentagon's founding date, etc.

Good job!

Now, let's hear from the "usual suspects"...
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 6, 2014 at 5:39 AM
Joan Edwards said : "OBF, what is preventing you, Simon or others from SC from posting their thesis of what really happened to the WTC on 9/11? "

First of all, as I have repeatedly stated both here and elsewhere, I am _not_ a member of the September Clues site/forum, and can in no way claim to represent Simon or the general viewpoint of his and Hoi Polloi's site.

As to Simon's views about what did and did not happen that day, as far as I can see his site has ample postulations/conclusions drawn from his thorough analysis of both the imagery, and of the main characters in the 9/11 made for TV action/drama.

See : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477

As to my own conclusions/postulations drawn from what I consider to be the 9/11 facts, I have very few [as I had stated in the John Friend debate with D. Fox].

Here are the 9/11 facts [as far as I'm concerned]:

1] all of the original MSM "live" broadcast footage was pre-manufactured on computers .

2] all of subsequently released 9/11 imagery [video and still, N.I.S.T. and other] that has been closely examined to date has also proved to be fraudulent/highly questionable.

3] most, [if not all], of the alleged victims listed on the on-line memorial sites and elsewhere are pre-fabricated, faked identities with faked personal histories, faked relatives, and very badly faked photo portraits.

My conclusions from these facts follow in my next post.

Regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 6, 2014 at 5:45 AM
As to my own relatively few conclusions to date,[for what it's worth], based on the 3 previously listed 9/11 facts, they are :

1] By the end of the day [9/11] the entire WTC complex 9 buildings [7 buildings plus 2 others close by] appears to have been mostly destroyed. [Possibly more demolition was carried on that night and the following morning -impossible to know for certain.]

2] because the original MSM imagery for that day is all fake , including any /all that depicts towers WTC1,,2 and 7 collapsing, and because all of the subsequently released post-9/11 video and still photographs also appears to have been faked [ N.B. there may well be genuine 9/11 imagery out there somewhere- I just have not run across any to date- neither has S. Shack, apparently]; it would be highly presumptive of me to claim that I know exactly how the WTC was demolished .

Even if I ignore all of the visual "evidence" , the other "evidence", [mostly alleged eyewitness testimony, or US government agency reports], is _totally_ unreliable for a variety of reasons that I will not get into here.

All that means that I [happily] conclude/admit that I don't know exactly what brought the towers down- dynamite, nukes, or D.E.W.[ although like S. Shack, I lean towards more or less standard demolition procedures using dynamite]; nor do I even care what technology was used.

What's the point of trying to analyze faked "evidence" [ alleged imagery, eyewitness testimony, alleged US govmt. reports etc.]?- its a complete waste of time - a distraction, as far as I can see.

3] As to why 9/11 was carried out, I talked about that in my John Friend debate:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/03/realist-report-911-fakery-debate.html#comment-form

Very briefly, I believe [although I don't know for certain :-)] that 9/11 was a major US military based psyop initiated to carry out a coup d'etat - to achieve a more or less complete destruction of the last vestiges of the Bill of Rights, and to directly benefit both the Pentagon [who badly needed a new "evil" to replace the USSR and to thereby justify its own existence and continued growth in revenues/expenditures], and to benefit other various deep-seated sycophantic interests, both within and outside of the US government- sycophantic interests [too numerous to name] that must _always_ exist if you have a government in the first place.

For, as historian Randolph Bourne famously said: "war is the health of the state".

As economist/ historian Murray Rothbard said, government " is a gang of thieves writ large" .

And as historian Harry Elmer Barnes famously observed : the US government is engaged in a " perpetual war for perpetual peace" ..... as all governments everywhere, must _always_ be, in my opinion.

Regards obf
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 6, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Joan Edwards said: "Let's remember the south tower hit that is thought by some to have been a hologram was not shot on 9/11 but was a clip, one of many, shown later in the week."

