Friday, March 14, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
March
(14)
- Jim Fetzer
- FS from the EU
- Jim Fetzer / Gary King
- Kelley from Tulsa and Kate Slate
- Gilad Atzmon
- Winfield Abbe / Gary King
- Ole Dammegard
- REALIST REPORT: 9/11 fakery debate
- Jeff Rense / Gary King
- Michael Billington / Stephen Francis
- BONUS PODCAST: Ole Dammegard
- Preston James / Dennis Cimino
- Franklin Johnson / Gary King
- Ole Dammegard / Hailey Otis
-
▼
March
(14)
OBF won that "debate" hands down. The moderator did a good job although the intro was longwinded and irritating to listen to. Look... OBF is absolutely correct about the broken chain of evidence and its lake of Court Room standards, fox and other pro-nukers (Fetzer et al) rely on! Anything coming out of a government agency or news room MUST BE TOSSED OUT! Why should anything they tell us be believed? Bottomline... Nukes DO NOT explain the physical evidence on the scene. We do not know (yet) about the technology "they" used to dustify the trade complex (we're not just not just talking about three buildings mind you).
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of rubbish. OBF failed to make any argument beyond 'it's all fake', a pathetic performance by a pathetic person.
DeleteOBF is a gatekeeper who constantly pushes the 'it's all fake' line because if you decide everything is fake, you will never and can never solve anything or find any answers. That is what OBF wants - people to never find any answers because they have been fooled into thinking everything is fake.
There is enough evidence to prove that both nuclear fusion and fission occurred, any sane person can see that, only the disinfo people who keep pushing the it's all fake BS and the Judy Wood sci-fi beam weapon clowns refuse to see that.
I have explained the STUPIDITY of rejecting government records and studies WHEN THEY CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT. I think that there is something about these guys including SS and obf and (now) NM Golfer (who may be SS or obf, it would not surprise me) that renders them utterly incapable of rational thought. Don and I and Ian and Jeannon, among others, have wasted entirely too much time on them. They do not deserve more.
DeleteHi Jim. Thank you for stepping down to us, btw.
DeleteReleasing conflicting information is a quite clever strategy, and also an old idea. Half the opposition will embrace one of the versions, the other half will prefer the other version. And then divide the opposition one more time so that the opposition cannot unite behind a common message and will never become a real threat.
Here is this idea articulated in an more than 100 year old book:
"10. In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the "goyim" lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.”
Whether this book is a blueprint or fiction doesn't really matter. The idea was out there >100 years ago, and ideas may spread far and quickly like wildfire.
So spreading conflicting information isn't stupid at all, but more likely brilliant and necessary to get control on the public opinion.
After all, the shills need something to work on.
READERS PLEASE NOTE:
ReplyDeleteIn the comments section of John Friends blog of this "debate" [ http://www.john-friend.net/2014/03/the-realist-report-911-debate.html#comment-form ] ,
Fetzer said : "Here is yet another video he [obf] would have us believe was fabricated or faked in advance:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
By way of reply, Simon Shack linked to his own 2 year old analysis of that particular [NIST] sequence :
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369781#p2369781
which reveals said sequence to be an obvious fraud, and yet, to date, Mr Fetzer has [predictably?] failed to respond to Shack's analysis, and has mysteriously vanished from the comments section over there
"Par for the course", it would appear. And so it goes :-)
Regards, obf.
I think JEANNON has it right:
DeleteJEANNONMarch 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM
OBF appears to find the most personal freedom producing use of his time to be that of criticizing Dr. Fetzer, certainly not actually seeking and sharing substantive 9-11 truth.
We all have little or nothing to work with in terms of solid data and solid evidence regarding 9-11. It is all “tentative and fallible” in spades. No objective professional evaluations have or can be made of 9-11 videos, and even if performed at their best, they cannot pronounce a video to be “valid” or “true and correct”.
That being said, I do not think that Dr. Fetzer should be held to a standard that OBF and Simon Shack should not.
OBF and Simon Shack demonstrate more violations of basic objective research about 9-11 and basic logic than I can shake a stick at.
OBF,
You are a “researcher” but you aren’t/
You do represent Simon Shack but you don’t.
Dr. Fetzer can’t “be excused” from logic and legal standards but you and Simon Shack can.
A double standard is appropriate in criticizing Dr. Fetzer because he happens to be a logic professor and has taught classes in the principles of scientific reasoning. (That makes Dr. Fetzer as having presented himself as a “trained scientist.” NOT!)
Using every logical fallacy in the book is very much about ETHICS. Dr. Fetzer has posted some things that I have criticized but I have given up on posting criticisms of OBF and Shack because life is too short. It appears to me, OBF, that your logical fallacy of choice is the straw man, but you have not neglected many others such as “equivocation”, cherry picking or special pleading, and silence In this thread, and several others, I have seen you do a 180 degree turn in your argumentation on certain topics, slyly dropping off former arguments and subtly changing your definitions. You, oh artful dodger, often give unethical “answers” or refuse to answer at all. (See P.S. below)
The only difference is, on balance, Dr. Fetzer PRODUCES. Dr. Fetzer has contributed about a thousand percent more substantive 9-11 truth than you, OBF, or Simon Shack ever have.
I try to pick up nuggets of 9-11 truth wherever I can find them and try to “eat the meat and spit out the bones”. but, historically and consistently, you OBF and Simon Shack serve us no meat, only bones.
P.S.
Example of OBF’s contributions to 9-11 truth discussions.
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/11/allan-weisbecker.html
JEANNONDecember 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM
OnebornfreeDecember 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM
JEANNONDecember 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM
OBF, I skimmed your answer to me and it was a joke. You answered my questions to your assertions with questions.
Probably will not donate any more of my time to you.
NM Golfer said:
ReplyDelete"Anything coming out of a government agency or news room MUST BE TOSSED OUT! Why should anything they tell us be believed? Bottomline... Nukes DO NOT explain the physical evidence on the scene."
Don Fox did a good job reiterating the government's story and OBF didn't call him on it very strongly. How disappointing.
NM Golfer, can we even trust the physical evidence on the video tapes? We have seen the rubble pile, but how do we know if that video wasn't tampered with also? How can we be sure when the rubble pictures were taken.
I still don't know why it was necessary to use nukes. No explanation from Don except that it solves for him the problem of the missing 3,000 bodies. Do we really believe that figure?
If there were no planes, there were no gashes, no smoke, no fire and no trapped people.
ReplyDeleteNo. Without planes, gashes can be made and filmed. Smoke can be real and seen.
DeleteMost special effects for false flags require events to occur; it's WHAT the events are really caused by, which is where the fake narrative can take over.
The gashes needed to be there for NYC and for showing real footage.
However, most scenes with fake bkgrd and foregrd would allow less to be shown of real pre-demolition as it occurred.
Perps wouldn't tend to fake all in huge event like this; too much would actually go wrong, not match event.
Gashes totally possible with missile at centre and rest done w/ cut charges, etc.
Good summary. Naturally issues like "chain of custody", evidence of digital alteration or editing, etc. - all these qualifications would be vetted of evidence before it could be formally admitted in a proceeding. But we have plenty to work with. Distinguishing between fakery, alteration and authentic footage (or photos) is not such a mystery once the case makes it to court and each piece of of visual evidence can be SOURCED to a material witness who supplied the original evidence.
DeleteLos Alamos 911 Truth: we don't need sources for all images to tell that some have been shown to mislead (timing of showing certain things and few images of literal buildings being prepped for final takedown), some have agents in them (identified), some have overlays of bkgrd/foreground (set up in computer but not nec. all-fake), and some are real (destruction sequence in general, though all-fake crowd has developed bias against what natural photog actually looks like, and what something dustifying in mid-air would look like, turning to "sand", so to speak, blowing off, but having natural photographic flat quality of lighting for faraway shots -- foregrounds however looking fake, which makes sense because foregrounds have to cover other shenanigans going on AND give impression as if more independence of media cameras).
DeleteI reply here, but it's more of a general reply that fits about here.
DeleteThe chain of custody is probably less important in this instance. That is because the USGS were looking for something completely different, namely asbestos. It appears, according to those that have studied it (Anonymous Physicist, Prager, Fox comes to mind) that the USGS had no idea what the numbers for the different elements in their analysis meant. Something like, "We're chemists, not physicists". What those accidental numbers really meant became clear much later. Releasing those numbers were a huge mistake on the part of TPTB, something they did not control, did not realise, and that can now not be undone. And the fantastic part is that all the illness and death that first responders suffered now can be explained. They inhaled radiation.
And it's not an all-or-nothing, like either 3000 died or none at all. It could have been 1000, because a lot more people got past the fires than we think. It could be that more people got foreknowledge, or a little less sinister, that colleagues having foreknowledge booked their peers into meetings in other locations that very morning, just to make sure they survived. There seems to be evidence that people died. There seems to be evidence of fakery of death and forgery of identities as well. To sum it up, we don't know how many died.
It would be a heck of a lot easier to place explosives in such a way as to have the gashes appear on the sides of the building, than to actually steer a plane into the building and have the building swallow up the entire plane but also have it stop completely before it exited the wall on the other side. That whole idea is just ludicrous. But if you look at the video of the event and "see it happening" you will probably believe it happened, because you saw it happen, right. I don't blame anyone for believing their own eyes. But that depends upon the media being truthful. And I think realising the complicity of media, is the most difficult thing in this matter...
I think that the answer lies somewhere between the various hypotheses offered in this debate. It's too bad that Don Fox didn't present his views other than by reading a script most of the time. It's also a shame that his rebuttal often consists of "such and such is b.s." Citing "witnesses" doesn't cut it with me since so many of them have proved to be impostors and citing government sources is just plain naive. OBF makes many good points, but he has no real proofs for much of his conjectures. Most of the time he comes off as a rodeo clown. This whole debate was very frustrating. The bottom line is that we are never going to get to the bottom of 911 and we can argue about it until the cows come home while we ultimately miss the real issue, which is that the entire world is being taken over by a nefarious organization of zionist thugs, enabled first by the so-called holocaust and now by the 911 hoax. Even the dim bulbs among my friends are beginning to talk about it, it's so obvious.
ReplyDeleteMuch, much more important than the 911 operation is that all the major media outlets are totally controlled by the same gang. The huge power of this is that they can manufacture the version of the world that they want or like or need. Media is always complicit, or even running these operations like 911 and Sandy Hook Hoax, etc, etc, etc.
DeleteThey also have total control on the election process, and will among other things, always get a controllable puppet in the White House, etc, etc, etc. and indirectly may make the laws too. 911 is not the really big deal...
Two very good comments. Linda, while I certainly do not profess to know with certainty, I believe the "culprit" is more than just the zionists. Its is the triad that formed in 1776 Frankfurt Germany consisting of Vatican money (Rothschild), Skull and Bones/Scottish Rite Freemasony (Adam Weishapt) and Stabattean Jews (Jacob Frank). They are all in on it with the jews being the designated patsy. 911 had element of a freemasonic ritual and we know with absolute certainty wall street money interests (Rothschild banking) stood to make massive profits off the war agenda. The Sabbateans in charge of Israel of course have delusions of middle-east hegemony and were thus motivated. All stood to gain and to further their agenda. And yes.., they think they control everything having demonstrated by taking down Potus' (and getting away with it repeatedly).
DeleteWe know they control the mainstream media so the notion that T.V. footage was pre-planned for the big event should be expected. The operation was long in the making as we know from their predictive programming work done in Hollywood as far back as in the 1980's (GI Joe) and then later shows like The Lone Gunmen X-files spin-off. For some strange reason they like to tell us what they're planning. Hunger Games coming soon?
Indeed, they got away with 911 and so today we see more and more of these Hollywood productions such as the Sandy Hook gun grabber massacre and the Boston Bombing marshal law madness. Fetzer does not argue that those are faked yet without even considering OBF and SS evidence, he concludes all of the 911 footage is legit? Weird huh! Me thinks it makes Jim suspect.
It seems clear to me the planners of the crime would have predicted that not everyone would buy the (laughable) official (fire triggered collapse) conspiracy theory. It would have been easy for them to leave a trail of bread-crumbs leading know where in the form of USGS reports of soil and water samples. I think it naive to believe they are not thinking 10 steps ahead of the rest of us in this rigged game of chess. And so yes... we must toss out much of what we think we know and perhaps more importantly much of what they've told/shown us that we want to believe!
What we do know is the entire trade center complex was turned to a small pile of rubble and a huge amount of dust. Paper and people were left largely unscathed and damage was confined largely with-in the property perimeter. Also (apparently) some cars were toasted in the process. Nukes don't confine their damage to the footprint of a building complex. Nor do they go off like a Roman candle.Nukes make big booms (which would have shatter windows miles away) Nukes also have other side effects which are not present at the crime scene. In the words of Johnnie Cochran: If the glove does not fit, you must acquit! Nukes are not the answer in spite of what some would like us (and themselves) to believe.
The triad I mention above (the culprits) have had more that 200 years to conspire against us. They've had multiple wars the spoils of which they've squirrel away for themselves. Indeed the lifes-work of great minds of the past (and present) have all been secreted way by them under the auspices of "national security". One must wonder who's security? They've stollen trillions which could have been used for development of Manhattan like projects at secret bases everywhere. Why is it so implausible that they have a weapon, lets call it the Ferous Electromagnetic Targetable Zenon Reatomizer or FETZR for short, that turns sky-scrappers to dust?
I'm not into any of this cult of personality stuff. I don't care who is right and who is wrong nor do I have any desire to participate in any of these petty internet squabbles. I do not believe the so-called truth movement will lead anywhere. It is clearly co-opted as was planned. This much is obvious.
The mainstream Truth movement is basically run by the 911 operation management. They certainly didn't retire that day, and among other things, they are controlling the opposition really well as far as I can tell.
DeleteMost important is to protect the story on the commercial plane crashes 911 (with foreign hijackers), and the victims part of the story. That is the basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with. Planes+victims=WoT etc.
Also really important is the protect the media complicity in this operation, or the Nutworks Weapon of Mass Deception if you like.
Most important for the controlled opposition and the 911 operation management is to protect these parts of the story. Lets talk about anything else instead, forever, like this nonsensical sheep cyclone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pysET6UvN60
MY MISTAKE! :
ReplyDeleteIn the interview I mentioned the miraculous editing skills of the CNN studio editor concerning the live feed of the collapse of WTC2- this was a mistake on my part, I meant the WTC1 sequence. See:
"9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-scamsthe-faked-live-cnn-wtc1.html
Also, regarding alleged victim Louis Mariani and his unusual haircut, please see:
"Behold! Louis Mariani 9/11 Victim, Purple-Haired Punk-Rocker & King of Opera!":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/05/fake-911-victimslouis-mariani-911.html
Regards, obf.
This was a nice exchange. Don did a great job sticking to what he knows, which is not whether there are evidences of fake victims for the towers, but rather the multiple lines of evidence for nuclear residue at 9/11. OBF did a great job talking of what he doubts and what he knows. -- Very cordial both, and that's to their credit.
ReplyDeleteNM golfer said : "Me thinks it makes Jim suspect."
ReplyDeleteThe whole Fetzer/Don Fox " nukes were used on 911" line is part of a deliberate deception, in my opinion, propagated to distract you all from the otherwise in your face fact that the MSM is nothing more than a government [i.e. military] propaganda outlet [the main one , in fact], that broadcast 100% pre-fabricated "live" imagery on 911 in order to bring about a military coup d'etat , foment several wars and further expand and centralize the "military industrial complex" for the power and financial profit of the government itself and its many various sycophants.
Fact:1] The "live" MSM imagery showed us all tower collapses in under 20 secs apiece. THESE IMPOSSIBLY SHORT TOWER COLLAPSE TIMES WERE CRITICAL FOR THE REQUIRED PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT [i.e.THE "PSYOP"] ON THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE VIEWERS, in order to lock in their emotional response to the events viewed. Without those short, almost instantaneous collapse times, the psychological effect would have been severely diminished.
Fact 2]: This [ridiculously short collapse times] created a problem for the perps.
Because of the necessary ridiculously short collapse times in order to make the psyop work, it was IN ADVANCE understood that it would be necessary at some time in the future , after the original "shock and awe" lost its effect and intelligent people began to seriously question the official ridiculous story of fires causing the collapses [i.e. right _now_], for alternative BIG LIES [e.g. nukes demolished the WTC] to explain those faked "live" visuals of tower collapses, in order to protect the government from the otherwise inevitable realization by the intelligent individual that the MSM was/is nothing more than a goverment/military propaganda outlet that constantly manufactures events and all of the footage necessary to bring about it and its sycophants multiple agendas.