The Michael Hezarkhani clip [to which I think you are referring], was first aired on 9/12/01 on CNN at 12:15am : https://archive.org/details/cnn200109120005-0047

As I have tried to show in my analysis of that clip , here:

http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html

..that clip is 100% fraudulent. [i.e. it is _not_ a genuine real-time video of a holographically projected plane image as R. Hall claims.]

....for even a hologram plane image traveling at 500+ mph [which is what Hall alleges], is physically impossible for a photographer to track/keep in frame - it just cannot be done in the real world.

See my above linked post for more detail.

Regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 6, 2014 at 7:10 AM
Jim Fetzer said :"This man is sick. Mentally ill"

Two weeks ago I was merely a "moron".

FYI, I feel honored to be labelled as a "moron", "sick", "mentally ill" etc. etc. by a person who displays such a cavalier disregard for simple rules of evidence verification which inevitably result in making the 4 entirely unprofessional assumptions you have made [and continue to make] , and that I have listed in this same thread on April 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM.

Therefor, I wear your labels ["moron", "sick", "mentally ill" etc.] as a badge of honor, and I would encourage others to do the same.

Keep it up, sir, you're doing great :-)

obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Jim FetzerApril 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM
obf regularly repeats claims that I have long since refuted. We know the origin of most of the photos and films of 9/11 and verify their origins for yourself.

The photos and films are taken from many locations and perspectives, some from New Jersey, others from helicopters. They all hang together the right way to be authentic images of the same enduring event.

We have them present; then they are gone--in about 10 seconds apiece. Now there are enormous clouds of very find dust, not previously present, where the Twin
Towers were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust.

The USGS dust samples confirm that this was a nuclear event. ofb offers the bizarre suggestion that neither the videos nor the dust samples can be trusted, even though the contradict the official account.

He has no idea what happened on 9/11 and would have us discard some of the most important evidence on the ground that they are faked (for which he offers no evidence at all) or came from the government.

Why in the world would anyone fake videos that show the official account of their collapse cannot be correct? And why fake dust samples that prove it was a nuclear event? This is convoluted thinking from a man who does not deserve to be taken seriously.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 6, 2014 at 6:19 PM
Jim dust is by its nature very fine, That's why it's called dust,no need to emphasize it with spare adjectives.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 7, 2014 at 4:06 AM
@ I. Greenhalgh:

Keep it up Greeny, you are doing an excellent job here of representing the "Fetzerian" , er "mindset" here- good work, I'm really impressed :-) :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-).

Love and kisses, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 7, 2014 at 4:49 AM
J.Fetzer said :"...He .....would have us discard some of the most important evidence on the ground that they are faked (for which he offers no evidence at all)"

"(for which he offers no evidence at all)" .

That is not true,[and you know it] but lets forget your convenient lie for the moment here and instead ask:

exactly what would you consider to be proof that the videos or photos were fake?

Please be specific and list ALL of the important features/anomolies that you _know_ would point to video and/or photo fakery, in the order of importance, say 1 through 6, or, if that's too many, how about 1 through 4, in order of importance?

obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 8, 2014 at 12:06 AM
9/11 VOLCANOES OR CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS?

Notice how the WTC towers look remarkably more like volcanoes than demolitions. Where did all that ash (dust) come from? The buildings were almost all made of steel and tons of that steel, mainly core columns and seven story tridents, is stored in a hangar filled to capacity at JFK. (See Nova video on the New Ground Zero Supertower.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SoufriereHillsVolcano.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBH67rpjd7M
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

? Ocean Tower - Controlled Demolition, Inc. - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

(Notice how the building turns to dust in mid air.)
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM
New World Trade Center 9/11 aerial images from ABC News | Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html

"All we see is the spectacular moment of collapse, what film directors call the wide shot, showing the towers in their urban setting, before, during and after their fall.

Even for those who were there, like me, running from the cloud and choking in the dust, it is hard to believe. But what is all too evident to everyone is that this event changed the world, with consequences that will haunt us for decades.

With the Twin Towers collapsed the world we thought we knew.

These dramatic images were taken by police photographers in helicopters and it is the first time they have been seen, having been released under a Freedom of Information request made by America's ABC News.