This is why we have persons such as Fetzer and Fox et al engaged in their continual [either accidental or deliberate] "nukes demolished the WTC complex on 9/11" distraction.
The intent is to distract us and delay for as long as possible [perhaps indefinitely] you, the reader, from _ever_ reaching the understanding that the government controls the MSM , if not entirely, then almost entirely [95%?]; because if significant numbers of people ever get to that realization, the government loses its main means of controlling/propagandizing the population- which would make it and its sycophants agenda[s] far more difficult to implement.
Fetzer and Fox are, by promoting this particular distraction [nukes demolished the WTC] are essentially engaging in a classic "limited hangout" in order to prevent you , and others, from comprehending just how much the government controls the MSM, and why that control is absolutely necessary for it.
Regards, obf.
JEANNON said :"Probably will not donate any more of my time to you."
ReplyDeleteLikewise. Have a "nice" day :-) .
obf.
Seeing as how J.Fetzer has recently graced us all with his presence here and yet apparently did _not_ see or choose to respond to this post of mine,[relayed by me but really from Simon Shack], I will repost it :
ReplyDeleteREADERS PLEASE NOTE:
In the comments section of John Friends blog of this "debate" [ http://www.john-friend.net/2014/03/the-realist-report-911-debate.html#comment-form ] ,
Fetzer said : "Here is yet another video he [obf] would have us believe was fabricated or faked in advance:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
By way of reply, Simon Shack linked to his own 2 year old analysis of that particular [NIST] sequence :
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369781#p2369781
which reveals said sequence to be an obvious fraud, and yet, to date, Mr Fetzer has [predictably?] failed to respond to Shack's analysis, and has mysteriously vanished from the comments section over there
"Par for the course", it would appear. And so it goes :-)
Regards, obf.
Not saying that the video of the demolition is authentic, but I was just looking at some photos that one of my brothers posted to Facebook from his Hawaii trip of his two daughters from their hotel balcony and the cityscape and mountains in the background have those same black outlines on them. I don't think my brother did a green screen trick there... so I must, at least, allow for the possibility that the 911 videos were not falsified.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteone boring fraud!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ.Fetzer said : "I think that there is something about these guys including SS and obf and (now) NM Golfer (who may be SS or obf, it would not surprise me) that renders them utterly incapable of rational thought. Don and I and Ian and Jeannon, among others, have wasted entirely too much time on them. They do not deserve more."
ReplyDeleteSpecifically : " I think that there is something about these guys including SS and obf and (now) NM Golfer that renders them utterly incapable of rational thought.",
and :
"Don and I and Ian and Jeannon, among others, have wasted entirely too much time on them. They do not deserve more."
So these statements from Mr Fetzer are supposed to be examples of the "rational thought" that myself and others are incapable of?
Let's see:
FACT [1]: Mr Fetzer, freely, of his own volition, posts a blog entry entitled : "REALIST REPORT: 9/11 fakery debate-John Friend hosts: Don Fox and _ONEBORNFREE_" [emphasis mine], which links to a debate I did with Fox and to which I contributed about 50% of the alloted time.
FACT [2] : Fetzer then proceeds to complain in the same blog entry that himself and others "have wasted entirely too much time" on myself, Simon Shack etc., and that "They do not deserve more."
You gotta love it [ that good ole "Fetzel logic" or, "rational thinking"] :-) .
Regards, obf
Find it amusing that Fox reads a news report about the Mossad agents being arrested. Residents called th e police when seeing people jumping for joy after the first attack on the tower. Yet, Fox does not believe there was an attack on the towers.
ReplyDeleteI agree Fox was reading from a script. This was NOT a debate. Fox debunks t he fake report by citing from the said report. WEAK!!!!
I think OBF is showing more constraint and his behavior is more professional than Fox, Fetzer and especially Greenhalgh. Talk about name calling.
It seems like a class of 8th graders arguing over who has the biggest dick.
What great comedy!
"Fox does not believe there was an attack on the towers"? Of course he does. An attack of setting explosives, not having planes fly.
DeleteYes, Ian calls names; so usually do Fox and OBF, but thankfully not during the debate.
Fox can read from points prepared. Classical debate does this.
So, the buildings could just fall? No need to be concerned about rupturing the concrete bathtub?
ReplyDeleteIs this no longer part of anyone's considerations? Lot of folk seem to be talking all around that issue.
This is the single most important reason for nukes to have been used, in my very humble opinion.
Yes. Something which blasted them in all directions and fits the detritus signature, which includes in several ways, nuclear event residue.
Delete911truthnc said : "I agree Fox was reading from a script."
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is impossible to verify, I got the exact same impression. As to why, I have no idea, I could only speculate ;-)
Regards, obf.
He prepared points carefully. If some was from a script, then so be it. Definitely in some things he replied directly.
DeleteIan Greenhalgh said :"You're a pathetic idiot OBF, and Jim, not Jeannon said plainly, as you quoted, that he will not waste any more of his time on you.
ReplyDeleteAll you've done for months on end is try to waste our time, and never made one single tenable point worth debating, just the same fallacious crap over and over ad nauseum.
For you to accuse others of trying to deceive is the height of hypocrisy.
Jim should just go ahead and ban you and Buggo and pshea and the rest of the disinfo trolls who disrupt this place so you have to find somewhere else to play out your pathetic gatekeeping games."
Dear Ian, you are doing a great job- please keep it up-don't stop.
I'm really enjoying your contributions here. Seriously:-)
Yourself, Fetzer, Fox JEANNON, tecumseh55 ,etc. are either bonafide comedic geniuses or mental midgets, I cannot decide which [not that it really matters].
Either way, its great entatanemunt- and I needs mi entatanemunt! :-)
regards, obf.
Did it bother anybody else that OBF was screwing around on his guitar, when he should have been listening intently to what Fox had to say?
ReplyDeleteJust a clear indicator of his shocking arrogance.
DeleteYes, I forgot about that. It did bother me. Sometimes people get distracted by emails and the like, but that was a totally unnecessary disrespectful action on his part.
DeleteYeah, I thought it was quite distracting, rude, and disrespectful.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIan Greenhalgh said :"Just a clear indicator of his shocking arrogance."
ReplyDeleteNice try Ian - no cigar :-)
I would surmise that anyone with just a tiny bit of common sense might be far more concerned with the "shocking arrogance" of 911 "researchers" [such as Fox/Fetzer -but also including: Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Ace Baker, Anthony Lawson, Dimitri Kalezov, Richard Hall etc.] ,who have consistently taken it upon themselves to almost entirely ignore the both very necessary and very easy to understand principles/procedures of law, and of the scientific method, with regards to any/all evidence verification/authentication [including all associated imagery, "eyewitness testimony", and US Govmt. agency "studies"] , that even simple laymen like myself can understand, in order to reach their completely arbitrary, spurious, so-called "incontestable" 911 conclusions, instead of my ,what?, 15 secs of bad guitar playing?
But no, true to form, that 15 secs [for which I apologized on air], is a major concern, for some of the er, "deeper" thinkers here.
Again,you gotta love it :-)
For a better example of my guitar playing, please listen here:
"Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU
Regards obf
Still fogging the same old dead horse about not following legal standards or the scientific method, oh dear...
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer has explained in great detail on more than one occasion that you don't understand legal procedure or the scientific method and therefore all of your criticism of others for not following them is fallacious.
In short, you're wrong about both and your inability to grasp the correct scientific method or learn the correct legal procedure speak volumes for both your intellect and integrity.
Ian, OBF has said that Jim's not accepting working through all the photo material adduced as evidence on his side means no sci method from Jim. In a sense this was true, but few do work through all on the other side of their position.
DeleteSecond, Jim said several times he did not understand the value of looking through masses of maybes when the destruction sequence was photographically plausible, physically has plausibility and so on.
Different focuses; as OBF has said here, he has a bias now in looking at photos. Anyone who can look at the total and the individual images can see that the all-fake crowd overdoes their claim. However, there were plenty of discoveries of shenanigans by them and others, showing media lying and messing with audio and visuals.
Shame on you Clare for defending this sick person.
DeleteAlso, for the umpteenth time, stop explaining everything to people like they are morons and you are the only one who understands.
Honestly, whenever you stick your nose in you just make things worse.
Ian, you are the one with the ad homs and lack of subtlety of understanding.
DeleteHas anyone noticed how talk about 911 fakery is being discouraged by the group loyalists and Fetzer sycophants? Those who accuse us of being gatekeepers are the true gatekeepers. The demonizing of Simon Shack and others is most puzzling. One would think truth groups would welcome the information uncovered recently in the archived video footage. Are some false flag events, such as Sandy Hook, politically correct to expose and others are not? Perhaps it is a matter of scale. As with the JFK assassination, will 911 remain a mystery for many decades to come?
ReplyDeleteEl Buggo said:
The mainstream Truth movement is basically run by the 911 operation management. They certainly didn't retire that day, and among other things, they are controlling the opposition really well as far as I can tell.
Most important is to protect the story on the commercial plane crashes 911 (with foreign hijackers), and the victims part of the story. That is the basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with.....
Also really important is the protect the media complicity in this operation.....
Most important for the controlled opposition and the 911 operation management is to protect these parts of the story. Lets talk about anything else instead, forever.........
It's a bit more complex. Shack, etc., have come to extreme positions which are untenable, but their work is partly great; in being so extreme, others immediately balk. Some others would have balked with lesser positions, too, but the fact is, the extremity of the position and its incorrectness do not help. (They've forgotten what natural photography looks like and can't seem to image what dustifying, molecular dissociation of items would look like either if caught naturally on film.) Others have blind spots but so do they.
DeleteIn all of this denigration on both sides, you're right, the truth itself is getting a bit mashed.
Media manipulation is a major issue, but so is physics of take-down.
Joan, Do you not understand that I am among the leading proponents of the view that none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11? I am perplexed by some of your comments, since they do not reflect that fact.
DeleteSee, for example, "Planes/No planes and 'video fakery'", "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I", and (most recently) "The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2". Get back on what you find there.
Jim, judging by comments here and other places, many people feel that your emphasis when talking of fake planes is not the images themselves, and that you do not go further, knowing that if they could insert CGI (which you do not always hold that they did), they could have other shots set up.
DeleteThe point is that many people want to have more emphasis from you that there are problems in the imagery itself, requiring outside media piped-in lies and media knowledge of lies. (BBC script with Standley's early reading of WTC 7 takedown is an example -- though the fact the other fellow LAUGHED shows he knew more than she did.)
You need to emphasize what I came on to talk about some time ago: the vicsims (not all victims, but some have fake photos, which Don refuses to look at as if one has to be an "expert" in photoanalysis to see some of it), the composite images of foreground and background edits from the DAY OF, and the "ball" image which was drawn in later.
These are simple proofs of direct doctoring in media sources. They want more emphasis on media manipulation of the event.
(Never mind OBF and Shack when they talk of the extreme form of "it's all easy and done beforehand and afterward"; there is media manipulation in the imagery itself which they and others have discovered.)
Jim, when I said the "ball" was drawn in later, I meant the drawing of a black blob was drawn over the "ball" on the DAY OF but after the "ball" was shown.
DeleteI've been a lurker at Clues Forum for quite some time and while a lot of it is intriguing stuff, much of it is full of holes. I again bring up the black outline issue which SS and others assert is the mark of a composite image. My brother just posted a photo he took yesterday in Hawaii of his two children on their hotel balcony and the cityscape and mountains in the background are full of those heavy black outlines. So, my conclusion is that those black outlines might be an indication of video fakery and then again they might not. To me, it isn't conclusive evidence. Also, I noticed that the footage of the twin towers without views of the river in the background might have been taken at a lower viewpoint than the ones with the background. It looked like that to me, but I'm not a photographic expert so I can't be sure. I'd like to see two photos where all the buildings line up exactly before we start comparing the backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, would everybody please stop with the ad hominem attacks? It doesn't help to win your case - in fact, just the opposite. -- Thanks!
Linda Packer said: "So, my conclusion is that those black outlines might be an indication of video fakery and then again they might not. To me, it isn't conclusive evidence."
ReplyDeleteFor more black lines in 911 imagery, this time in the original "live" MSM broadcast footage, see here :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=289&p=2375446&hilit=black+lines#p2375446
Regards, obf.
So, you actually think that's an answer to my post.
DeleteJoan Edwards said : "Has anyone noticed how talk about 911 fakery is being discouraged by the group loyalists and Fetzer sycophants? Those who accuse us of being gatekeepers are the true gatekeepers. The demonizing of Simon Shack and others is most puzzling. .."
ReplyDeleteIt's not really that puzzling Joan. These people obviously feel very threatened by Shacks research.
The question is why? There are only two answers that I can come up with right now. Either :
1] They are naive but very arrogant innocents who just cannot stand to have their beautiful hypothesis challenged/threatened in any way whatsoever [ because they simply _have_ to be right ! :-) ], or......
2] They are all part of the controlled opposition whose job it is to delay [ideally indefinitely] the conclusion that the media broadcasts on 911 were 100% fake, as this realization, by enough persons, destroys the effectiveness of their primary propaganda weapon, TV.
Take your pick.
You should take the histrionics of Fetzer, and Greenhalgh etc that are continually on display here and elsewhere as a _good_ sign- it means that we are right over the target.
Those continually displayed histrionics on their part are actually pretty amusing, if you think about it- so maybe just sit back and enjoy a good laugh at the almost foaming at the mouth spectacle Fetzer and Co. regularly give us all :-)
Have fun.
Regards obf.
The only threats to their research, OBF are twofold:
Delete- what they get slightly wrong (some vs no victims fake, etc.)
- having nonsense radical doubt bias, which has forgotten what real photography looks like even when layered, take over the discussion.
9/11 was an inside job...
ReplyDeleteDr. Fetzer, I really don't care what your theories of 911 are. The fact is you are a prolific author and speaker as well as a professor of logic, etc. As such, you are in a senior position as well as an authority figure to the posters here. Your demeanor matters.
ReplyDeleteBesides consistently giving us great programming and access to well known personalities, you serve as a mentor, as an example to all of us. Therefore, you have the rare opportunity to nurture and encourage those who come here to express themselves and find camaraderie. Being so knowledgeable on such profound secrets is lonely.
Instead of acting as a leader, you are making enemies among those who would be friends who are only looking for a platform to speak what they've learned. What a resource are people like Phil Jayhan and Simon Shack.
You've invited some of them on your show only to lose your temper during the program. The right thing to do would be to allow them to finish stating their case and express your disagreements later. Had you allowed OBF to finish his presentations on your podcasts and instead of disrespecting him publicly, you would have made an ally instead of an enemy.
At this point in your life, you can afford to be generous. A chance to speak is all most ask. They should not be subjected to ad hominem attacks from midget minds like Ian and the precocious, inscrutable, doublespeaking Clare, who seem to come out of the woodwork encouraged by you to do battle.
If fresh ideas are to be sneered at, then what is the point in continuing to post here? It is too painful to be mocked and as the Law of Karma states: "What you sow, shall ye reap." Negative energy only comes back to you.
We understand you are under a lot of pressure being in the middle of a tug of war between the fiction of 911 and truth, reason and honesty. We understand that it is conflicting for you to be in the public eye answering to The Powers That Be while still maintaining these values. We don't want to see you in trouble with the establishment, quite the opposite, we want to see you thrive and enjoy the unique position you've created for yourself.
Believe what you will, Jim, but allow others to express themselves. Positive energy can change the world. Relax and enjoy all you have created for us. It's time to lighten up.
"If you have to choose between being right or being kind, choose kind".......Dr. Wayne Dyer, The Power of Intention
Are you seriously suggesting Jim Fetzer, a good, honest man should ally himself with gatekeepers and disinfo agents like Shack, Jayhan and OBF?
DeleteGet real....
Jim has learnt his lesson about disinfo agents due to past experiences with people like Judy Wood.
With the high level of infiltration of the truth movement by cointelpro shills it is very important to be highly selective about who one allies oneself with and OBF and Shack have given Jim more than enough reason to be extremely wary of having anything to do with them.
Dear Joan,
DeleteI do appreciate your wise appeal to reason and self-control addressed to Dr Fetzer - following his rather senseless (if not incomprehensible), virulent outbursts against Onebornfree and yours truly, both of whom are (no matter how loud our antagonists will keep screaming) sincerely and selflessly dedicated to 9/11 truth.
Unfortunately, it appears that Dr Fetzer has already - and definitively - made his mind up about us and our efforts. Here is what Fetzer wrote in a collective e-mail exchange - only two days ago:
"I not only believe what I am saying about you and onebornfree, who must be two of the leading morons in the 9/11 community, but I can prove it. So do your best. I am sick and tire of your endless rubbish about faking all of the
videos on 9/11, which I have explained time-and-time-again is indefensible. Enough!"
A few hours later, Gordon Duff (Fetzer's Chief Editor at Veterans today) joined in and contributed to that e-mail exchange with the below comment (addressed to Fetzer - but directed at yours truly):
"Fetzer...where did you dig up this asshole?"
You may also recall that Fetzer has called OBF an "idiot" and "incredibly stupid" in past comments on this very blog and over at Veterans Today.
As you may well imagine, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me and OBF to take Fetzer and his foul-mouthed gang seriously - or to continue engaging in any constructive discourse with such puerile, uncalled for epithets being continuously lashed out at us.
kind regards
Simon Shack
Oh come on Simon, you can't spend years acting with incredibly arrogance while spouting ludicrous, untenable BS without attracting scorn and derision.
DeleteLast time you commented here you made a stupendously stupid claim that the UK's Trident programme was 'phoney', just a classic example of the sort of unsubstantiated and untenable rubbish that flows all too freely from your direction. You can't seriously expect to be so free with the BS without receiving some negative comments from those who find the spreading of patently false crap offensive.
Even worse, OBF and yourself and several other of your cluelessforum cronies have spent a lot of time and energy attacking Jim Fetzer and disrupting the comments section here and at VT, so don't think your attempt to take the moral high ground is going to fool anyone.
It really is quite simple, you don't want to be called an arrogant, incompetent asshole, then stop acting like one and do some competent work.
The email exchange you refer to was begun by one of your supporters and was laced with insults and personal attacks from that side, so you are grossly misrepresenting the tone of the discussion by taking the comments of Duff and Fetzer out of context.
We have a saying in England 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones', Shack and his cronies would do well to take that truism to heart, they have been throwing lots of stones at people but now some are being returned, they are getting very upset.
Poor Shack, some big boys called him some names and now he's upset. My heart bleeds for you Shack! lol
Joan, I appreciate those thoughtful comments. I thought that I WAS being open-minded by not only featuring obf on my shows (and more than once, as I recall) but by not censoring what he and SS want to say here. Would you agree?
DeleteThere is a point at which further debate is no longer worthwhile. I am completely open to the prospect that many of the alleged victims were simulations. But the wholesale dismissal of a video record that is coherence and documented is indefensible.
I have pointed out more than once that you can search on "9/11 photographers" and find the names of those who took lots of the photos on 9/11. obf simply disregards that as he does that newly-discovered videos confirm was the earlier record shows.
The idea that the USGS dust sample studies should be discounted BECAUSE they originate with a government agency is absurd, especially when they confirm that this was a nuclear event. If the government wanted to fake evidence, it would have had samples consistent with their collapse.
How much patience and tolerance am I to display? In my view, I have given them more than ample opportunity to make their case. That obf even wants to dismiss the existence of nuclear weapons seals the deal in my view. That is completely beyond the pale. He does not deserve more from me.
Linda Packer said :"So, you actually think that's an answer to my post."
ReplyDeleteWell technically, it _was_ an answer- you cannot deny that. But it was not the answer you were looking for, it now seems. Oh well, I tried. [You win some, you lose some :-) ].
Regards obf.
Linda Packer, can you pls share the photo? I understand that you may not want to share family photos but since you are only concerned about the cityscape, you can blackout your family members. I'm no expert either but I'm interested to know what you are on about.
ReplyDeleteClare Kuehn, please tell us more about the "balls" on the DAY OF.
Hopefully this will work:
Deletehttp://s30.postimg.org/b3ofz1y0h/black_outlines.jpg
That's an edge effect created by the JPEG compression algorithm.
DeleteI don't know anything about this stuff. What is the difference between the edge effect created by the JPEG compression algorithm and the black edges on the WTC videos?
DeleteVery little. The videos of the WTC that Shack 'analysed' were very poor quality copies. They had been trancoded several times, and each generation of trancoding had added to the level of artifacts present. In short, he was looking at a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that had been downscaled to low resolution. Not suitable for making anything but the most cursory examination. Trying to discern fine details from those videos is akin to trying to analyse the brush stroke work on the Mona Lisa by looking at a bad photocopy of a small reproduction in a cheaply printed book.
DeleteAlso, the camera you used to take that picture, in common with all cameras that save images in the JPEG format, uses on-board picture processing algorithms to apply changes to the image, these vary greatly from camera to camera, but include things such as sharpening (which often emphasises edges) moire reduction and noise reduction. The strength of the effects applied varies from camera to camera and also depends on the settings you have chosen on the camera. Many consumer level cameras actually process the image pretty heavily, even with the on-camera settings turned down to the lowest level.
Not long after the Obama administration came to power, one of them, Cass Sunstein husband of current foreign affairs advisor and neocon Susan Powers, suggested they embark on a campaign of "cognitive infiltration" of "conspiracy theory" groups (see:http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ ).
ReplyDeleteI've listened to Gordon Duff (he's very entertaining) on that alleged psychopath (see http://www.henrymakow.com/the_jeff_rense_collection_arti.html ) Jeff Rense's show a number of times. And I've concluded Duff is clearly a fan of Obama who is no friend of 911 truthers.
Someone please help me out here... I've not paid much attention to the truther's movement for quite a few years... when did all of these name-calling insult slingers appear on the scene? I certainly don't recall them being around in the early years.
I also find it quite interesting that Duff openly admits much (did I hear 40%) of what get print at Veterans today is disinfo, otherwise known as BS. I wonder... Are the insult hurlers articles part of that 40% Gordon? Do any of besides me think it possible that VT is a den of Cass Sunstien inspired cognitive infiltrator vipers?
Its clear they are to a person attempting to steer the discussion away from faked footage and towards the untenable conclusion that nukes were used to dustify the trade center complex.
As for Dr. Judy Wood, It seems clear she wants no part of any groups as was alleged above. She states plainly that she is not a "joiner" as it were. So that is another blatant lie by one of them.
I think I better make another batch of popcorn.
PS
DeleteDr. Judy Wood is an Engineer's engineer. I love the way her mind works and have tremendous respect for her. That said it is quite possible she's been taken in by faked footage/stills that she should not be using as evidence. Again... the goal ought to be to established with certainty (say 95% confidence) what is real and not real. What is need is CRSE (court room standards evidence). Can we agree the dust was real, that the rather small pile of rubble is real. What photos of the aftermath can be trusted? This is (or should be) the starting point for 911 truth.
Judy Wood is a classic case of a gatekeeper, she has ties to the ADL who, of course, are part of the Jewish-Zionist cabal who perpetrated 9-11.
DeleteShe hasn't been taken in by anything, her mission is to mislead and spread disinfo.
Ian,
DeleteI'm not buying that for a second however it is in keeping with the VT "anti-semitic" tone proffered by Gordon Duff and his friends. For the record I am of the opinion that most Jews are the victim of the Sabbatean sect. Do you know about the followers of Sabbatai Zevi Ian? Are you aware of how they collaborate with Hitler? Authoritarians think in black and white terms but history is not black and white.
What the hell has the collaboration between the Zionist Jews and the Nazis got to do with Judy Wood?
DeleteJim Fetzer gave Judy Wood more chances than most would and she proved to be an untrustworthy and dishonest person. Her ties to the ADL are fact, whether you buy them or not.
Anti-Semitism is a meaningless phrase as 95% of Jews aren't Semitic.
I'm surprised Ian... aren't you supposed to be a historian? Sabbatean Jew collaboration with Hitler has everything to do with who did 911. It has nothing to do with Judy Wood who is the only person to date who has taken legal action against the government in pursuit of 911 truth but then it was you who brought it up.
DeleteDr Wood is an engineer who lost her job in pursuit of the truth. She thinks like one talks like one writes like one. Ian, If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck, its a duck.
To my knowledge Judy Wood does not work for the ADL. Do you claim she receives funding or support from them? If so please provide the proof. What is this link you claim she has to the people who did 911? Let hear it.
As far as I can tell Jim Fetzer's only claim to fame is being a university professor who taught logic. From what I gather he was upset when Dr Wood did not agree to join his group. He's not a scientist or engineer is he? You know what other 911 quacademic claims to have taught critical thinking at the university level? Dave Thomas of NMSR fame (http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm). He's the mind behind a ridiculously flawed physics model that supports the official (fire triggered collapse) conspiracy. Perhaps that was the deal struck to keep funds flowing to his NM Tech employer.
Having a degree is meaningless. Claiming that having a degree some how supports a conclusion is an appeal to authority fallacy. I am sure Jim knows this.
I put "anti-semitism" in quotes because yes... I know that Palestinians are the closest thing to being "semitic" these days. Perhaps I should have written jew haters instead.
This is just silly and displays ignorance. If you want to know more about me, you can check out my complete curriculum vitae, which is archived at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Or you can check out the Wiki entry on me.
DeleteOr you can simply do a search on, "Jim Fetzer, JFK" or "Jim Fetzer, 9/11", or "Jim Fetzer, Wellstone" or "Jim Fetzer, Sandy Hook" or "Jim Fetzer, Boston bombing" or "Press TV, James Fetzer". Go for it!
Jim Fetzer said: "Joan, Do you not understand that I am among the leading proponents of the view that none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11? I am perplexed by some of your comments, since they do not reflect that fact."
ReplyDeleteJim, if you're among the 'leading proponents' of this theory, then WHY do you continue to personally attack researchers who would suggest that the footage and imagery of 9/11 is illegitimate (in part, or in whole - I would argue, in whole; or near enough at least, but that's my personal opinion based on my own research and investigation)?
And, WHY do you continue to attack, ridicule, deny and refuse to properly investigate the evidence relating to fake footage? Most people here should know perfectly well what your position is. Instead of considering the simple and highly logical possibility of doctored footage, even in regards to the plane 'strikes' alone; you continue to promote this ridiculous hologram theory as the "solution" to no-planes. Oh yes, that's all fine and dandy, yet the idea that the videos could have been faked; THAT is absurd to you?! Really?
I will pose the same question that I have posed to Don Fox in relation to this (who also claims that he doesn't believe that planes hit the towers): if that is the case, then do you not see the logical possibility for, at least, 246 of the victims to be fake (that being the combined number of supposed plane victims)? If you are stating that the passengers WERE real, then what do you propose happened to them? And what do you think the logical purpose would be for the passengers to actually be real? After all, surely the perps would have wanted to limit all risk factors in an operation as sizable as 9/11, so therefore, surely if the planes are NOT real then there is precisely ZERO need for any 'actual' passengers.
Basically what I'm positing is, if 246 actual people needed to be somehow 'switched', whisked off somewhere, and then killed off nefariously by some covert black ops agency (take your pick); surely the perps are unnecessarily risking the whole operation on an event that serves no real purpose in the grand scheme of things. There is way too much that could possibly have gone wrong with this, and the whole idea seems inherently pointless.
Let's look at the options for instance:
1. The perps took control of four real planes that really took off on 9/11 with real passengers on them, guided all four via remote/escort/perp pilots/etc to top secret locations somewhere in the US, lured all the people off each flight once grounded, and then had them all killed/shot/gassed/etc under the direction of a hired mercenary/CIA/men in black/etc unit, all paid off and fully in the know, and then disposed of all 246 bodies secretly so that no evidence of the event could be uncovered, and finally replaced those real planes with duplicate military planes/drones/missiles/holograms/etc and flew them into the towers.
Or,
2. The perps created 246 fake identities with basic details and a couple of dodgy photographs each, and then printed them in the media.
I know what theory I would consider the more logical and probable one.
Bob:
DeleteJim considers the imagery to be untrue of the planes, but doesn't think for sure it's CGI.
Also, his emphasis is on fielding which parts are true and which not, NOT on taking on what seems to be the most extreme position, i.e., all-fake imagery, esp. since some of it is clearly -- except to some extremists -- natural photography in context of other findings, supporting the inconvenient truth of bizarre takedowns.
Sept Clues overall ends up deflecting -- or, as Don and Ian seem to think, is intended to deflect -- from the fact that there are NO PANCAKES and there was TONS OF DUST all over and spread into multiple places, visible for miles.
So something unusual happened and the photography is partly quite natural; it is easier to plan something with some truth in it, but it leaves botched overlapped sloppy mistakes.
The concept of pre-creating all footage is LESS natural to most people, even perps: they didn't pre-create the film of Kennedy, they didn't pre-create the film even of the Sandy Hook non-event. People had to be fooled LOCALLY at the time, too.
Have you never read any of my studies about the planes and why your Option 1 cannot be correct, given the evidence and Newton's laws? I am sorry, but how can I take you seriously when you appear to be completely ignorant of my position?
DeleteON PLANES OR NO PLANES:
Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html
David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson26Apr2006.html
Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html
"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/
"9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about 'Absurdities'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-an-open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about-absurdities/
Killtown on Shanksville,
http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-killtown%202010%20Oct.mp3
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash” (Flight 175),
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According to ATC/Radar”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/
“The ‘official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino) http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
"Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?" (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):
Part 1
http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Part 2
http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
“Fakery and Fraud in the 'Official Account' of 9/11”
http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jim-fetzers-vancouver-powerpoint/
“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/07/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-i/
“Planes/No Planes in New York: Dick Eastman vs. Jim Fetzer”
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-eastman%20debate.mp3
“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
Linda Packer said : " I don't know anything about this stuff. What is the difference between the edge effect created by the JPEG compression algorithm and the black edges on the WTC videos?"
ReplyDeleteLinda, do you understand that even if there were _no_ black lines in the Simon Shack still-frames he selected :
[ http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369781#p2369781 ]
..... from the NIST 2010 video that Fetzer claims is genuine :
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8&feature=youtube_gdata_player ]
.......that that would not , and does not , incontrovertibly establish that the video in question is genuine.
There are many other important factors to be considered .
For example, chain of custody issues [ such as: exactly _who_ shot that video, and from where, exactly?]
Unless this type of issue could be satisfactorily resolved, that video [and others like it] would most likely not pass muster as evidence in a criminal trial [it/they would therefor probably be inadmissible as genuine evidence].
Definition/resolution/clarity of image issues:
As I alluded to in the interview: why is the NIST 2010 video linked above so much sharper/clearer that the "live" imagery allegedly captured on 9/11 via $250,000 ,best in the world, "state-of-the-art" TV network cameras?
For example, see Fig. 4 of my own blog post "Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples" :
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/08/some-examples-of-genuine-pre-911-video.html
which is an unaltered gif file S. Shack made from the original NBC "live" 9/11 feed.
Perspective Issues:
Does the NIST video show a perspective, and lines of convergence consistent with the alleged position and location of the shooter of the video?
Sunlight/Shadow Issues:
Do the shadow alignments depicted correspond with the alleged time of day that the video was allegedly shot?
The Sum of All the Evidence:
In my opinion, issues of authenticity of the 9/11 photographic record cannot be decided via the presence, or not, of one particular technical feature alone[e.g. black lines] .
A judgement of authenticity or artificiality ultimately must rest on a weighing of "the sum of all the evidence" on balance [ or not] via the careful consideration of a number of different technical and non-technical factors, some of which I have tried to briefly outline here .
Regards, obf.
NM Golfer said: "Dr. Judy Wood is an Engineer's engineer........ That said it is quite possible she's been taken in by faked footage/stills that she should not be using as evidence."
ReplyDeleteFor example, please see how she has posted at her site 2 entirely contradictory, yet supposedly authentic, photos of the alleged "top tilt" of WTC2 prior to "collapse" [or whatever you want to call it :-)] :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2389308&hilit=judy+wood#p2389308
Regards, obf
This can easily be answered by layering foreground in the one with only a little bit of building shown, if there is a vantage point problem.
DeleteDo demonstrate that there is, however. It is not shown.
Also:
same for the "no dust" foreground and the "wrong collapse" initializing.
The WTC buildings themselves are natural photography in all these photos. The only times they are not is when they are in faraway "shots" with wrong shadows, and that makes sense, since those are where false autonomy of faraway shots had to be manufactured for replay.
NMGolfer said :"Having a degree is meaningless. Claiming that having a degree some how supports a conclusion is an appeal to authority fallacy. I am sure Jim knows this."