Burning buildings can be seen crumpling in on themselves as plumes of smoke rise up over the New York skyline that terrible September morning.

The images show how the police helicopter first began taking images from afar before moving in to reveal the devastation taking place underneath.

They also reveal the horror faced by those trapped in the burning buildings and then the walls of smoke and debris that enveloped the surrounding area as the towers came crashing down,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where are the pictures of the evacuees? Surely, some made it out of the buildings? If no planes, then no gashes, no fireball hits trapping people?

ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 8, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Dr. Fetzer rhetorically asked:

"Why in the world would anyone fake videos that show the official account of their collapse cannot be correct?"

Here's why, Jim.

A really effective psy-op needs a strong and long lasting EMOTIONAL PUNCH!!!

Network television's endlessly repeated, astonishing, CGI-fabricated videos of the top-down, descending-and-dissolving "Tower Volcanoes" (great term!) were intended to be far more spectacular, shocking and gut-wrenchingly memorable than would have been some genuinely live, close shots of the way each tower actually fell, mostly cloaked behind a massive smokescreen -- as the result of an actual, bottom-upwards, controlled demolition. (And how could the public, even as gullible as they proved to be, ever accept a bottom-up collapse being caused by a fire at the top?)

The decision to eventually assign NIST to "explain" the towers' collapse may or may not have been part of the original plan -- but hey, no matter!

What those much-credentialled, "scientific' experts were then confronted with was their "patriotic duty" to come up with a highly technical-sounding EXCUSE for the towers' inability to survive the very kind of damage they were purportedly designed to withstand.

And since attributing the buildings' collapses to violent, internal forces generated by ANY kind of pre-planted explosive devices would have been an IMPERMISSIBLE, even UNTHINKABLE HERESY, those NIST boffins were "boxed in" to a seemingly inescapable quandry.

So, after "dragging their feet" through a long series of delays, they finally decided to ignore BOTH the spectacularly false videos AND the institute's mandate to use them as "evidence" in explaining the destruction. Instead, those cowards-in-white-coats "punted," releasing a convoluted, tortuous and lengthy critique of the towers' alleged construction-design flaws -- a "study" that ends its timeline just as each collapse is about to begin its IMPOSSIBLE, free-fall descent.

And since the controlled media would, of course, brook NO serious questioning of NIST's suspicious avoidance of explaining the (occultically symbolic) 9- and 11-second "volcanic" freefalls), the perps could sleep well, knowing they got away with it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaApril 10, 2014 at 3:45 AM
well said, andy. but don't hold out much hope of persuading ahjim. considering all the time, money and effort he has put into conferences, writings and radio podcasts, he is one closed/narrow minded son of a gun (or so it is made to appear.)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 10, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Well, pshea, I still do hold out some hope, since Dr. Fetzer has, over time, changed his mind about several other conspiracy-research issues.

But I agree that he has, by now, invested so much time, effort and emotion in relying on CGI videos to buttress the nuke theory that it's going to take some kind of "personal intervention" by a close, trusted associate or esteemed investigatory colleague to effectively motivate Jim -- to re-think his hardened position and freshly consider the tower-destruction videos with a genuinely critical eye.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 10, 2014 at 9:53 AM
Ian, your excessively hostile attitude seems to have blinded you to my own, frequently expressed position. I have never claimed that the nuke theory was impossible and that there was no evidence to support it except for CGI animated videos.

While the bulk of NON-video data which suggest nuke activity at "Ground Zero" does come extensively from government sources (and thus DESERVES some healthy scepticism) it also could be accurate.

And my most recent posting clearly referred to Dr. Fetzer's "buttressing" his adherence to the nuke theory with the CGI videos, not using them as his sole justification for belief.

I deeply regret that the Shacksters repulsed so many honest 9/11 investigators (Jim being the most notable) by jubilantly over-stresseing the POSSIBILITY that "nobody died" and thus cutting back on their earlier, extensive, and very valuable, victim-by-victim, crowd-sourced searches for PROOFS (or the blatant lack thereof) that these "departed" individuals were real people with traceable life histories.