ReplyDeleteHis fans certainly do not seem to know/understand this - and I'm not so sure he does :-) .
Regards,obf
Having a degree is meaningless UNLESS PROVEN WORTHY.
DeleteThe degree can be fallaciously suggested as important, or it can be a sign of excellent background.
Not all appeals to authority (formal authority or informally gained authority of knowledge) are fallacious. Some are.
To appeal to authority simply because of paperwork is absurd and fallacious.
But to point out (appeal to) paperwork as a show of formal training and prove otherwise as well that that person has background, is fine and not fallacious use of paperwork.
Clare Kuehn said: "Jim considers the imagery to be untrue of the planes, but doesn't think for sure it's CGI."
ReplyDeleteDid you read my post? I KNOW that. That's what I stated. He believes Richard Hall's bizarre hologram theory and professes that a "cloaked" (?) plane flying parallel with the towers projected a hologram made to look like a commercial plane hitting the buildings. What I'm doing is calling BS on that theory. I actually find it quite surprising that you would support him on this. Unless you actually DON'T know that this is what he believes. He doesn't question the authenticity of the videos at all (that is where he acts as a Gatekeeper on this issue), instead he questions the authenticity of the planes and directs the discussion towards unknown/black ops/sci-fi technology and away from faked imagery.
Also, I find it interesting that some people here are quick to laugh at Judy Wood's "science fiction" theories, but yet absolutely won't call out Fetzer on his own support of an equally absurd sci-fi theory (by the way, I don't support Judy Wood's findings, I'm just using this as an example). So, is it directed energy weapons: no! But, cloaked planes generating holograms: yes! Give me strength. Can anyone here honestly say that THAT is a more likely and logical theory than doctored video footage? Really?
As for "pre-creating" the footage, Clare. It is your opinion that they didn't pre-create the footage at those events, or 9/11. And you're welcome to it. But the fact is, you cannot prove that hypothesis. And secondly, if we look at the 9/11 news archives in terms of aspects of possibility, probability and logic; then it is one hundred times more likely that the footage WAS pre-created. After all, I've stated before the amount of things that could go wrong with inserting graphics on the fly. There's WAY too much risk factor involved for that scenario. By the way, I'm not saying that absolutely ALL of the footage is CGI. But I am saying that NONE of the footage is legitimate footage of that day. If that makes sense. I believe that ultimately, the footage is an amalgamation of CGI, studio, staged pre-recorded scenes (possibly from training/military exercises/drills), pre-recorded scenes with actors on NYC streets (with occasional graphic overlays, etc). So essentially, I'm not saying there is ZERO "real" photography amongst the 9/11 imagery, but that it is was not REALLY shot on 9/11.
There was plenty of real photography, and it's more reasonable that they'd mix events going on with pre-set layering.
DeleteIt's more natural thinking -- working with outfits which do news and are used to covering things on the ground -- and because there were real reporters to fool, real firemen to dupe, etc.
Where is all this real photography, Clare? haven't seen anything at all. Where is it?
DeleteIt isn't more reasonable that they'd mix events going on with pre-set layering - the idea is insane! How to handle something like that "live"?
Re, your last para: they had evacuated the area and the best vantage pointes, and had their members of the team for special media operation in the studio (or should I say all studios?). They had control on all news reports, on all networks, one way or another.
Again, where is all this real photography, Clare? What you are claiming is 100% undemonstrated.
Bob, Here is my latest presentation on this issue. Kindly explain what I have wrong:
Delete“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
Identify what I say and why I say it, then tell us what I have wrong and how you know.
Clare,
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for your response about interviewing the NY Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch? Have you forgotten all about it? Will you please ask your mentor Fetzer to invite Mr Hirsch on his radio show? I'll be waiting patiently for your response about this matter.
For you to say that "there was plenty of real photography" (on 9/11) actually requires you to prove such a statement. Please submit to me any photographic material of 9/11 that you deem to be real - and I will come back to you about it.
In other words:
If you know about any real photography shot on 9/11, please point it out to me. I will be happy to review it.
As for the "real reporters" you mention - "covering things on the ground" on 9/11, please know that there were only two of those featured on LIVE TV that day : FOX's Rick Leventhal (whose backdrop showed only a big cloud of smoke) and ABC's Newton Jones Burkett (who miraculously escaped alive from the WTC2 collapse). Most of what was aired LIVE on 9/11 were purported " aerial helicopter views" of Manhattan. The TV viewers of that day were shown ridiculously PhHONY AERIAL IMAGES. Are you aware of this fact - or are you just playing stupid?
I really do wonder why I should spend time here confronting entities such as Jim Fetzer, Clare Kuehn, Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh, Jeannon - when any sharp-minded person in this world can easily comprehend that 9/11 was pulled off with fake imagery - just like the Apollo Moon Hoax, more than forty years ago. It really shouldn't be too hard to wrap your minds around this fact.
The American people have been duped with fake media stories ever since they aired Orson Welles (a CBS radio employee) and his silly , ENTIRELY PREFABRICATED 'War of the Worlds radio broadcast - simulating an
alien invasion - back in 1938, for chrissakes. So why is it so hard to believe that they upped the ante (almost sixty years later!) in 2001 and used ENTIRELY PREFABRICATED imagery to support their television hoax?
Clare, I will be eagerly awaiting your replies about the various issues I have expounded here. Please do not pretend that you have not read them. Ok?
Simon Shack
Bob Bobson said :" I find it interesting that some people here are quick to laugh at Judy Wood's "science fiction" theories, but yet absolutely won't call out Fetzer on his own support of an equally absurd sci-fi theory (by the way, I don't support Judy Wood's findings, I'm just using this as an example). So, is it directed energy weapons: no! But, cloaked planes generating holograms"
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it ,Bob the "nukes did it" hypothesis is just a variant of the "direct energy weapons did it " craziness.
Just as, in the same way, the Richard Hall holographic plane theory is just a variant on the Ace Baker "plane insert into live footage" idea.
Regards, obf.
Simon Shack said : "
ReplyDeleteI really do wonder why I should spend time here confronting entities such as Jim Fetzer, Clare Kuehn, Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh, Jeannon -"
Er, for fun, perchance, Simon?
Regards, obf
El Buggo said : "Where is all this real photography, Clare? haven't seen anything at all. Where is it?"
ReplyDeleteFYI. from what I can gather, agent Kuehn apparently "believes" that these photos of the alleged "top tilt" of WTC2 prior to "collapse" [or whatever you want to call it :-)] are genuine:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2389308&hilit=judy+wood#p2389308
Regards, obf.
You people ask for real photography quality; lots of photos and videos have them.
DeleteThe video of the dustifying tower from far away, with the white-out of that layer only, shows typical photographic flatness of objects caught in dust, including the spire; same with the rollout of dust in the closeups of the WTC7 -- there are natural squibs; also the several photos of the crater/ice age hole or whatever it is, etc.
The tilt you talk of must be proven wrong (which is not done on the page) and must be done without reference to the tiny bit of foreground building, since foregrounds and backgrounds wherever possible were layered in. Not in complex scenes, but wherever the towers seem to be of different photographic lighting and quality.
You people are forgetting to check for compositry and also forgetting to remember what real photography looks like.
Wouldn't it be better to link to these allegedly real photos instead of describing them? Are there anyone else out there that agree with this half fake and half real photo phenomena? Who is that? Is he able to demonstrate this? Are anyone able to demonstrate this at all? Or is it just some wild idea you have Clare? I claim it still is 100% undemonstrated, like the hologram idea, the direct energy weapons and directed neutron micro-nukes, and Ground Zero in Hiroshima.
DeleteReal photography quality isn't specific for photos, characteristic, but not specific.
DeleteTest yourself here - Fake or Photo? http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/
Too tiresome. Have gone over this again and again.
DeleteAll of those nice photos use REAL photography. When composited well, it is hard to tell. However, some video and photo in 9/11 is badly composited: a layer will white out.
Also, sometimes the buildings in front look rather odd or unreal.
The photography I am talking of is the VISUAL QUALITY of real squibs and not mere high definition; real squibs and so on look a certain way, in faraway dustiness, or close up. To claim all natural look is fake is ludicrous and I'm tired of going over and over the arguments.
Really.
There are layers in some. Others can be shown to be natural (most likely, as in, except for radical doubt which discounts the inconvenience of the images for the official story and the multiple views -- not mere multiple foregrounds, but totally different types of cameras and looks appropriate).
Fyi: I got 7 out of 12 correct, 59%. They are tricky and I've sussed a lot out.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo Clare, you have never demonstrated anything regarding this both real and fake "live" news reports 911. It is still 100% undemonstrated. You couldn't point to anyone else that understand this concept either. All we have is you, Clare.
DeleteNo one is claiming that all natural look is fake - that would be insane. However, real photography quality isn't specific for photos, characteristic, but not specific. That means that even if it looks like a genuine photo, it doesn't have to be that. So this natural look is typical for photos, but not exclusive for photos.
Typical or characteristic for all these media operations is that they are releasing lots of conflicting information. This is really important. That way, the opposition isn't able to, or may be distracted from, uniting behind a common version of the event, etc, and the shills need to have something to work on and as they can spin.
7 out of 12 correct is quite normal. Thank you for reporting.
Ah, but which ones and why? And these were very tricky, intended complexly to deceive. 9/11 was not so much: there is plenty in video which cannot be faked and look like FLAT LIGHTING photographic video in dust.
DeleteFor instance, we could guess the bunker trailer (whatever) was put into the field, in your example, but such care was not taken for moving images on 9/11, nor could it be done without error of naturalness. Something would give it away.
Some of Sept Clues' claims show pure bias, isolating each item as if ad hoc all could be dismissed. It can't. Some fakes are there; some are in likely places (victim records), some are likely true and show very reasonable layering effects with natural photography mixed in for a LAYER of buildings during takedown from afar; some images show faraway all natural (Hudson Riverboat) but edited.
You forget what overall would be done: all kinds of things would be done, by different teams covering up different things. Natural photography of many views even close-up of tower destruction, and other buildings turning to squibs of dust. No need to fake. Weird enough.
Also, buildings after: Sept Clues has nuts on it who start saying the whole area's photos, lots of them, are fake thereafter.
One cannot argue with that level.
Well, as I understand this, no one else but you can articulate this BOTH fake and real 911 news reports. And you haven't provided any link to any image or illustration of these real parts. If you have done so, can you do it again, please?
DeleteHere is probably a real amateur video of the WTC complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQiqoI0QNwg
Can you point out similar naturalness in any parts of this 102 minutes Hollywood horror movie they aired on "live" news 911? And was allegedly filmed by >$100000 broadcast cameras. Like where?
All we have is you Clare, that can explain or illustrated this concept of both real and fake news reports 911.
Here's the crux of the matter - as I see it :
ReplyDeleteNorth America (aka the USA) - a large and formerly unknown (by "white people") piece of land was first discovered around the year 1000 by my ancestors - the bold little bunch of Viking sailors (who landed in what is now called "New Foundland") was quickly kicked out by the resident native tribes. About 500 years later (1492), Columbus - armed with far more killing power - was hailed as "discovering America".
America can be called the "melting pot of the world" (since ALL SORTS of people rushed over there to seek fortune) yet it has unfortunately allowed itself to get gradually infested by the descendants of the most arrogant individuals making up the hordes of European immigrants who 'holocausted' the native American Indians.
NO ONE - to this day - has ever admitted that "we" (the white immigrants who snatched the Native American Indians of their land) were the barbaric terrorists of those times. To be sure, this unspeakably evil and immoral act of aggression has no place in our history books. Thus, it is fair to say that the United States of America are founded on a bunch of atrocious violence, lies - and suppressed truth.
Naturally, America has had to perpetuate those big lies - lest it loses its perceived legitimacy as what is now called the "Land of the Brave". Hollywood and its media affiliates are key players in perpetuating those lies (along with the US military and "intelligence" organizations) and the lot of them keep duping their citizens into submission.
I hope that my humble, personal review of modern-day America doesn't offend any honest American citizen. What we need to understand now, is that 9/11 was a TV hoax - perpetrated by a melting pot of low-life, criminal thugs. Americans? Brits? Zionists? Jesuits? (*insert any group that you wish*). Does it matter? My humble input as a totally independent and un-patriotic person is limited to demonstrating that the 9/11 image-pool is bogus. This should be enough to make people stop in their tracks for a minute - and give it a good thought.
One thing is for sure: fake imagery is the most powerful way to fool the masses with. If you own the media - you can air any fake imagery / "news stories" that you like - in order to further your agenda. Most people will buy it - as long as it's on TV..
Simon Shack
Yes, Simon, but fake narrative can be created with real and layered and re-worked and pre-set, and mixed timing of storyline, and inserted spooks on the street, and later interpolations, and other real stuff unreleased until later and certain reporters (such as McIntyre) shown only once because their doubts got on air, and redoing quickly when a mistake is made (banner over "plane", "ball" becoming black blob and never shown again) and so on.
DeleteThis all creates fake, as in controlled, but not all pre-MADE or CGI.
Spoken like a true gatekeeper for the Zionists who perpetrated 9/11.
DeleteImage and video fakery is only a small, trivial part of the overall event, but Shack wants people to look only at the fakery, the simple reason being is that he is trying to misdirect people.
Ian, so you think. But clearly, Shack, etc., seriously contend that fakery was so total that it is "the" most important thing to know.
DeleteUnfortunately, both over- and under-playing media lies do no good.
People who discover something often over-play it; that has happened with the media studies. Not gatekeeping, in my opinion, but either way, there is some good work on the material from Sept Clues group and Lets Roll group among the usual mistakes and nonsense which get onto forums.
And who created the Zionist then, Ian? You are in the UK, and can spell it out. People in Italy, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania, can't.
DeleteZionism, like most things, a duping dream as well as a plot.
DeleteSS, let's see if we can agree about faking all four of the alleged "crash sites". Check out my latest presentation and tell me what you agree and disagree with. Let's give this a try:
Delete“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
Dr. Fetzer wrote: "Joan, Do you not understand that I am among the leading proponents of the view that none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11? I am perplexed by some of your comments, since they do not reflect that fact."
ReplyDeleteI was not aware that I commented on your 9/11 aircraft views. I was commenting on the fact that whenever the subject of video fakery comes up, we are quickly silenced. It happens so often that there seems to be a plot to verbally attack and discredit those who wish to explore this issue.
I am quite familiar with your stance on the 9/11 planes. You say that no "commercial" planes crashed at the WTC, but you don't rule out other aircraft. You also claim holograms were created and that the gashes in the towers might have been caused by drones equipped with lasers on the wings which cut through the steel facade. This is so ridiculous it's not worth commenting on.
I believe the strategy is to keep advanced researchers mired down arguing over details as long as it takes to delay solving the 9/11 puzzle. It is a puzzle and it comes in pieces. The detractors expect a completed puzzle immediately and when it's not forthcoming, they use the gaps they find to discredit the researchers.
It's a vicious cycle and I think the best policy is to avoid this kind of futile. one-sided debate. The official truth movement is monitoring and censoring itself. Can you honestly say complete freedom is allowed when it comes to reseatch?
This is pretty bizarre, Joan, because you are not even remotely in the ballpark on my views. Take a look at this one-hour presentation (the part on the planes is only about 35 minutes) and tell me what I have wrong and how you know:
Delete“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
Dear Simon,
ReplyDeleteI'm really sorry for Fetzer's name-calling, the details of which you shared with us above. There is no excuse for bad manners especially when it comes from a role model and someone who should be above this sort of thing. One can only wonder if it is caused by stress. I was so lucky to have a mentor, a teacher, some years ago who was just a delight to know and who had a great sense of humor though he dealt with many serious subjects. (He was the late, great Sherman Skolnick. Maybe you know of him. Rense keeps his archives.)
Joan, Sherman was one of my mentors, too. I miss him dearly and am so grateful for all that I learned from this amazing, amateur journalist/historian/analyist. I feel pretty much the same way about the late Fletcher Prouty and (with some major reservations, due to his serious mental-and-alcohol problems) the late Bill Cooper. But Sherman was the best of the lot, hands down -- particularly in the years before he fell under the not-always-beneficial influence of Brian Redman and Lenny Bloom. And Sherman's many, lengthy radio interviews with the marvelously insightful, retired-too-soon Tom Valentine were a treasure trove of covert-historical lore. Does anyone know where they are achived and available for downloading?
DeleteSkolnick archives here...
Deletehttp://www.apfn.org/skolnicksreport/archives.html
Not sure if are downloadable. Am having trouble figuring out how to download using my newly installed Firefox browser.