Perhaps when Simon's long-planned, book-length study of 9/11 fakery is finally published, the most telling examples of his coterie's victim-verification research will be much more accessible (and open to rational examination and debate) than it, sadly, is now -- scattered as the material is among many hundreds of blog posts and in several differently titled and categorised threads.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 10, 2014 at 6:56 PM
We are making this way too complicated.

As to the explosives used to take out the WTC, I don't rule out the use of nukes. In fact, I supported the idea when it was first talked about here mainly because Khaselov (sp?) said that nukes were the only explosives that would reduce the all steel WTC towers to dust. We needed that to happen to protect the bathtub beneath the towers. He also said the building codes said that these newer extreme high rises had to have plans for a take-down should it be necessary.

It was also implied that the WTC towers had a built-in demolition system. This was bolstered by an earlier podcast with someone named Lewis (?) whose WTC engineer father had told how he resigned from the job when he was told a demolition system was to be built into the towers.

Here's what I don't buy in the nuke story Don Fox is trying to sell.

First, any take-down requires preparation such as removal of all partitions, furniture, fixtures, utilities, office equipment, carpeting, etc. Fox's nuke theory has all of these items "vaporized." In classic demolitions, these items need to be removed or otherwise they become flying projectiles. It is easy to do via chutes in the center of the buildings. They move out tenants by this method all the time.

Second, the preparation of a planned demolition, nuclear or otherwise, would not include people. The thousands of employees entering the WTC on 9/11 couldn't have happened if the buildings had been prepared for demolition. Elevators wouldn't have been working, nor would the lights or anything else. People would have been tipped off by the empty building not to mention absence of desks and work stations.

Third, the 3,000 number had to be pulled out of a hat. Did the perps used real bombs and destroy the staircases minutes before the demolition?. Would real explosives be used if the towers had been rigged to explode? How could so many be trapped in a building that was never struck by planes or anything else and how did they get trapped? (Why were people posting "missing" pictures of their loved ones in the middle of the night as if looking for lost dogs?)

Fourth, where are the pictures of the evacuation of WTC after the so-called hits? Are we to believe the obviously fictitious YouTube videos such as "Inside the WTC"? Why are there videos of the towers demolishing but they never show the bases of the buildings where hundreds should be evacuating?

Fifth, for Don Fox, et.al.,there would be no nuke theory except that it neatly explains how thousands of people could disappear by being "vaporized" along with furniture and fixtures. Why is it necessary to believe that the thugs who did 9/11 were also premeditative murderers?

For a nuclear explosion, implosion, to succeed, the area had to be cleared of innocent bystanders and crew lest something would go wrong. Such a serious event could not allow details like the video record to spoil things. If the archived videos show inserted CGI planes, we can assume the rest of the 104 minute video preceeding the demolition was also altered.
ReplyDelete
Replies
psheaApril 10, 2014 at 9:25 PM
you are correct of course joan.

consider the 9/11, jfk and Diana sagas now solved.
all faked. all ritualistic.

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=257799&postcount=786

fakery fakery everywhere
and we lap it up...

....no more.

now, let's get Sirius!
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 11, 2014 at 4:57 AM
Greenhalgh said : " the destruction footage is not all that important in the grand scheme of things, it is just one facet of a very broad range of data and research."

Horseshit, Greenhalgh you insufferable fool!

The original, on archive MSM "live" 9/11 footage plus all of the other imagery to date of the WTC's destruction is the _ONLY_ easily accessible , fully examinable 9/11 "evidence" that we all have .

Anyone has access to that imagery on line and can make their own determinations as to its genuineness or falsity.

On the other hand,the other "facets" of 9/11 "evidence" you fantasize about are mostly merely government agency reports that _cannot_ be cross-checked/verified for accuracy; nor have the backgrounds of any of the alleged individuals responsible for those reports ever been closely examined; nor have the laboratories where the various dust samples were allegedly examined/tested been checked for pre-contamination levels via prior experiments/research; nor has a clear, verifiable chain of custody for any of those alleged dust/soil/water samples allegedly studied been established to date.