I read just about all of Skonick's writings for years and exchanged a couple of emails with him. A truly courageous patriotic American.
Come on, Clare! Stop acting so naïve. Do you honestly think that CGI suites, photo-editing applications, and effects programs CAN'T generate imagery that LOOKS convincingly natural and genuine? I think you need to seriously research the current technology that is available; and the technology that was available in 2001. These programs and the minds behind them are EASILY able to create imagery that is so convincing it could easily pass for "natural" photography, as you say. Have you ever actually seen the capabilities of Blender, Maya, or 3D Studio Max? Even on an amateur level, the results can be stunning. Cityscapes in particular, are one of the simplest things to create, and do so NATURALLY. Go and look at some visual effects show reels and see the ease at which buildings, shadows and lighting can be generated.
ReplyDeleteIf you honestly believe the videos showing the collapse sequences are genuine, then how do you explain the MASSIVE timing discrepancy between CNN's live shot of the collapse, and all other secondary footage? The collapse takes a full 18 seconds, and four different edits are made during the event! There is a huge difference between this and NIST's claim of a 9-second collapse. Have they not seen this live shot? The fact is shouldn't NIST be basing their timings off the live footage and not the "secondary" footage. There are three distinct possibilities here (some more probable than others):
1. The CNN "live" shot of the collapse is a fake.
Or,
2. ALL other shots of the collapses (that do not take 18 seconds) are ALL fake.
Or,
3. ALL of the collapse shots, including the CNN "live" shot, are fake; and no real collapse imagery has been shown.
The bottom line is: one of these options HAS to be true, because the timing of the collapse are different, both according to NIST official data, and other videos. This would be IMPOSSIBLE unless one of the above possibilities is true. There is simply no other way around it. I personally would suggest that the answer is number 3. That all the footage of the collapses is illegitimate. But, in my opinion, at least the second most likely option that someone should logically select is number 1. And, if true, this raises some serious questions that need to be answered, AND confirms that at the very least, ALL the "live" footage MUST have been pre-created.
Finally, you continue to harp on about the idea that only the plane strikes are faked, and that the perps could have done all of the fakery on the fly, LIVE. But, you still haven't defended this position, or logically backed it up. I have presented countless reasons, time after time, to doubt that hypothesis. How exactly do you answer for the risk factor involved, for example? What exactly do you think the perps would have done if something was inserted into the wrong shot? Or, a camera man zoomed out at the wrong time as an overlay was keyed, and a hugely out of proportion plane bumbled across people's TV screens? How could they possibly have had contingences for, or covered up for an error as large as this? An error that would have been a very likely possibility.
The fact is, if all the footage is pre-created then almost the only human error that could occur would be someone playing the wrong shot at the wrong time (an example of this could be the Jane Stanley BBC mess up), but it can simply be labelled by the perps and detractors as being "down to the confusion of the day". If however, an error is made live while inserting a graphic, the jig is most definitely up! Would they risk this? Really?! After planning the event so meticulously, you genuinely believe that they would leave one of, if not the most important shot of the day down to chance?! I personally think the idea is ludicrous. Ultimately, setting aside the "amount" of fakery that you or anyone else believes occurred on 9/11, the plane strike shots were ABSOLUTELY pre-created. They simply HAVE to be for any theory regarding faked footage to make sense!
Snore.
Delete1. Risk factor: all big conspiracies are sloppy and ad hoc in some way.
2. Plane shots, layering, etc., only have to be set up, with one layer to run live. Same with "plane" images: Shack even suggests how, in Sept Clues movie. That the building was shown cued to 1/2 way across the frame, plane image (missile covering?) set to start off screen from point it comes into frame, but editor in haste didn't notice building drifted slightly and nose came out on other side of mask.
Of course the dustification is real: many footages look real, at least in that layer, with natural dust look (not only on hi-def), separately controlled for light balance (doesn't match the foreground buildings in many cases, and separately whites out in one, shown in Sept Clues). Close-up shots also show natural photography look, from all angles. Some from far away, too, very natural to whole scene, same photography quality of all buildings -- Hudson River shots, but note: those have been edited down.
Different problems solved different ways.
Same with JFK. Are you familiar at all with Jim's points re. Zapruder vs Nix, Moorman, etc. and some footage confiscated never to be shown because it couldn't be ad hoc changed enough?
Bob, I have addressed the claim of faking all the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers so many times I am surprised you seem to be adopting such a naive position.
DeleteThey were there; then they were gone. They were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. They were destroyed below ground level.
The video record -- including films and stills -- hangs together and shows the same series of events from different perspectives, some at the same time, some at different times.
We know the photographers who took most of them. When new videos show up, they are consistent with the extant record. No one has ever claimed that what they saw at the time differed from what they show.
If they were going to the trouble of faking these videos, then surely they would have done a better job of making them LOOK LIKE the buildings had collapsed, not blowing apart in every direction from the top down.
Why don't you actually look at the evidence and the arguments I have made many, many places? Here is a good place to start:
“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
Jim - comment on your "The video record -- including films and stills -- hangs together and shows the same series of events from different perspectives, some at the same time, some at different times":
DeleteDuring medieval witch trials, many witnesses told similar accounts about broom-riding witches and the devil. Since most statements were made independently of each other and without pressure, this was taken as evidence that the stories must be true; material evidence was never produced. “Common knowledge,” a word invented in those days, and social expectations formed the basis of these accounts, not the truth.
So the videos must be real because they are so bad? They are bad because they had to make a lot of them (also other reasons), and they worked just fine for years. If it wasn't for Youtube, we would probably still have believed that they were authentic videos.
DeleteYou really need to get out of the virtual reality they created for us that day, Jim.
Clare Kuehn wrote:
ReplyDelete"Shack even suggests how, in Sept Clues movie. That the building was shown cued to 1/2 way across the frame, plane image (missile covering?) set to start off screen from point it comes into frame, but editor in haste didn't notice building drifted slightly and nose came out on other side of mask."
Clare - those two particular issues you mentioned (1: "missile covering?" - and 2: just how the nose-out on the "live FOX5 shot might have occurred) were early, mistaken yet innocent speculations of mine made back in 2007 which I have long retracted - in the light of further years of methodical analyses of the wider 9/11 image-pool. So please spend some more time reading Cluesforum - before using my old mistakes to make your arguments.
As I cannot repeat often enough, the more recently released (2010), higher quality - and more 'natural-looking' (as you like to call it) NIST video material has - most ironically - allowed me to formulate my final 'total fakery' conclusion. So yes, I've been duly patient and cautious throughout my many years of 9/11 research (making mistakes along the way - I'm only human) and have only progressively reached my current stance which is that all the "LIVE" imagery aired on TV on 9/11 was PRE-fabricated. Of course, other imagery (such as some never-seen-before clips included in the 2010 NIST imagery) may quite possibly have been POST-fabricated, after September 11, 2001, in the hope of reinforcing the myth (just like NASA did with their razor-sharp batch of never-seen-before Apollo imagery - absurdly emerging from nowhere ... in the 90's !)
A crucial. all-important 'message to the world' (if you can pardon this pompous expression) of our now collective, ongoing research on Cluesforum (which spans way beyond - and before - 9/11) should now be crystal clear (and please pardon my all caps now - but this is no minor / petty issue):
FAKE IMAGERY IS THE CHOICE WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION OF THE POWERS THAT BE . IT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND POWERFUL METHOD WITH WHICH TO CONTROL THE MASSES. IT ALLOWS THEM TO FOOL THIS WORLD TO THEIR LIKING - TO SHAPE ITS WARS / POLITICS / SCIENCE AND HISTORY TO FIT THEIR 'TOTAL CONTROL' AGENDA.
We the people must all consider ourselves very fortunate (yourself included, Clare dear) to have caught the PTB with their pants down faking the 9/11 imagery. We really did this in the nick of time, seeing what today's virtual imagery technology is able to simulate: practically ANYTHING - and at a high degree of 'naturalness'. Today, only occasional sloppiness / human error on the part of any pro digital animator will give a fraudulent image away - such as in this instance here :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389362#p2389362
Clare, I am still awaiting your reply concerning Fetzer interviewing NY Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch. Are you just going to keep dodging this serious topic?
Simon Shack
Of course we caught them, and I have praised your movie many times. Not for all-premade but for finding lots of mistakes they made on the day of and after, in cobbling together their imagery and stories.
DeleteI didn't see you ask me about Hirsch. I have not been hanging on this forum reading everything. I've glanced around.
Why not have Jim interview him? Sure. He may be partly lying, or fully telling what he knows. But with multiple parts identified and new ones showing up long after, it seems some people died. And the fact is, there were lots of people in the area.
To discount dust, all eyewitnesses, all after-photos, and so on, just to maintain pre-fab as a theory is beyond ludicrous, because it becomes bias.
Stick to what is clear:
some pre-set layering and some overlays in the process, of computer altered buildings, some spooks on the street, some crowds pre-shot, a few photos with clear doctoring (a plane coming for the offices is a good example of the "perfect shot" of a non-existent plane), and so on.
Simon Shack, have you interviewed Charles Hirsch? If not, why not? If so, tell us what he said.
Deleteclare, you have outlived your usefulness (to the more discerning among us) it seems. please explain the drastic difference in quality between the original broadcast footage on 9/11 and the later 2010 BS FOIA NIST releases.
ReplyDeleteand yes, please do answer simons question regarding the new York medical examiner. no more avoiding that issue, if you don't mind.
as you know simon, I believe that 9/11 was made to be seen through eventually (round about now, 13 years later) and that the 'errors' (nose-out, pentagon and shanksville holes, jane Stanley's slip-up, the horrendous vicsim profiles etc.) were deliberately inserted into the narrative for this very reason.
I also believe that clare, jim, don, ian etc. are playing their respective layered parts in gatekeeping the real truth of the matter, but for sound enough reasons.
governments are no good for us is the lesson to be learned, at the end of the day.
some are just that little bit ahead of the game (thanks in large part to your work) but the vast majority still have no idea that 9/11 was even an 'inside job'.
but all that is changing quickly now.
btw, have you reached any firm conclusion regarding the whole Obama playing the role of Osama issue.
I know that I certainly have. and I won't be swayed on the matter.
Whatever. You think they're gatekeepers and can't tell real from fake in fairly easy circumstances; they think you're gatekeepers and can't put media lies in context with the overall need to discuss methods of destruction and perps.
DeleteFor example, someone mentioned the later release of PART OF a reporter's report which was not broadcast on the day of and was wondering how he was not covered with dust and how he could be "so close" to the towers.
Well, he ducked into the underground area before the flow of dust reached him and comes out far away while people who tracked through the area aboveground as the biggest amount settled on them.
And it's been edited down, notice, by perps, to keep the actual destruction sequence less.
This is not so hard as you're making it. And the absolute edgy overwhelm but nosiness of the reporter are obvious, too. Some people could bounce around fakely, acting nervous, but this guy is hurrying and nervous but trying to bother people. Do you guys have no sense of people and situations and footage and complexities? Do all things have to be "pre-fabricated" to be "simpler"? Well, real life doesn't work that way -- not even in the nonsense Sandy Hook event, which was a non-event but hey, they managed to screw up and show another school for the footage of the police rushing in, etc.
Why? You would probably say it's to "confuse us and meddle with researchers", but come on -- it's easier, cobble together different things and know that the rest of us will piece it together and who cares if we do!
Not that they are trying to mess with us in these cobbled stories, but just get out the story to the average person for an impression, and who cares if many get it? Kennedy worked for 50 years and counting if they repeat it enough; people can all eventually know, too; as long as they don't bother to remember it and allow discussion at the dinner table and really integrate it.
Most people DO NOT INTEGRATE the fact of false flags. They even know of the big corrupting banks and WON'T CALL IT CONSPIRACY. So the names which can identify the problem don't get used and they don't track the next one.
Perps don't HAVE to pre-do all. Ad hoc will work.
This is on a par with those who claim that I am some kind of government agent, when I have devoted decades of my life to exposing the government's complicity in JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing. Someone has lost their way, but that would not be me, Don Fox, Clare Kuehn or Ian and others, including Jeannon. I am embarrassed that you are so slovenly in your thinking and so willing to completely disregard the evidence.
DeleteI doubt you are a government agent,
DeleteJim.
These media operation are run and launched by the people who control the MSM, and the Nutwork behind. Who are these people who pay all these (legal) shills and propaganda agents? John Friend recently had an very interesting table on his blog:
http://www.john-friend.net/search?updated-max=2014-03-07T08:15:00-08:00&max-results=16
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell done Clare, your gobbledygooky 'writing skills' are improving everyday. See, I thought that I had a fairly decent grasp of the English language - but you have made me question this impression of mine. I can't say that I understood a single sentence of your above post. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteAs for the NY Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch being invited on Fetzer's show, Clare? Care to respond to me about it? Don't you think it is crucial, at this point, to interview the coroner who supposedly identified the alleged victims of 9/11? Here are the 6 questions I'd like to submit to Charles Hirsch:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389404#p2389404
Simon Shack
Simon, you need to take time to understand complexities.
Delete1.The writer (Pete Shea) thinks Don and Ian and Jim are gatekeepers and can't tell real from fake; they think he and you, Simon, and OBF, etc. are gatekeepers because you put media lies above the overall need to discuss methods of destruction and perps, dismissing patently real photography of the after scene and the destruction (yes, it was odd and was reported so by all who viewed it).
Was that clear to you?
2. Someone mentioned the late release of PART OF a reporter's report which was not broadcast on the day of (i.e., 9/11 Simon). That person wondered how the reporter was not covered with dust.
e ducked into the underground area before the flow of dust reached him and comes out far away while people who tracked through the area aboveground as the biggest amount settled on them.
The reporter ducked into an underground area, afraid it would collapse. We see him there, with others hustling. We see him leaving. We see others who were not so lucky covered with dust and disoriented.
And it (the footage, Simon) has been edited down, notice, by perps, to keep the actual destruction sequence less.
3. Understanding what kind of a role the media played on 9/11 is not so hard as you're making it, Simon.
Do all things have to be "pre-fabricated" to be "simpler"? Well, real life doesn't work that way -- not even in the nonsense Sandy Hook event. That was a non-event but, hey, they managed to screw up and show another school (St Rose of Lima's entranceway) for the footage of the police rushing in, etc.
4. So why would there be such errors? Why not prefabricate everything? Are the errors there just to fool conspiracy people into thinking it was shot on the day? You would probably say it's to "confuse us and meddle with researchers", but come on -- it's easier, cobble together different things and know that the rest of us will piece it together and who cares if we do!
5. Sure, media liers and perps behind them are trying to mess with us in these cobbled stories, but the cobbling together on the day is not a problem. As long as they just get out the story to the average person for an impression, who cares if many researchers follow behind the trail of evidence and get that it was a fraud event, a false flag?
6. The death of Kennedy lies worked for 50 years and counting if they repeat it enough; people can all eventually know, too; as long as they don't bother to remember it and allow discussion at the dinner table and really integrate it.
7. Most people DO NOT INTEGRATE the fact of false flags. They even know of the big corrupting banks and WON'T CALL IT CONSPIRACY. So the names which can identify the problem don't get used and they don't track the next one.
Perps don't HAVE to pre-do all. Ad hoc will work.
-------------------
Are you now okay with what I said?
No gobbledygook. You are not patient with things which are not simple polemics. Sad, really.
---------------------------------------
I said above that it would be a good idea to interview Hirsch. Sure. Why not? Talk to Jim about it.
While she and I do not always agree, Clare is one of the most balanced and fair-minded of those who contribute to these discussions. I therefore tend to regard those who attack her with suspicion.
DeleteYes, she can be persistent and does not back down, but I regard those as virtues, not vices. I hope we can do what we can to avoid ad hominem attacks, of which I have myself been guilty from time to time (out of impatience with those disregard the evidence and continue to affirm positions long since show to be untenable). But of course they might say the same of me.
I hope you make me look like a fool. But what steps have you taken about interviewing Charles Hirsch?
Deletehfghortgvfonuolx,k natural tbm;jxh,v DO NOT INTEGRATE hmib ntm ad hoc rfhn. Ad hoc natural diygleui ad hoc natural... DAY ad hoc natural.
Andy and JEANNON,
ReplyDeleteI'm so thrilled to know you knew Sherman Skolnick.
It must have been the late 1980's when I first became aware of him. In those days, there was some media like radio and C-Span which hadn't been totally censured. Late night radio allowed unscreened calls and it was fun to listen to. This was right after the savings and loan debacle, Iran-Contra and the Gulf War.