Nor have the criminal histories/records of either of these agencies been taken into account, and yet "we" are all supposed to assume that in this one instance, they are both being truthful. Yeah , right. :-)

In short, there is no good reason for an intellectually honest, fully independent 9/11 researcher to ever assume that those alleged USGS and DOE studies were ever actually even undertaken!

Like yourself, they are all probably nothing more than hot air and BS. [ I guess like attracts like :-) ]

obf
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeApril 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM
Greenhalgh said :"The proper method of research is to examine ALL possible sources of data and evidence then to cross-check between it. Only by following this method can valid hypothesis be formed"

BREAKING!....this just in!....:

there is nothing either "proper", "scientific" , nor "logical" about supposedly "verifying" one _potential_ [i.e. unproven] piece of completely un-checked, unverified "evidence" - whether it be a photo, a video, "eyewitness testimony", or a government study, with other similarly completely un-checked, unverified pieces of so-called "evidence", no matter how numerous they might be; regardless of whether they are photos, videos, "eyewitness testimonies" or alleged government reports/studies, and regardless of whether "they all hang together" or not.

This process, as you yourself described, is nothing more than pseudo-science/false logic - that is, fake scientific research masquerading as legitimate scientific research.

But it is no surprise to myself that yourself, Fetzer , Fox, Hall etc. continue to fantasize that this fake logical/deductive process you have all repeatedly described in these threads is actually correct [i.e. "proper" ] , when in truth, _nothing_ could be further from the truth.

But don't stop- keep it up Greenhalgh/Fetzer et al- you clowns are doing a great job [entertainment wise :-) ]

Regards,obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 11, 2014 at 9:38 PM
PSHEA SAID: "consider the 9/11, jfk and Diana sagas now solved.
all faked. all ritualistic."

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=257799&postcount=786

"fakery fakery everywhere
and we lap it up..."
_________________________________
Well, I went to the site and am familiar with the amazing numerology connections and symbolism everywhere, but what does it all mean? It seems as soon as we get close to figuring out how the deeds were done, someone then goes directly to the occult, ritualistic, Illuminati stuff. Diana and JFK did die for real, didn't they? Maybe you could elaborate on this concept.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 11, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Joan, the use of Masonic/Kabbalistic symbolism and numerology is VERY common in the many dark deeds that bring about wars, revolutions, and even the (temporary) cessation of wars. cf. the perps' delaying the stopping of the fighting and dying in World War One until -- wait for it -- the Masonically blessed "eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month"....... or the fiery "shock-and-awe" (Shekinah/Burning Bush) invasion of Iraq being scheduled for the "Purim" celebration of the ancient Hebrews' bloody triumph over Persia (ancient Iraq). And unless you're very new to occultic-conspiracy studies, you MUST be familiar, by now, with that fantastic samizat of the pre-Internet era called "King Kill 33":

http://www.naderlibrary.com/seldes.kingkilltoc.htm

But it's a whole 'nother ball game to make the decidedly NON-Kierkegaardian leap of faith that the most mystical of the Shacksters do -- and posit that ALL high-profile, symbolism-and-numerology-drenched political assassinations are but elaborate charades, with their lucky targets each surviving to live out their lives in some secret island paradise (to borrow one of Jim's favourite phrases) "SIPPING MAI TAIS". ;)

The Culto Cult is, of course, entitled to their belief system. But you, Joan, seem far too grounded in reality to be seduced... I hope!
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Andy Tyme Said: " [the Shacksters] posit that ALL high-profile, symbolism-and-numerology-drenched political assassinations are but elaborate charades, with their lucky targets each surviving to live out their lives in some secret island paradise The Culto Cult is, of course, entitled to their belief system. But you, Joan, seem far too grounded in reality to be seduced... I hope!