Without the Internet, it was hard to know what was really going on. Skolnick solved that with his "Hotline News," a twenty-four hour regular phone call to his answering machine with recorded news updates. (I must have checked that thing several times a day.) He would also send you printed stories for a SASE "with three stamps on it," he would say.
Later, he got a cable access show and much like The Real Deal format he featured guests with interesting stories usually people wrongfully accused by the government. Most of all, Skolnick was fearless and took on the corrupt court system here and many judges went to jail.
During the sixties, he challenged the Chicago Seven, Rennie Davis, etc. to reveal they were CIA. My favorite story is the Dorothy Hunt (Mrs. E. Howard Hunt)Watergate plane crash at Midway airport in the seventies. The scenario was typical of these crashes with the FBI arriving on the scene BEFORE the actual crash and not allowing the local fire and police near the scene.
Well, there were so many adventures Skolnick shared with us and so many laughs--not like now with everything so dire and tense. He had the goods on the Clintons and the Bushes. Unlike today's journalists, he followed the money and knew a lot about the banking system and who was funding whom. He taught us about foundations such as the Roger Baldwin foundation which took over the ACLU--which is another reason our rights are being lost.
Skolnick was also self taught in law--a much more useful area than "logic and critical thinking." (I took logic in college and must say it, along with most college courses, was a waste of time. I don't know about you, but everything I now know, I had to relearn on my own, especially history.)
Skolnick was one of the few talents without an agenda. He wasn't out for fame and glory--no book deals, no conferences, no organizations or big donations. He just scraped by on his own income but got back so much more in respect and admiration. Very humble, he was truly beloved by his followers. I really miss him.
(I agree with you that Fletcher Prouty was a trustworthy person. I also trusted Jim Garrison. Can you think of any others?)
I said:
ReplyDeleteIf there were no planes, there were no gashes, there was no smoke, no fire and no trapped people.
Clare said:
No. Without planes, gashes can be made and filmed. Smoke can be real and seen......The gashes needed to be there for NYC and for showing real footage.......Gashes totally possible with missile at centre and rest done w/ cut charges, etc
Therefore, Clare, if the gashes were made with missiles and cut charges and the smoke and the fireballs were also simulated, how do you trap 3,000 people in the buildings as Don Fox claims happened?
Joan, there were gashes; there was smoke; there was likely a missile (remember the distortion from something small or a hologram cloak, called "THE BALL" in Sept Clues, so inconvenient it was turned into a black blob for one final showing with background changed).
DeleteWould not such missile behaviour and subsequent constant blasts prepping the buildings -- we got some shots where we can see other things happening in the buildings, not just smoke and fire from the gashes -- trap people?
As to 3,000: Don Fox guesses a high number, but he also is more concerned to show that there were quite a few around and in, rather than all. But he disavows that he'd need to know if any were fake.
It is true that 300 or 1 or 2,999 fakes, let's say, does not affect whether there was a war crime. Only 100% fakes would.
But Don also disavows something anyone should do, which is not "become a photo expert" to tell whether there are any fakes, and one does not need to do that, I have tried to tell him.
He thus is not focussing on understanding the place of having ANY fakes at all: why have ANY if they are not some significant number? Not ALL fake, but some proportion needed to boost up to 3,000.
There were plenty of people around those towers, too. But the extreme doubters start to wobble over all footage as if it's all fake, and can't be argued with.
Anyway, I have problems with Don's manner of dealing with this, but not that there were some real deaths, quite a number, but probably not over 60%. We will never know, really, the proportions.
Very good reasons for that no one was killed in this operation. One is that no one would become involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statute of limitations. All the shills and the very valuable news actors and the producers at Fox wouldn't have like that so much... etc, etc. All other possible crimes 911 have now expired. 911 management knew this when planning this media operation. Just use the usual Hollywood tool on "live" news, and everything would be fine. No killings needed - for sure. Just fake it all. Lower risk and better control and simpler, and the effect would be just as good as real killings. All that was needed was to report it a million times, and almost everyone would believe it anyway.
DeletePeople tend to believe what that is regarded as normal. Right or wrong doesn't matter at all if something is normal and the other version is extreme, etc. If you don't believe the victims part of the story after it had been reported on the news a million times, you know you are pretty extreme, and that is really scary and not normal. Could still be right though, like Copernicus...
El Buggo:
DeleteThe reasons for the gashes are neutral as far as "all" was fake or not.
Without other considerations, the hypothesis that no-one died would be possible from these considerations alone, but also that many did die.
The question of how many died is really separate from whether planes could do the gashes for effect on TV.
We now have a several million dollar memorial park honoring the crashed UA93 plane at Shanksville even though not a shred of evidence of the plane or passengers was found. Nonetheless, there were witnesses who swore they saw a plane crash there.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no need to fake or simulate wreckage at that location, why would there be a need to simulate evidence at the WTC location?
We are talking about a period of an hour and forty three minutes--a good portion of that time consumed by the tower demolitions. Some fake smoke and a smoke screen could have hidden the buildings from view of the public during that short time. Most were watching the event on TV and smoke around the building and cordoned off doors and areas would have been logical to pedestrians trying to view the WTC.
If the WTC towers were prepped for demolition early on 911 (and they had to be) the utilities would have been turned off and disconnected, therefore there was no electricity. Partitions would have been removed along with the furniture and fixtures. How would the 3,000 workers get to their stations without elevators or see without lights?
The last so called hit occurred in the south tower on the south wall--an area out of view from pedestrians as it faces the Hudson river. Not many would have seen the fake gash created by a missile (? LOL) anyway. With the impending demolition, how would special effect technicians been able to exit the buildings? How much simpler just to doctor a video and play it in real time with live commentary?
Now here's some REAL rubble. Interesting how quickly the rubble was removed and the story hushed up.
ReplyDeleteInvestigators discover gas main leak at the site of New York City blast - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigators-discover-gas-main-leak-at-the-site-of-new-york-city-blast/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEl Buggo said : "So the videos must be real because they are so bad? They are bad because they had to make a lot of them (also other reasons), and they worked just fine for years. If it wasn't for Youtube, we would probably still have believed that they were authentic videos.
ReplyDeleteYou really need to get out of the virtual reality they created for us that day, Jim."
The Jim Fetzer "Scientific", " Images All Hang Together" "Proof" Process- A Breakdown:
According to Mr. Fetzer and associates, an unverified video or picture [say, of a WTC tower collapsing top down- or whatever] can be confirmed as being genuine merely by the presence of numerous other, equally unverified pictures/videos portraying a similar event, from different angles.
And vice-versa - the original unverified picture or video then magically "verifies" the other unverified pictures!
To be sure, this is a truly magical process- all of the unverified pictures wind up "verifying" each other. :-)
Then, for good measure, simply throw into that unverified image mix, likewise completely unverified, alleged "eyewitness testimony" from a couple of persons who claim to have seem top down tower collapses on 9/11 [or whatever], and "sound believable", and voila!, according to Mr Fetzer and friends, "we" have 100% " scientifically verified, authentic" imagery of top down WTC tower collapses [ or whatever] , or, as Fetzer/Fox/ Greenhalgh would all parrot/crow in unison: "9/11 imagery that all hangs together".
However, simply comparing one completely unverified video sequence or photo with another another unverified video sequence or photo [or even several], of the same alleged event, in no way [in the real world] "proves" that the original photo or sequence, nor any of the others, [nor the alleged eyewitness testimony], is genuine.
It could just as easily mean that they are all fakes, and all manufactured on the same computer [or on different computers that have access to the same original source file materials] ,with adjustments made within the program to simulate changes in viewer perspective etc.
My apologies, I know you already knew that, Bug :-)
Regards, obf
As I understand logic, if they could fake 1 video or image, they could have faked 2 videos and images. If they could fake 2 videos or images, they could have faked more videos and images. Heck, why couldn't they just fake the whole thing so they could make sure that it all would hang together?
DeleteWith this pretzel logic, the Apollo landings must have been real to. After all, the films and photos are from different times and places, they are rather consistent between the missions, and hangs together. Some naturalness in parts of some of the frames sometimes, maybe. And if they had faked it, they wouldn't have made them so bad with this transparent astronots dancing on the moon there in Apollo 11, and of course they would have added a crater under the decent rocket, etc. Looks like some terrible nonsense, therefor it must have been real, and the footage hangs together too. They wouldn't have faked it so badly. Of course, of course, of course.
I think we have reached the level of the Emperors New Cloths here...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrial against Pope Proceeds amidst Shocking Evidence
ReplyDeleteThe Pope, Jesuits and Anglicans refuse to deny criminal charges made against them -- A global common law court Trial will now proceed as shocking new evidence suggests Joseph Ratzinger still wields power at the Vatican -- Ratzinger and others are named as members of a child abuse cult "Ninth Circle". Posted 22 March 2014 by www.itccs.org , ITCCS Central Brussels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVJ_zEswuVQ
You can try and do what Clare suggests yourself, but without a helicopter, she has obviously has not ever held a telephoto lens.
ReplyDeleteIf Clare was in charge, even Dan Rather would have asked?
.... Why is they plane moving in a straight line while everything is moving up, down, left and right...
Answer --- AD HOC NATURAL
Dr. Fetzer, your mistake is that you have ASSUMED the photographs and videos put out by the media were actually taken on 9/11 of real events.
ReplyDeleteIt is now obvious the photography had to have been made in advance and was probably done in a studio.
This makes your whole thesis of 9/11 wrong. Just like Judy Wood, you were taken in by false evidence.
or pretended to assume joan. fetzer is busted and all he can do now is flop around like a fish out of water.
ReplyDeletejim so-far-and-no-further fetzer is sticking to his remit and operating within the limits set out for him.
that much is now crystal clear.
pete shea said: "or pretended to assume joan."
ReplyDeleteWell, that is frightening! Clare thinks real missiles were used to create the cartoon plane outlines on the towers. Both she and Fetzer do not believe the buildings were prepared for demolition. The utilities weren't even disconnected because with nukes, everything "vaporizes." How convenient. Don Fox amazingly states that there were loads of intact bodies in the rubble. It just gets more and more ludicrous. Are they trying to sell us the official story? Sure seems like it for not buying their views.
Good point, Joan. If they have an alternative version to what happened 911, that is more complicated and unbelievable that the official conspiracy theory, why not go with that one instead? Had to create some pretty bad ideas to reach something worse or more complicated and less believable than the 911 Commission.
DeleteHolograms, pointless missils that could hit everywhere and mess up the wired explosives. "Oh no, the neutron mini nukes were in the basement and were safe!" And lots of ad hock fakery on live news. It really takes a lot of faith to get this version to hang together. Again, much wilder than the official conspiracy theory.
Clare, since you are SO certain that SOME of the towers-destruction imagery IS authentic and SOME of it IS bogus -- why don't you use your own "YouCanKnowSometimes" blog to point out, in detail, the reasoning and analyses behind the "mixed-message" position you cling to so intensely.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it. All this endless arguing-in-generalities about image fakery (or genuineness), over here on the Fetzer-comment threads, is really getting tedious and is ultimately very unproductive.
She will not do that, because she CAN'T!
DeleteJim Fetzer said:
ReplyDelete"Someone has lost their way, but that would not be me, Don Fox, Clare Kuehn or Ian and others, including Jeannon. I am embarrassed that you are so slovenly in your thinking and so willing to completely disregard the evidence."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan we all agree that it would be incredibly dangerous to hit the towers with real missiles in order to simulate planes in the last minutes before demolition? What would be the point of such a risky operation? Would it necessarily follow that thousands of people would be trapped due to fires from the impact of the missiles? And wouldn't this disturb the demolition process?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that without the cut-out figure of a plane on the side of the tower, one could not imagine a plane had crashed there. Take away that one feature and the scenario makes no sense. Not only does it tell us a plane hit the building but that it also passed unscathed through the facade. This is the stuff of comic books. Are we a nation of illiterate comic book readers to fall for such nonsense or is it just the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words?
ReplyDeletePeople see what they are told, Joan, they don't trust their own eyeballs. Deception is also a science, and they are really good at it.
DeleteClare Kuehn said: "Snore."
ReplyDelete*Rolls eyes* Clare, you are just displaying your own ignorance and childishness now. But certainly, it seems par for the course; just ignore every point made to you and start acting like a moron - because THAT is going to allow you to hold any kind of presence in this debate. Sure.
Clare Kuehn said: "1. Risk factor: all big conspiracies are sloppy and ad hoc in some way."
It's perfectly simple. You are making sweeping generalisations that have no basis in anything at all. The above is nothing but an empty opinion, and also a massive general assumption. Whilst these can occasionally be valid, you have provided zero evidence or proof by which to back up this claim. Furthermore, a claim as broad and sweeping as this one would require a full thesis from yourself (complete with sourced research, and evidenced examples fully supported with reasoned logical analysis of material) in order to be viewed as even remotely valid. In the absence of that, you may BELIEVE this statement, but it actually means nothing whatsoever.
Clare Kuehn said: "2. Plane shots, layering, etc., only have to be set up, with one layer to run live. Same with "plane" images: Shack even suggests how, in Sept Clues movie. That the building was shown cued to 1/2 way across the frame, plane image (missile covering?) set to start off screen from point it comes into frame, but editor in haste didn't notice building drifted slightly and nose came out on other side of mask."
I know how you, Ace Baker, others, and some of Shack's very early claims (now revised) are suggesting it was done! I have detailed this SEVERAL times myself! This claim about layering with key frame points has been made over and over, and I have explained the numerous problems with this hypothesis in detail on several occasions! The issue is not that I don't understand how it possibly COULD have been done; the issue is that the theory is LUDICROUS! This just seems to go round in circles. You suggest layering on the fly, in real time during the live event. I explain why this wouldn't work. But instead of countering and explaining why you think it WOULD work in relation to the issues raised, you just revert back to suggest layering on the fly again! As if I'm not understanding your initial theory! So, let's get something straight. I GET it. I just don't WANT it. It's laughable.
Clare Kuehn said: "Of course the dustification is real: many footages look real, at least in that layer, with natural dust look (not only on hi-def), separately controlled for light balance (doesn't match the foreground buildings in many cases, and separately whites out in one, shown in Sept Clues). Close-up shots also show natural photography look, from all angles. Some from far away, too, very natural to whole scene, same photography quality of all buildings -- Hudson River shots, but note: those have been edited down."
Many footages LOOK real? Come on Clare. I know you're cleverer than that. They LOOK real, so therefore must be? Is that what you're saying? Again, you appeared to just ignore what I said about the capability of CGI software. But, let's simplify this to just one of my questions to you that I made before. Do you honestly think that it is NOT possible to CREATE a "natural" looking image that is a fake? It seems to me that what you are claiming is that, a fake image will ALWAYS immediately LOOK like a fake image.
Joan Edwards said: "Dr. Fetzer, your mistake is that you have ASSUMED the photographs and videos put out by the media were actually taken on 9/11 of real events. "
ReplyDeleteYes Joan, you get it, exactly. This [your observation] has been the primary point I have tried to stress to date [and have been continually smeared for by Mr Fetzer and others here :-)].
That initial pre- assumption [that certain videos and photos were genuine], was/is wholly unprofessional and _non_-scientific for a person purportedly schooled in the scientific method to make, I submit.
As I suggested in my second of 3 appearances on The Real Deal , the investigating scientist surely must initially remain entirely neutral regarding authenticity or not, when confronted with possible evidence such as videos or photographs [and alleged eyewitnesses]- after all, he/she cannot possibly know at the outset of an inquiry whether or not any particular video, photo or "eyewitness" in question is in actual fact genuine, and so is professionally required to adopt an entirely neutral, "I don't know one way or the other" position _until_ that possible evidence has been thoroughly, and independently tested for authenticity.
I submit that he only things that the investigator would be sure of as being genuine at the outset of his/her investigation would be the associated, discovered, applied laws of physics etc. [e.g Newton's Laws of motion].
But for whatever reason all of this "common sense" [ not so common apparently:-)], appears to be lost on Mr Fetzer and friends.
Regards, obf.
pete shea said : "or pretended to assume joan. fetzer is busted and all he can do now is flop around like a fish out of water. "
ReplyDeleteYou could be right, Pete.
However, it might be worth remembering that the man has been conditioned by the university system [a government funded system], where he acquired his credentials, and that such "thinking" and associated unwarranted assumptions are rife - simply par for the course, for all similarly credentialed individuals.