____________________________________
I'm familiar with the occult stuff and why certain numbers are used as well as symbols, etc. What I don't get is why, when I'm on the verge of solving the mysteries of 9/11, for instance, my allies on the board always start posting information on these occult tie-ins. What are they trying to say? "It's useless to go any further?" "It's beyond our understanding." "Stop now or you'll regret it?"

No, I'm not seduced by these people with their fascination with and what seems to be some kind of a need to know that "bad" people and "evil" exists and thrives in the world. I don't think the world works that way. Is there such a thing as black magic? Probably. Looking at media psy-op practices, it works on a certain scale. What I see is a department of intel agents whose job it is to plan false flag events using Masonic and theosophical symbolism and numbers to freak out the public and to divert their attention.

Have you noticed that sometimes an event is just loaded with the occult and other times not? The Chilean miners was a case rife with numerological coincidences and you have to ask yourself why that would be.

We are counting on people like PShea to really enlighten us on this issue. My brain is already cluttered with facts from all the insane events of the past 50 years. I don't need the confusion of more stuff unless it's really good.

"Less is more.".....Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM
JEANNON said: "Jim Garrison and Mark Lane were saying this on talk shows in the middle 60s."

"It is almost a sacrilege to mention the names of these two polar opposites in the same sentence. Courageous patriotic American Jim Garrison sacrificed his life for JFK assassination truth and justice."

"Mark Lane is a subversive liar because there is no truth in him because his father is the father of lies. Mark Lane is a bottom dwelling slug.
http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2...collins-piper/"
____________________________________
You are full of baloney, Jeannon. The above link doesn't even work. I've been reading some of your posts and all you do is knock 9/11 researchers. You claim to have read 20 books on 9/11. What have you read on JFK? None, I'll bet. If you ever decide to actually read something on JFK, Lane's are the first and best books to read. You have no idea what you are talking about. Lane and Garrison were close friends. You are just a hate monger and gossip like your unstable nut-case friend Piper.
------------------------------------------

http://voices.yahoo.com/who-mark-lane-famed-attorney-was-first-question-6478306.html?cat=37

Who is Mark Lane? Famed Attorney was First to Question Warren Report .....Lane is the lawyer who made his name writing the 1966 book Rush to Judgment that eviscerated the Warren Report,.....
.In the December 19, 1963 edition of the National Guardian, Lane published an article "Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief" that University of Rhode Island Professor Kenneth A. Rahn, Sr. says on his Academic JFK Assassination Website "is the first American reaction of a critical nature" that he knows about.

Lane became nationally known by briefly representing Lee Harvey Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. She had chosen Lane after reading the National Guardian article. He petitioned the Warren Commission, a blue chip panel looking into the JFK assassination that was chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, to represent the late Lee Harvey Oswald's interests before the Commission, but was turned down.

Jim Garrison

Mark Lane later worked with the even more controversial Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, who indicted and tried a local businessman for allegedly conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. Garrison told Playboy Magazine he did not question the Warren Report until 1966, and cited Lane's book as one of the sources that sowed doubt in his mind and spurred his investigation.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Andy TymeApril 17, 2014 at 9:33 AM
Mark Lane and his nearly-the-same-age father-in-law, Willis Carto, continue to be, in the twilight of their long and controversy-strewn lives, enigmas.

Were they authentic truth-searchers, or were they both playing high-profile, public roles assigned them by sinister, hidden forces?

There is, I'm sad to say, way too much reason to suspect the latter is true, but nevertheless these men both appear to have performed highly valuable work in causing us to question a great deal of "official history".

Yet lingering, troubling, even painful questions remain -- whose answers lie buried with the dead of Jonestown.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 17, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Andy said: Mark Lane and his nearly-the-same-age father-in-law, Willis Carto, continue to be, in the twilight of their long and controversy-strewn lives, enigmas.

Were they authentic truth-searchers, or were they both playing high-profile, public roles assigned them by sinister, hidden forces?

There is, I'm sad to say, way too much reason to suspect the latter is true, but nevertheless these men both appear to have performed highly valuable work in causing us to question a great deal of "official history".