Regards, obf.
Jim Fetzer said: "They were there; then they were gone. They were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. They were destroyed below ground level.
ReplyDeleteThe video record -- including films and stills -- hangs together and shows the same series of events from different perspectives, some at the same time, some at different times.
We know the photographers who took most of them. When new videos show up, they are consistent with the extant record. No one has ever claimed that what they saw at the time differed from what they show.
If they were going to the trouble of faking these videos, then surely they would have done a better job of making them LOOK LIKE the buildings had collapsed, not blowing apart in every direction from the top down."
In regards to your first comment: "they were there, then they were gone". I am in no way trying to suggest otherwise, and this seems to me to be a common tactic that I've seen employed to attempt to ridicule the point of view that the footage was fake. I've seen many detractors take this kind of ridicule stance: "What about the towers? Were they fake too!? DUH!!!" Of course they existed. And, of course they are now gone. I would suggest that this is the ONLY thing any of us know for absolute certain. That at some point on 9/11, the WTC complex was destroyed.
But, the video record does NOT hang together, Jim. You keep saying this, but it's not true! You completely ignored the smoking gun evidence in my comment, so I'll state it again as concretely as I can:
The collapse footage that CNN aired supposedly "live" of Tower 1 has a massive time discrepancy when compared against other footage, and NIST's official data.
Tower 1 takes 18 seconds to fully collapse in the CNN "live" shot. This is a far cry from the 9-second collapse of other videos that purport to show the same event. Even casting aside for a moment, the fact that four different edits are made during the collapse sequence shown on CNN (which is almost so ridiculous, it doesn't even require explanation); we must logically and rationally come to a realisation:
The CNN "live" shot CANNOT be showing the same event as other footage of Tower 1's collapse. One takes 18 seconds, while others take around 9 seconds, therefore by definition these are not the same events we are being shown.
So, in conclusion, we must surmise one of three options:
1. The CNN "live" shot is a fake.
Or,
2. All other shots of Tower 1's collapse (that do not take 18 seconds) are fake.
Or,
3. All footage of Tower 1's collapse is fake, and we have not been shown any legitimate imagery of this event.
There is no other way around this. You can't have it both ways. Either the collapse took 18 seconds, or it took 9 seconds. It can't be both! Therefore, the image pool does NOT all hang together as demonstrated. This is absolute DEFINITIVE evidence of some level of image fakery regarding Tower 1's collapse.
You say, we know the photographers. Do we, Jim? Do we KNOW them? Do you? We know 'names'. We know some scant details about them, but they are almost exclusively ghosts. Shadowy anomalous entities who, aside from some 'imagery' attributed to their "names" are incredibly difficult to pin down or put faces to, etc., etc. How many of the photographers (both still and moving - amateur and professional) have ever been guests at 9/11 Truth conferences? How many of them have ever actually come out of the woodwork? To my knowledge, very few if any are openly involved with 9/11 Truth or any associated group, or have even been seen to come out and question 9/11. Or have ever been seen at all, in any capacity.
DeleteAs for no one coming out and claiming they saw something different than what was shown; this works both on the assumption that people who weren't just watching on TV (which I would argue, even in NYC was the majority) were physically ABLE to see something. And if they were, and did mention it, who would believe them anyway? Jim, would you honestly take someone at their word who said to you that they saw the towers come down differently than the videos show? Would you believe them, or would you put your faith in the "hanging together" video evidence?
But, don't you think what they did show was a HUGE part of the psyop, Jim? Having the towers violently exploding in all directions was a massive part the whole shock and awe game, the end goal of which as I see it was to keep people in fear and safely asleep in their metaphorical beds. Furthermore, surely having the towers destruction occur in such an explosive (yet indeterminable) way was partly a deliberate confusion tactic purposely MEANT to generate a thousand and one alternative theories about HOW exactly the towers were destroyed (therefore localising and forever trapping discussion about 9/11 in a circular and never ending pit of mystery). And also to pre-empt the controlled opposition stage of the perps plan and cover-up, which would culminate with THEIR creation of the 'so-called' 9/11 Truth Movement. And finally, to the average closed-minded layman, the towers were seen to disintegrate (not as you say from the top down), but actually from the point of the "plane" impact zones: therefore, reinforcing the 'plane strikes + jet fuel' storyline that the official theory would promote. Having the collapses "look" this way all makes the most logical sense from a planning standpoint, and has the most amount of favourable outcomes for the perps.
CNN "live" WTC1 collapse lasted 19 seconds as shown here - 11 seconds on all the other networks:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A
The switch from "camera 3" to "camera 4" is quite surreal: it is clearly the same camera - at two different zoom levels.
Here is from the TV Archive - zoom in starts at 16:35:
https://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053
Someone should point out the naturalness in this shot, and what layer that was faked on the fly and what was the real part. If not, it should be regarded as a Hollywood animation on "live" news.
This discussion would be hilarious if the subject were not so serious. All you 'it's all fake' shills really haven't advanced beyond the first level of understanding the events of 9/11 and haven't kept up with the research that has been done into the how and why, therefore you all sound like you haven't got a clue, still arguing about the fakery when that is just a small part of the overall event. Of course, you don't actually want people to do any proper research into the how and why and who so keeping the discussion at this infantile level where only fakery matters is precisely the gatekeeping tactic you seem to think will work.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm not so easily fooled, I can see right through your games as the nefarious BS they really are.
The longer you can keep the discussion on this low level where only the fakery is talked about then the longer you can stop people discussing the important aspects of the 9/11 mass murder crime.
Of course, the reason why you've all come here is because Fetzer and Fox were and still are, doing the best research into 9/11 and therefore have become your target.
Personally, I find all of you disgusting sick creatures who have no conscience because you are helping to further the goals of perpetrators who used nuclear weapons to murder thousands of people, a truly terrible crime.
Do you still believe in a Ground Zero in Hiroshima, Ian?
DeletePerfect example of the gatekeeping I'm talking about, you've been flogging the same dead horse for months, the same untenable, ludicrous viewpoint.
DeleteThere really are only two options when it comes to determing what you peope are;
A: Incredibly friggin stupid, bordering on insane
B: Piece of shit disinfo scum.
Ian Greenhalgh said : "Perfect example of the gatekeeping I'm talking about, you've been flogging the same dead horse for months, the same untenable, ludicrous viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteThere really are only two options when it comes to determing what you peope are;
A: Incredibly friggin stupid, bordering on insane
B: Piece of shit disinfo scum."
Keep it up Greenhalgh, you're doing a great job- attaboy ! :-)
obf.
Ian, I do find it interesting how emotionally attached to the 9/11 storyline you are. Your comments are charged with anger, hatred and arrogance, and yes, even ignorance. I am going to attempt to remain as polite as I can here, even in response to some very vitriolic statements on your part.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine for you to call this line of thinking 'nefarious BS' all you want, but unfortunately for you Ian, that's just an empty opinion. Until you can separate yourself from your own preconceptions and biases, and truly consider this information on an intellectual level, your argument against it is always going to fall very flat.
In regards to your emotionally charged investigation of 9/11, is there ANY part of the 'hearts and minds' (Hollywood BS) storyline that you doubt? At all? When you listen to one of the supposed phone calls from the Towers, for example, do you lap it up, hook, line and sinker? Or, do you ever question something as simple as 'why are none of these people coughing?'
You harp on about this "mass murder crime", but have never directly tackled any issue raised regarding the supposed victims. Ian, can you honestly state, with 100% conviction, that the photos of Elizabeth Wainio are genuine, unaltered originals? Can you really say that there is absolutely NOTHING suspect about the complete lack of 9/11 victims in the SSDI? Are you genuinely of the belief that ALL of the victims are absolutely genuine, and that there is nothing fishy about any of them whatsoever: even for example, supposed 9/11 victim Lukasz Milewski, who is clearly a very strange doppelganger entity of supposed 9/11 Truther Lukasz Rudkowski.
Either way, can you accept that CNN's 'live' shot of Tower 1's collapse is completely fraudulent, which I have proven conclusively, as you simply can't have it both ways? And if you can accept that obvious and easily determinable conclusion (via simply viewing CNN's 9/11 TV archives), isn't that enough for you to actually do some proper research and investigation into these claims? And as a result, deal with them in a logical, rational and intellectual manner.
Well stated, Mr. Bobson!
ReplyDeleteAd hominem attacks and resorting to dirty-words-on-the-bathroom-wall tactics, as the "it just can't be fake" die-hards (Ian most disgustingly) exemplify -- only lower the level of this serious discussion to the gutter.
Stop it, Ian! Go home! Have mum wash your dirty mouth out with soap!
And them come back and address the points Bob just raised.
OK?
Just because you're a bright fellow doesn't excuse you from actually USING that keen intellect God gave you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'total' wrote:
ReplyDelete"Simon Shack, have you interviewed Charles Hirsch? If not, why not? If so, tell us what he said."
No - I have not, and here is why:
I simply do not believe - for multiple reasons - that I am the best-suited person for this job. Since I am very serious about 9/11 truth, you may appreciate that the last thing I wish for - is for me to mess up any available opportunity to confront those who we suspect may have inside-knowledge of this scam. Interviewing people demands specific skills and experience (especially when dealing with such highly sensitive matters) - the sort of which I have none of.
On the other hand , Fetzer would be (providing he is serious about 9/11 truth, of course) ideally suited for this 'task'. Not only is Fetzer a vastly experienced radio host - he also is fairly well-known in the USA. Moreover, Fetzer is about the same age as Hirsch - and both share a military background, all of which should facilitate overcoming the very first hurdle : to get Hirsch to agree of being interviewed at all. I frankly doubt that Hirsch would agree to be interviewed by yours truly and, again, I really think that it would be unwise for me to attempt such a thing.
Hope this is a satisfactory answer to your questions.
Simon Shack
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEl Buggo said:"CNN "live" WTC1 collapse lasted 19 seconds as shown here - 11 seconds on all the other networks:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A
The switch from "camera 3" to "camera 4" is quite surreal: it is clearly the same camera - at two different zoom levels."
Fetzer and Fox were made aware of the blatant discrepencies/contradictions in the "live" CNN WTC1 sequence last year in the comments sections of the two articles they co-authored at Veterans Today, by both Simon and myself.
The response to date- complete and utter silence.
I assume that this behavior will continue indefinitely :-).
Regards, obf.
I think they behave exactly like the Emperor after that boy, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, had gone up to the carriage and noticed the Emperor was nude:
Delete"Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndy Tyme said :" Stop it, Ian! Go home! Have mum wash your dirty mouth out with soap! "
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth reminding everyone here that Mr Fetzer currently fully supports/backs up this Greenhalgh characters "opinions", as continually expressed here.
By way of illustration, to reiterate what Simon Shack previously related in this very thread, here is what Fetzer stated about Simon and myself in a collective e-mail to which Simon and myself are both subscribed, just a few days ago:
Fetzer said : "I not only believe what I am saying about you and onebornfree, who must be two of the leading morons in the 9/11 community, but I can prove it. So do your best. I am sick and tire of your endless rubbish about faking all of the videos on 9/11, which I have explained time-and-time-again is indefensible. Enough!"
So as you clearly can see, Andy, Greenhalgh's modus operandi _is_ , around here, fully Fetzer approved, "standard operating procedure", as they say :-)
Regards, obf.
Earlier today "Bob Bobson" posed some very specific questions to all the FAKERY DENIERS:
ReplyDelete"When you listen to one of the supposed phone calls from the Towers, for example, do you lap it up, hook, line and sinker? Or, do you ever question something as simple as 'why are none of these people coughing?'"
..........
"Can you honestly state, with 100% conviction, that the photos of Elizabeth Wainio are genuine, unaltered originals? Can you really say that there is absolutely NOTHING suspect about the complete lack of 9/11 victims in the SSDI? Are you genuinely of the belief that ALL of the victims are absolutely genuine, and that there is nothing fishy about any of them whatsoever: even for example, supposed 9/11 victim Lukasz Milewski, who is clearly a very strange doppelganger entity of supposed 9/11 Truther Lukasz Rudkowski."
..........
"Either way, can you accept that CNN's 'live' shot of Tower 1's collapse is completely fraudulent, which I have proven conclusively, as you simply can't have it both ways? And if you can accept that obvious and easily determinable conclusion (via simply viewing CNN's 9/11 TV archives), isn't that enough for you to actually do some proper research and investigation into these claims?"
..........
So, will the FAKERY DENIERS ever answer Bob's questions?
Or will they just continue to "hang together" in silence, ignorance, and puerile attempts to stifle their troubling cognitive dissonance symptoms by resorting to still more ad hominem attacks and foul-mouthed, linguistic crudity???
I would also like to ask why there are no tears to be seen anywhere in this operation. Has something to do with the victims part of the story. Thanks!
DeleteEl Buggo said :"I would also like to ask why there are no tears to be seen anywhere in this operation. Has something to do with the victims part of the story. Thanks!"
ReplyDeleteWhat about alleged victim relative Bob MacIlvane, who appears to cry on cue, whenever he gives a speech?
[Can't track down a link to Simon's funny video of this guy right now- if you know the one I'm talking about perhaps you could post a link to it here? ]
Regards, obf.
It is this comedy by Simon Shack you have in mind I guess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE
ReplyDeleteNo tears there either. Tears doesn't exist anywhere in this operation - just like in the Sandy Hook Hoax. Why not? There should be millions of victims family members around, according to the reports.This is also evidence, Jim.
Dear Onebornfree,
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to my "911 ACTORS" video featuring Bob Mc Ilvaine "sobbing / choking up" on cue (every time he gets to the line where he mentions his 'murdered son') :
911 ACTORS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE
Now, at the time I made that video, I had found "only" 4 of his public appearances. I later found another 3 ("take 5, 6 and 7") which you will find listed in the video description. In other words, in ALL (seven out of seven) of Bob Mc Ilvaine speeches to be found - he performs a pretty much identical, brief / short-lived 'weeping' act. Of course, there will always be people ready to argue that this may just be how Bob's psyche naturally reacts each and every time that his memory brings back his tragic loss. Likewise, there are also many people who will argue that Gene Rosen of (Sandy hook "fame") is just a nice, sensitive old man traumatized by his horrible memories of that day. These sort of people, I would venture to say, would most likely call thinkers like you and me "totally insane", "tinfoil-hatters", "callously disrespectful" - and so on and so forth. I will be eagerly awaiting to hear from such people (Don? Ian?) right here on this "Real Deal" comment section.
Simon Shack
I believe the video you are referring to, OBF, is 9/11 Actors, and here is a link to it: /watch?v=g-wZ0CwEYYo
ReplyDeleteThe big issue that always seems to come out in any of these kinds of debates, and not just on this particular website, is that the detractors NEVER want to address any of the facts. At all. They won't address any claims, proofs, evidences, or event the theory as a whole. The only thing they will do constantly is either:
1. Use ad hominem, insults and ridicule tactics.
2. Claim that these theories have already been debunked, and so they don't need to bother.
3. Claim that everyone who believes these things are shills who want to distract from the topic of exactly what destroyed the towers.
This is not a complete list, and I understand and admit that I am generalising a bit, but in the majority of these debates, the answers from detractors will no doubt come into one of those three categories. So, let's just take a moment to see why all of these kinds of responses are invalid and only serve to lesson the position of the person making them:
The first should be self-explanatory to anyone who has half a brain and knows anything about actual, intellectual debate. Ad hominem and insults have no place. Period. I don't care how 'offended' you are by a person's particular viewpoint. If it was expressed politely, with conviction and intelligence, then there is absolutely no need ever for these kinds of rude, childish and imbecilic responses. The detractors do seem to throw them around a LOT though, and don't seem to quite realise just the kind of damage these do to their own arguments. You don't win a debate by being an arsehole.
The second is ridiculous on many levels. It's a classic diversionary tactic employed when someone cannot and does not know HOW to deal with the issues raised. This may be due to insufficient knowledge on the subject, or just plain ignorance, but either way, it comes out of a lack of ability to debate a particular topic. I never accept this excuse, and the second someone uses it, you know the exact amount of time they've spent researching these claims properly: zero. Overall, just saying something is so doesn't make it so. Someone saying that these theories are debunked is simple enough, but it has basis in fact without backing these assertions up. Furthermore, IF the issue really IS debunked, then the detractor should have absolutely no issue at all debating the theory and proving their case. It's a wonder why those that use this response seem to struggle so much in doing so!
The third is important to consider because it implies that the distraction is that media fakery is diverting discussion away from the tower destruction, when in my considered opinion, it is most definitely the other way around. ALL the theories surrounding the exact method of the tower's "dustification" are meant to distract from media fakery! How many websites are there dedicated to the various factions of 9/11 Truth? How many websites and blogs and YouTube videos and documentaries are there that focus on the method of the tower destructions? An uncountable number! Most of these websites will espouse one theory of 'demolition' over another, and shun talk of media fakery completely. Websites that do allow it usually condemn to a singular unpopular forum area, like a derail topic, or "controversial stuff we don't support" kind of board. And many don't allow ANY discussion of it AT ALL! The Loose Change Board is one. Even more surprisingly is Pilots For 9/11 Truth! Yet, the relatively small percentage of those who are invested in researching media fakery on 9/11, yes, WE are the distraction. Give me a break.
DeleteI'd like to pose a question to those who feel that the method of destruction of the towers is SO important: Why? Why is proving 100% the Exact Precise Method of demolition on 9/11 SO important to proving a case for demolition overall? Surely, the important aspect is simply to conclusively prove that the towers WERE deliberately demolished? Exactly why does determining whether it was shape charges, thermite, thermate, micro-nukes, nuclear warheads, directed energy weaponry, UFOs, Jack Bauer, or Godzilla actually matter one iota? The truth is, it doesn't. It's nothing, but a tactic to get people entranced and engaged with a huge bunch of unsolvable and largely undeterminable theories, all espoused with conviction and confidence by a huge range of different personalities, in order to keep people spinning around in a sea of mystery and never ever really getting anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jil7sDgVEUU#t=196
DeleteWatch the various angles of that video. Look and listen to the surroundings, the people. Add to that the sick and dying first responders. I think it's simplistic and solipsistic to claim it's 100% media fakery. More like 100% media-backed staged attack, with actual destruction.
and actual TRAUMA, which is of course a key component to the 'success' of 'the event.'
ReplyDeleteMick Hoss wrote:
ReplyDelete"Watch the various angles of that video. Look and listen to the surroundings, the people. Add to that the sick and dying first responders. I think it's simplistic and solipsistic to claim it's 100% media fakery. More like 100% media-backed staged attack, with actual destruction."
Mick, I totally agree with your definition of 9/11 as "a 100% media-backed staged attack, with actual destruction". However, please know that the term "100% media fakery" does not imply that the towers were not demolished - only that we were shown a Hollywood production designed to visually simulate the events of the day. Of course, any major movie is perfectly capable to depict 'various angles' (as you mention) of any given disaster scene.
You may wish to check out this analysis I have performed concerning the "various angles issue" (of the tower collapses) which, as you'll see, raises a number of important questions all by itself:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389192#p2389192
As for the sick and dying first responders (mostly with respiratory ailments / lung diseases/ mesothelioma) the below website will best explain why this might well be true:
http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/
kind regards
Simon Shack
Mick Hoss said: "Watch the various angles of that video. Look and listen to the surroundings, the people. Add to that the sick and dying first responders. I think it's simplistic and solipsistic to claim it's 100% media fakery. More like 100% media-backed staged attack, with actual destruction, and actual TRAUMA, which is of course a key component to the 'success' of 'the event."
ReplyDeleteMick, I would argue that the day was MEANT to be viewed as traumatic. The trauma, the sick and dying, the survivors, the victims; these things were all designed from the ground up, a crude play on the hearts and minds - the emotions of America and the world. All of this is part and parcel of the created storyline of 9/11, and an emotional reaction and response to this is exactly what the perps want.
I've seen all of these videos before. What exactly about the surroundings and the people am I supposed to observing and listening to? The screams? The 'powerful' amateur imagery? It appears that you are calling for me to have an emotional response to this footage, and to then field a reaction based on those emotions. Unfortunately, I am a long, long way past that. The truly objective investigator of these events needs to remain as unbiased and unaffected as possible by the perceived "suffering" of the day, and separate from all preconceptions. As 'cold' as this may seem, it is the only way to remain truly impartial and independent, and be able to take an open-minded approach to research and 9/11 thesis.
Also, if I'm being entirely frank, I've had enough of this Hollywood storyline emotion-driven, shock and awe BS to last me a lifetime. It's high time to look past that, and start really digging into this event. It's time to start REALLY questioning and exposing just how deep this scam truly goes. I think even the majority of self-confessed "9/11 Truthers" would be shocked if they could genuinely comprehend how far this con stretches. Truth definitely is stranger than fiction, and this especially true the deeper you dig in regards to 9/11.
These questions are there, and it is right that they all asked, and ALLOWED to be asked. It shocks me deeply how closed minded the so-called Truth Movement really are, when it comes to subjects they want to make taboo. So much of the accepted infamous myths and stories of 9/11 can be exposed as absolute rubbish from the ground up with ease, and once a few of them fall apart in front of your eyes, we have to ask the question: just how much of this story is BS? The story of the elevators crashing down into the lobbies immediately springs to mind as such an obvious, disgusting fraud; that's just one example, and there are so many more it boggles the mind. You can call it a solipsistic view if you want, and in one sense I wouldn't disagree with you, I genuinely believe based on the investigation and research that I have conducted over the years, that the only thing we truly know as 100% fact is that at some point during 9/11 the WTC complex was demolished. Everything else is debatable and can absolutely be brought into question - media fakery is the key reason why, and the key to exposing 9/11 as the giant fraud that it is.
meangreen (the character) ian;
ReplyDeleteplease post one video example showing the thousands of workers that should have been captured streaming out of the twin towers throughout the course of the pre-collapse 'twin or-deals'. there should be plenty of examples to choose from, especially film recorded following the second plane 'strike', when the first impact would have drawn the attention of many around the area with cameras (tourist or otherwise) at a time when, for those left inside, any thoughts of an accidental first 'plane' strike would have evaporated and instinct would have sent all able toward the exits in double quick time and in massive droves (imagine a football stadiums worth of people leaving all around the same time by way of only a very few funnelled and highly restrictive exit possibilities).
no observer with a recorder looking on and up could have expected the buildings to collapse so there should have been ample opportunity and (can I say) clear incentive to record this (according to the numbers given us) considerable and constantly streaming frenzied human exodus.
all I ask is that you post one such example. if you cannot, will you please then shut the fuck up?
ahjim, my old plum;
your boundaries are almost set in stone, aren't they? I certainly get your message and understand it for what it is. all the world's a stage, eh?
A big (the biggest yet?) test is on it's way and those who have cared to pay attention have been given more than enough information and opportunity to be in a position to be able to choose wisely and out of free will between ffffear and fakery when dis-appropriate time approaches no more but arrives.
(my 11 years old son Stephen must be wise beyond his years as he surely knows his minds way - he is not going around fretting about missing mal-aise-ian people and planes, black boxes and black holes - he knows the whole 9/11 story (and more stories again), see?).
your work here is almost done, my friend. well played.
with thanks and best wishes, and I dare say, love,
Shea.
@ Simon, El Buggo, & Bob Bobson:
ReplyDeleteThanks all for the Macilvane links- for some reason I just could not put my finger on that analysis at Simon's site yesterday. My own ineptitude, I'm guessing.
regards, obf.
HEADS UP FAKERY FANS! :
ReplyDeleteRichard Hall discusses his holographic plane image theory at Morgan Reynolds site :
http://nomoregames.net/2014/03/24/richard-d-hall-talks-about-911-video-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-41145
Regards, obf.
It's interesting to hear how much Richard Hall both over-generalises and confuses the issue of media fakery, in order to shoe-horn in his 'missile cloaked in a hologram' rubbish. The real factor here is that these kinds of researchers are DESPERATE to convince you that SOMETHING PHYSICAL actually happened. With these kinds of shills / misinformed researchers, doubting the planes is fine to an extent, as long as you accept that the videos themselves are genuine (in as much as being filmed on 9/11 by real photographers - both amateur and professional - capturing real events).
ReplyDeleteNotice how Hall states that there are over fifty shots of Flight 175, yet he doesn't at all make any distinctions between them. He does not separate the so called "live" footage from the "amateur". He does not define the primary shots from the secondary shots. He doesn't suggest or provide timescales as to when these shots were aired or became available in the public domain. It is of UTMOST importance when considering this angle of thinking to understand that NONE of the pretty-looking high quality shots were shown on the day. Instead they were shown days, months and even many years after the fact. Hall makes the claim that a theory of media fakery doesn't stand up because all fifty shots of flight 175 would have needed to be individually confiscated and altered. In other words, his own idea of what 'media fakery' is, is the same as Ace Bakers; and those are not the same ideas that are espoused by many who investigate this angle. He is essentially acting on the complete assumption that the videos depict entirely real images of New York, that were actually genuinely shot on 9/11, by actual genuine amateur photographers. And NOT as I, and many others would posit, that ALL the footage and imagery of the day was pre-created/post-created, and is entirely illegitimate.
He also makes the entirely fallacious claim that the plane approach angle is consistent in all shots. This is utter rubbish. And anyone can discover that without too much digging or investigation. The angle of the plane's approach does differ wildly across the video record. Hall claims that the reason some videos appear to show different plane approaches is due to the different altitudes of the helicopter's filming them at the time. But this is complete rubbish when simply comparing the perspectives of the towers between shots. There are many shots that show IDENTICAL tower perspectives, yet different plane angles. This is IMPOSSIBLE unless the videos are illegitimate. Richard Hall's so-called "analysis" is shoddy at best. These people generate the illusion of legitimacy and scientific knowledge by exposing the flaws in the crashes, both physically and aeronautically (which is fair enough and somewhat relevant), yet they then use this to hide media fakery and perpetuate the idea of something physical in place of this (missiles, holograms, etc.).
I was intrigued to hear Hall's fleeting mention of David Shayler (he was a character I was actually planning to mention myself). I find it very surprising that Hall is still going to promote a theory that was espoused by such an obvious shill. Shayler's role is absolutely to associate no-planes and media fakery with insanity; he is running a deliberate operation and obviously an agent. I'd rather not put my faith in a man who whilst claiming to be an ex-MI5 whistleblower and associating himself with exposing 9/11, is "allowed" on TV to invite public ridicule toward himself by claiming that the planes are all holograms, and then subsequently has a "staged" meltdown claiming to be the Messiah, and also decided to be a cross-dresser on the side. He's certainly not my chosen one. Absolute obvious guff and controlled opposition tactics all the way.
DeleteFinally, I'd be curious to know what Hall makes of the CNN "live" collapse footage of Tower 1 when compared to other shots. I wonder if he would remain quietly ignorant in the face of this obvious fraud, or whether he might start to wake up a bit and use a bit more rational and logical thinking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt really is all very simple: the remaining bunch of 9/11 gatekeepers are desperately protecting the media and its central role in airing fake / fabricated imagery on 9/11.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer & Richard Hall say:
"THE TV IMAGERY WAS REAL. THE AIRPLANES WE SAW ON TV WERE HOLOGRAMS! (captured by REAL cameras)".
Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson say:
"THE TV IMAGERY WAS REAL. THE COLLAPSES WE SAW ON TV WERE CAUSED BY DEW WEAPONS!(captured by REAL cameras)".
Dimitri Khalezov & Don Fox say:
"THE TV IMAGERY WAS REAL. THE COLLAPSES WE SAW ON TV WERE CAUSED BY NUKE WEAPONS! (captured by REAL cameras)".
It's all par for the course, folks. The constant use by the TV networks of fake imagery to fool the USA (and the rest of the world) is the Nutwork's Primary Weapon of Mass Distraction. NOTHING is more important - for the powers that be - than to uphold the public's belief in the (phony) imagery they are shown on TV. Ever since their successful "moon landings" TV hoax back in the early 70's (lapped up hook line and sinker by most people on this planet), they have kept playing this 'winning card'. They will desperately clutch onto that precious card until "the end".
What "end", you may ask? Well, let's wait and see.
Simon Shack
Bob Bobson said :"It is of UTMOST importance when considering this angle of thinking to understand that NONE of the pretty-looking high quality shots were shown on the day. Instead they were shown days, months and even many years after the fact. "
ReplyDeletePrecisely Bob. The same applies to all of the collapse imagery- but this is apparently "over the heads" of the Fetzer gang- _way_ over their heads :-).
Bob Bobson said: "He also makes the entirely fallacious claim that the plane approach angle is consistent in all shots. This is utter rubbish. "
If one assumes, just for the sake of argument, that he is correct [i.e. they match], that IN NO WAY could prove that they are all genuine - they could all have still been easily faked on the same computer, or , on different computers with access to the same original source material.
To claim that they are all genuine just because they all supposedly match is 100% logically inconsistent.
And, in any case, they _don't_ match, as you pointed out.
In fact, in his full video presentation, Hall actually lies about the path of FL 175 as shown in the CBS "divebomber" sequence, as I show in my analysis of his hypothesis:
“Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall’s Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique”:
http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html
Regards, obf.
Here is where I'm at:
ReplyDelete1) All tee vee footage was faked (long...beforehand in studios probably in holywood)
2) Dust from the demolition was real
3) small piles of rubble were real
4) damage was largely confined to the footprint of the trade complex
I remain open to the possibility of some aftermath photographs being authentic. It would be much harder for the culprits (zionsist aka the sabbateans; freemasons and banksters) to control the aftermath than to control the events on that day.
Everyone (here anyway) can agree 911 was an inside job carried out at the very least with the complicity of "the government". I put government in quotes because it is not a monolithic entity and think it important to resist the temptation to anthropomorphize it. We can't do anything about it. Nothing good will EVER come from 911 truth movement. Too much time has past and too few even care to think about that myth let alone act on it. They got away with sinking the "titanic"; they killed the president(s)... they faked the moon landing. They win we lose every time. Thats life.
Regarding how the towers were brought down...
Conventional explosives don't explain items 2 and 3. Nukes don't explain items 2, 3 or 4. Nuke make big explosions; they are not directional devices.
I want to know what was used to dustify the towers purely from and intellectual curiosity perspective. I also do not like the idea of "my" government concealing such technologies (undoubtedly paid for by tax payers) from the public.
I represent Hollywood for 911 truth movement called LIVE OR DIE ON THE MOVIE SET. Anyone who want to join PM me. Free hats for grabs.
ReplyDelete@NM Golfer: Nuke make big explosions; they are not directional devices.
ReplyDeletethese were so called mini nukes, real silent and and with trajectories assigned. They were shipped through the wormhole from the future.
were the towers brought down safely underground in one piece to be dismantled there, while loads of dust bags (containing whatever) were put in place as props? I think this is the most reasonable (though fantastical sounding) explanation considering all the real evidence (or lack thereof) available to us. it makes sense to me. the design of the twin tower outer steel structure makes for great guide railings, no?
ReplyDeleteif the buildings were built to be taken down then this mechanism for removal had years to be perfected and was indeed probably built into the design.
what a ride down that would have been, eh?. I wonder did any daredevil take the risk and take this plunge of a lifetime down with the buildings, all harnessed up, of course. I should think it safe enough if it was a completely controlled decent, as it surely was. (just like one of those death plunge rides as seen at carnival parks).
yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaw!
and things might be nowhere as dark as they seem NM.
in fact I am sure they are not.
black is white.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Clare Kuhn: Do all things have to be "pre-fabricated" to be "simpler"? Well, real life doesn't work that way -- not even in the nonsense Sandy Hook event. That was a non-event but, hey, they managed to screw up and show another school (St Rose of Lima's entranceway) for the footage of the police rushing in, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt should tell you they screwed that one up on purpose, not that they screwed it up for real. What purpose?
No way. If we read all screw-ups as deliberate, we will not have the clues in proper perspective, when they screw up.
DeleteThey seem only to have had rushing police at St Rose.
The drill was there, with live children. The rest of it was down at the fire hall.
you are wrong clare, and are selling us the 'conspiracy' narratives fed you. there are few mistakes and near everything we see, we are meant to see.
ReplyDeletewas big larry's 'pull it' a mere slip of the tongue?
was the 'nose-out' 'fiasco' a simple case of bad studio timing?
was jane Stanley's prematurity down to GMT and EST conversion confusion?
there are a million and one others clare. same story with 7/7, sandyhoax, boston etc. etc. etc.
all these staged media events are meticulously planned and professionally executed/produced, and that includes all the deliberate 'ham' acting broadcast to us that so offends (e.g. Robbie parker's off air smiling 'caught' on camera, gean rose-n).
stop insulting our collective intelligence clare please.
(I have a good idea where you might stand on the missing MH370 conspiracy; does 'schrodinger's airplane' sum it up?)