Yet lingering, troubling, even painful questions remain -- whose answers lie buried with the dead of Jonestown.
__________________________________
Yes, Andy, I've heard this before. I have yet to see evidence of wrongdoing by Lane. Willis Carto ran a good newspaper for years, "The Spotlight," which was considered anti-Semitic. I had a subscription to it in the late 70s, and found it truthful. It was more truthful on domestic activity of the CIA/FBI--"The American Gestapo"--as Skolnick used to call them, than liberal magazines like Zed and The Nation to which I also subscribed. The ADL was always attacking The Spotlight. Was Carto just kidding around?

Do you remember Lane's appearances on the Tonight Show and other late night talk shows? You can see them on You Tube. Lane's books Rush to Judgement and Plausible Denial are the very best. What other author comes even close to Lane? I hope you all have read these books and also "A Citizen's Dissent." They are great.

I don't know what happened at Jonestown or how Lane got mixed up in it. He has written a book which I haven't read. He's the only JFK writer I trust. Whatever happened there, I can only say Lane's books are the greatest and I really don't care about the allegations of people like John Judge.

Since Lane is one of the few to blame the CIA for JFK, I suspect they are behind the smears.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 17, 2014 at 7:56 PM
The Black Hole of Guyana--The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre, by John Judge, 1985

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html

_____________________________________
Who do you folks use as your main source for JFK, David Lifton, Robert Groden, Vincent Bugliosi, John Judge, the "mafia did it authors," etc.? I can't think of a single author other than Lane who got it right.

I don't care what happened in Guyana. Lane was working on the MLK case with Dick Gregory and they wrote "Murder in Memphis" together. It exonerated James Earl Ray who died in prison decades later for a crime he didn't commit and whom William Pepper found not guilty after Ray's death in a case brought by the King family.

So, who are you going to believe? All the CiA operatives who write misleading books about these cases? The CIA, naturally. They never quit.

Don't forget the movie Lane wrote "Executive Action" in 1974. The cable stations never show it, but it is more accurate than Stone's JFK who used Jim Marrs "Crossfire" as the main reference. I haven't read it but hear it is next best to Lane's. Also trusted works are by Prouty, "The Secret Team" and Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassin."
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM
Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK: Mark Lane, Robert K. Tanenbaum: 9781616084288: Amazon.com: Books

The last word on the JFK assassination by the New York Times bestselling author and JFK historian!

Mark Lane tried the only U.S. court case in which the jurors concluded that the CIA plotted the murder of President Kennedy, but there was always a missing piece: How did the CIA control cops and secret service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza? How did federal authorities prevent the House Select Committee on Assassinations from discovering the truth about the complicity of the CIA?

Now, New York Times best-selling author Mark Lane tells all in this explosive new book—with exclusive new interviews, sworn testimony, and meticulous new research (including interviews with Oliver Stone, Dallas Police deputy sheriffs, Robert K. Tanenbaum, and Abraham Bolden) Lane finds out first hand exactly what went on the day JFK was assassinated. Lane includes sworn statements given to the Warren Commission by a police officer who confronted a man who he thought was the assassin. The officer testified that he drew his gun and pointed it at the suspect who showed Secret Service ID. Yet, the Secret Service later reported that there were no Secret Service agents on foot in Dealey Plaza.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 18, 2014 at 6:44 PM
A full length interview with Mark Lane about his latest book, "Last Word, My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaw35LPEvI
_________________________________
RUSH TO JUDGMENT" (1967) (MARK LANE FILM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY
_________________________________
All you need to know about the JFK assassination is in "Rush to Judgement" (link above) which is the defense of LHO by Mark Lane in 1967. You don't even have to read the book as it is on You Tube.

Unlike the 9/11 Commission, the Warren Commission used real witness sworn testimony. In their report, much witness testimony was either disregarded or contradicted.

We now know that many of the witnesses to
9/11 were really actors and/or relatives of television personnel. The report reads like a novel as opposed to a legal document. It is unclear what the testimony of the witnesses was and whether it was taken under oath.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast

Friday, March 28, 2014

FS from the EU

119 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive