Monday, September 15, 2014

Jim Fetzer

On 9/11 and JFK (w/ Fred Smart)

83 comments:

  1. As a subscriber to William Blum's "ant-empire" reports, I received this link in an email today. Isn't it apropos to the conversation above about the indifference of Americans?

    http://williamblum.org/aer/read/132
    The Anti-Empire Report #132 – September 16th, 2014 – William Blum

    "The American people are very much like the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don’t want to know, but then wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window.

    This basic belief in America’s good intentions is often linked to “American exceptionalism”. Let’s look at how exceptional US foreign policy has been. Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

    1. Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
    2. Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
    3. Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
    4. Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
    5. Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
    6. Led the world in torture; not only the torture performed directly by Americans upon foreigners, but providing torture equipment, torture manuals, lists of people to be tortured, and in-person guidance by American teachers, especially in Latin America.
    This is indeed exceptional. No other country in all of history comes anywhere close to such a record.

    So the next time you’re up against a stone wall … ask the person what the United States would have to do in its foreign policy to lose his support. What for this person would finally be TOO MUCH. If the person mentions something really bad, chances are the United States has already done it, perhaps repeatedly.

    Keep in mind that our precious homeland, above all, seeks to dominate the world. For economic reasons, nationalistic reasons, ideological, Christian, and for other reasons, world hegemony has long been America’s bottom line. And let’s not forget the powerful Executive Branch officials whose salaries, promotions, agency budgets and future well-paying private sector jobs depend upon perpetual war. These leaders are not especially concerned about the consequences for the world of their wars. They’re not necessarily bad people; but they’re amoral, like a sociopath is."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's Problem With USA?--Spengler's CYCLIC Cultural "Decline"

      Well, the question/issue, presumably raised by the Jew, Blum, is similar to WHY do nominally "Christian" people support and ally w. the satanistic, cannibalistic, psychopathic, mass-murdering terror-state of Israel--indeed, HOW do these Jew monsters exert the hypnotic-like power they do over the brain-dead morons of Jew S A?

      Thus it's most perfect demonstration, this Jew-trance of present USA, of Oswald Spengler's CYCLIC theory expressed in "Decline of the West."

      Thus the originally heroic, rationalist, honest, CHRISTIAN people of USA achieved genuine prosperity and became corrupt and perverted--especially in the way of HUBRISTIC Pharisaism, Christian honesty, worshipping truth above all, giving way now to Pharisaist self-delusion of "good-evil" and moral virtue, this Pharisaist delusion built upon the gross hubris of pretending to a perfectly "free" human will.

      Thus Jew and associated Satanists now dominate USA, along w. much of the Western world--the Jews dominating Satanism like they dominate communism, banking, and the corporate bureaucratic hierarchy, among other things--these Jews and Satanists now leading by the nose a great portion/segment of US population, the "schizoids," so much consumed in this Pharisaist "moralist" ethos, w. putrid guilt-complex

      So what can be done to rectify things in West and Jew S A?--nothing less than a Christian-inspired revolution, similar in effect to the original of St. Constantine the Great of early 4th cent. Roman emp.

      Thus Christian TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH is built upon the Aristotelian objective, hence determinist reality--which rejects and repudiates hubris and gross Pharisaism and pretense to child's "good-evil"--not to mention embracing of the good old anti-Semitism, the only real obedience to God and proper expression of Christianity--this is the cultural KEY to present problems of Jew S A.

      Immediate, direct, and most practical resort then must be made to removal of US Federal Reserve Bank (legalized) COUNTERFEITING, practical key to Jews' criminal power by which Jews control and manipulate everything and everyone. Additionally, states-rights, nullification, and secession are necessary tools.

      Anti-Semitism thus rejects criminality (as of the Fed COUNTERFEITING) collectivism, socialism, Pharisaism, and satanist rejection of objective reality and determinism, and Christianity is the most successful, enduring, and rewarding anti-Semitism for the rational human.

      Delete
  2. http://williamblum.org/aer/read/132 (Continued)

    ".......Take the Middle East and South Asia. The people in those areas have suffered horribly because of Islamic fundamentalism. What they desperately need are secular governments, which have respect for different religions. And such governments were actually instituted in the recent past. But what has been the fate of those governments?
    Well, in the late 1970s through much of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a secular government that was relatively progressive, with full rights for women, which is hard to believe, isn’t it? ....... The United States overthrew it, allowing the Taliban to come to power. So keep that in mind the next time you hear an American official say that we have to remain in Afghanistan for the sake of women’s rights.

    After Afghanistan came Iraq, another secular society, under Saddam Hussein. And the United States overthrew that government as well, and now the country is overrun by crazed and bloody jihadists and fundamentalists of all kinds; and women who are not covered up are running a serious risk.

    Next came Libya; again, a secular country, under Moammar Gaddafi, who, like Saddam Hussein, had a tyrant side to him but could in important ways be benevolent and do marvelous things for Libya and Africa. To name just one example, Libya had a high ranking on the United Nation’s Human Development Index.

    So, of course, the United States overthrew that government as well. In 2011, with the help of NATO we bombed the people of Libya almost every day for more than six months. And, once again, this led to messianic jihadists having a field day. How it will all turn out for the people of Libya, only God knows, or perhaps Allah.

    And for the past three years, the United States has been doing its best to overthrow the secular government of Syria. And guess what? Syria is now a playground and battleground for all manner of ultra militant fundamentalists, including everyone’s new favorite, IS, the Islamic State. The rise of IS owes a lot to what the US has done in Iraq, Libya, and Syria in recent years.

    .....But what, you might wonder, did each of these overthrown governments have in common that made them a target of Washington’s wrath? The answer is that they could not easily be controlled by the empire; they refused to be client states; they were nationalistic; in a word, they were independent; a serious crime in the eyes of the empire.

    ......it would be difficult to name a single brutal dictatorship of the second half of the 20th Century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population. And in recent years as well, Washington has supported very repressive governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Qatar, and Israel."

    ReplyDelete
  3. WTF is up with that Twilight Zone music that has been creeping in at random points of these recent shows? Very good interview, but the discourse requires no intrusive musical embellishment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's probably just Barry flying around at night

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joan Edwards said : ""The American people are very much like the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don’t want to know, but then wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window.

    This basic belief in America’s good intentions is often linked to “American exceptionalism”. "

    He talks a good game, Joan, but I'd lay money on Mr Blum being a hard-core, unrepentant statist of the "leftist" variety.

    He might know what his Mafia boss is doing, but he still believes in "the need" for this particular mafia, and the need for a boss of it.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OBF, you are correct on your take of Blum. He is a left winger who knows what the US is up to outside of the country, CIA destabilizations, etc. On operations within the US such as assassinations and events like 9/11, he is with the MSM like Noam Chomsky and others at liberal publications like The Nation and Zed Magazine.

    I like his clarity in summing up the foreign targets of the US and NATO which are countries with SECULAR governments with once fairly good human rights such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya--all overthrown--and now Syria, also a secular state.

    At least, he puts Israel on the list of countries the US supports which have "VERY REPRESSIVE governments" such as "Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Qatar, and Israel."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thermite was used to weaken and melt the core columns. This was not enough to bring the structure down. They used conventional demolition charges. In the collapse videos you can see the squibs streaming out the side. The reason you saw people jumping out of the towers was because of the intense heat generated by the thermite fires. The buildings were brought to dust or powder simply because of the massiveness of the weight of the structure falling in on itself. No need for exotic weapons or mini or micro nukes. They had software in 2001 where you could plug in the blueprint of any building and it would tell you exactly where you needed to put the charges for perfect collapse. You could literally run different charger positions thousands of times to see what the perfect positioning would be. Building 7 was probably supposed to come down around the same time but something malfunctioned. They had to take time to reset the charges then they brought it down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The buildings were brought to dust or powder simply because of the massiveness of the weight of the structure falling in on itself.

      WRONG. You are spewing your ignorance or disinformation. I'm not even going to take my precious time to compose my thoughts and type up a factual, detailed response. I've done that too many times in the past and the amount of ignorance (and shills) never ceases. Go read some physics books instead...simpler yet, Dimitri Khalezov's and Jeff Prager's books.

      The buildings were brought to dust or powder simply because of the massiveness of the weight of the structure falling in on itself.

      Yeah, sure, and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are alive and well.

      WP

      Delete
    2. @John Connor - nothing malfunctioned. This is what I was thinking , that something must have gone adrift with building 7. As it is, it turned out to be the biggest smoking gun of 911. These are the words gentlemen like Gage often use with respect to the WTC7, a smoking gun. And they are very much bullseye on this one. Mocking donkeys.

      Delete
    3. Something is wrong with John Connour. I don't believe he has heard anything I have said that explains why he cannot be correct:

      (1) the buildings were blowing apart from the top down;
      (2) the floors remained stationary awaiting their turn;
      (3) they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust; and,
      (4) when its over, they have been destroyed to or below ground level.

      What kind of absence of intelligence insists on a collapse of any kind given (1)-(4)? Has he even listened to the show?

      Delete
    4. Jim Fetzer - Explain the 0.6 seismic reading of WTC 7, if it is how you say it is a controlled demolition? I know you know better Jim and I'm completely perplexed as to why your taking this position regarding WTC7 and controlled demolition?

      Delete
    5. JF – you have a bad habit of insulting people or degrading people in order to win an argument.
      “(1) the buildings were blowing apart from the top down;” agree
      “(2) the floors remained stationary awaiting their turn;” agree
      “(3) they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust; and,” You have no proof of this. I mean no scientific measurement to come to this conclusion. We do see dust or powder at the site but we also see a lot of whole pieces – steel beams, concrete rubble in chunks, computers and office furniture in bits and pieces and not in fine dust or powder.
      “(4) when its over, they have been destroyed to or below ground level.” The debris pile is less than what you think it should be. I will refer you to this article: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Debris_Pile_Mass_and_Volume

      Delete
    6. Want to see something strange, eerie, creepy, even rather frightening?--yes?--good, ck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPJQ-1Y8jfY.

      Vid is fm quite famous movie, "Back to the Future" of 80s, starring Michael J. Fox--this vid will CREEP u out, undoubtedly.

      Delete
    7. That the Twin Towers were converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust is not new new. And all the floors remained stationary until they were "blown to Kingdom come" (in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds). And when it was over, they had been destroyed to or below ground level. No theory that is inconsistent with these three points deserves consideration--none at all!

      Here is an early study that demonstrates the points I am making here.It was produced in 2008. So why are some here still disputing such obvious and indisputable points? I am floored--and given how many times I have explained all of this, I am stunned they are posting here" 9/11: The Towers of Dust", at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0

      Delete
    8. Moreover, the conversion of matter into very fine dust distributed over a very wide area are distinctive effects of nuclear explosions. It is very strange to have these posts showing up at this late date. And who doubts that WTC-7 was taken down in a classic controlled demolition? That is a key point on which I and A&E911 completely agree--even if, as Don Fox and others suggest, it may have had a nuclear assist in its basements. See, for example, "This is an orange", which Anthony Lawson produced and with which I also agree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk It was first posted in 2007.

      Delete
    9. @Jim Fetzer. You still haven't explained how a classic controlled demolition can only make a 0.6 on the seismic reading data regarding WTC 7. Look at the s-wave and p-wave. I know you know better Jim and you have deliberately avoided this evidence. No use asking Richard Gage is it, as he doesn't even know how to read seismic data. Controlled demolition is complete nonsense and you certainly are NOT addressing the evidence are you?

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. John Connour said :"... They used conventional demolition charges. In the collapse videos you can see the squibs streaming out the side. The reason you saw people jumping out of the towers was because of the intense heat generated by the thermite fires...."

    Time for a "Dear John" letter, I guess :-), :

    Dear John, the "live" MSM broadcast collapse videos were faked, there were _no_ live feeds of either Fl.175 hitting the 2nd tower, nor of the subsequent collapses of WTC1, 2 or 7.

    So although, as you say,it seems far more likely that the whole WTC complex [7 buildings] was in fact demolished that day using conventional demolition methodologies, there is no way to determine that from the on-line archived MSM video record- they were all crude C.G.I. fakes being fraudulently broadcast as live footage that morning , including the "squibs" you mentioned.

    Fo one example, concerning the collapse of WTC1, 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, the famous tower jumper videos all appear to have been faked.

    See: "9/11 Video Fakery:The Fake,13 Foot Tall WTC Tower Jumpers ":

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/911-video-fakerythe-fake13-foot-tall.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We clearly see squibs shooting out the side of the buildings. If the footage is fake why add fake squibs? Makes no sense.

      Delete
  10. I'm thinking that a lot of the dust or powder we see after the collapse was actually just caused by conventional explosives. That building was made of concrete and steel. If you have demolition charges then your concrete is naturally going to powderize. No need for space beams, Tesla rays or mini or micro nukes.

    Yes I am familiar with the concept that the towers were empty on the morning of 9/11. This would make it easier for the perps to convince those involved to go along with their plan as no one would be killed. Yet we have Barry Jennings testimony that he walked over dead bodies in building 7. I don't buy into this theory that no one died on 9/11 though it is worth considering and I am open to changing my opinion if someone can bring new evidence to light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey dumbass (John Connour): Prof. Fetzer, and others too, has fairly well established the destruction of WTC towers would have required something like nukes--or, as I think is just as likely if not more so--DEWs (directed energy--not "space-beams," u moron).

      Ever hrd of Bankers Trust bldg.?--something weird happened there and I don't think it was nukes. Jewdy Wood has great info at WhereDidTheTowersGo.com


      Delete
  11. John Connour said: "We clearly see squibs shooting out the side of the buildings. If the footage is fake why add fake squibs? Makes no sense."

    Why, to make it look more realistic, I would guess, John.

    Squibs could be explained away as being caused by simple floor "pancaking", for example.

    But besides squibs, we clearly see a lot of things in these 9/11 movies- fake bird flocks , for example:

    "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All" ":

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The intense heat generated by the thermite fires that raged in the towers would have been enough to cause the occupants to jump to their deaths. We have seen this in other fires less intense than those that raged on the morning of 9/11. We have witnesses on the ground who saw them jump. Are you discounting their testimony? Are you somehow saying these are false and planted witnesses? As to the method of destruction, I am convinced that conventional controlled demolition would have been enough to bring down the two skyscrapers as well as pulverize the concrete and turn it to dust or powder. We talk about death rays and space beams but it has been estimated that the energy required to bring down massive structures such as the twin towers would be equivalent to that which is produced at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. I think a simpler explanation is in order – conventional controlled demolition brought the towers down. Recordings of detonation charges are also in the record. No need for exotic weapons, holograms and holodecks, space beams and death rays.
    “Squibs could be explained away as being caused by simple floor "pancaking", for example.” This is blatantly false. What other example can you show me where pancaking has caused demolition like squibs? Your reasoning is that the collapsing floors above would have created air pressure that would have caused air to be pushed out at one exit point in a jet stream. The problem with that is that the buildings were porous and not hermetically sealed so the air from above would have exited at other porous areas and not only at one point. You’ve got a big problem with your theory and need to rethink it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JF keeps hammering in on the fact that the detonation velocity in thermite is not fast enough to destroy the towers but it doesn’t have to be. It only needs to weaken or melt the steel in the core columns and conventional controlled demolition does the rest. You knock out the core columns, you can take down the rest of the building through controlled demolition or as some say demolition that is under control.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We are talking blueprints for demolition of a skyscraper. I am sure there are blueprints for that, in case, in emergency, one of these things has to go down. You need to research architect offices in America, those dealing with high rise structures.

    This job was done under a cloak of smoke. You can say jack how exactly it was done. As a primer for noobs, the smoke was released from the towers prior to demos. It was, with likelihood of a reasonable degree, released from the top to simulate collapses. This was done so as to make the real picture look somewhat like the Hollywood stitch shown on tv. As a rule of thumb don't bother with analyzing these videos. I hope it's self explanatory and to be honest rather boring stuffy. Moving on, the smoke would have had to disappear when the demo was finished. The foggy conditioned, however, lingered on across the area after the collapses, courtesy to smoke machines installed in the building 7. The building 7 was apparently hit hard when the two tall towers went down, and set on fire which lasted through the day. The fire was blamed for massive amounts of smoke coming out of the WTC 7. Ho ho ho. As you can see, the WTC7 had to be kept up for a reason, to give them boys time to clean the shit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ John Connour:

    John, if I read you correctly, you appear to believe two things here:

    1] That the collapse videos are authentic

    2] That the demolitions were carried out using conventional explosives [dynamite] , with a prior weakening of trusses etc. via thermite.

    Correct?

    If so, you must believe that it was possible to completely annihilate WTC's 1 and 2 in 20 secs or less, as depicted in the "live"MSM footage of WTC1 and 2's destruction, correct?

    Maybe you even believe the NIST estimates of around 9 secs total collapse for the North Tower, and around 11 secs for the South tower, but I'm not going to guess at what you believe, here.

    So why don't you make clear what you believe to be the total demolition/collapse times for WTC1 and 2 actually were, and why you believe those particular figures [whatever they might be], so I can be a little clearer on what you are actually claiming here, before I try to comment further?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes to both. I believe that the videos for the most part are real enough with planes being added using CGI. I endorse Ace Baker's work. Why do I need to comment on the collapse times? They were what they were. Gravity free fall. Possible with the explanations I've previously provided.

      Delete
  16. Simon Pimon wrote:
    "The building 7 was apparently hit hard when the two tall towers went down, and set on fire which lasted through the day."

    Indeed - the very notion that Building 7 "caught fire due to falling debris" (as of the official tale) is ridiculous in itself - and has always bothered me (in the back of my mind). However, I have only recently attempted to wrap my head around this bizarre and - apparently - quite unnecessary, additional tall tale for the public to buy.

    Likewise, I have only recently focused my thoughts on that truly gigantic cloud of smoke which engulfed Manhattan for hours on end that day. To be sure, no controlled demolitions - however large - generate such a humongous amount of dust lingering in the air for such an extended period of time (practically from morning to dusk).

    So I have, only a few days ago, tentatively formulated a plausible scenario which, however speculative, may possibly go to explain the following two issues which, in fact, have been largely ignored / unexplored by 9/11 researchers to this day:

    1: Why did they say Building 7 caught fire?
    2: Why did Building 7 fall only in the late afternoon?

    "THE 9/11 SMOKESCREEN":
    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2391828#p2391828

    Thanks to everyone for taking time reading this recent musing of mine and, better still, to submit your own comments as to the likelihood (or not) of my proposed scenario. And no, I do not pretend that this is precisely how it all played out - I only submit it as a possible explanation of the mysteries surrounding Building 7.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm putting my money on it, even without the piss poor debunking that inevitably will follow. It was the control centre for the whole job, kind of master switch. And of course the storage for smoke machines, the smoking gun; as the cheeky donkeys at AE 911 amicably call it.

    To me, it seems they try to keep low profile on this building, off the headlines as much as possible. I never heard of this building until a few years ago and I would assume most people still never have.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John Connour said : " I endorse Ace Baker's work. "

    I'm familiar with Bakers claims. As part of his theory he claims that the Hezarkhani video is genuine, apart from the plane image he claims was inserted into the otherwise genuine "real-time" footage, correct?

    But that theory is demonstrably wrong.

    See: "Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani] ":

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

    John Connour said :" Why do I need to comment on the collapse times? They were what they were."

    You don't need to do anything. However, if you are claiming standard demolition but that the building collapse sequences are genuine, it seems to me that you must either believe that it is possible to demolish 500,000 ton, 100+ story steel frame buildings with dynamite in 18- 20 secs for each building [ as the CNN footage shows for WTC1], or you believe that it was possible to do it with dynamite in 11 secs or less, as per NIST .

    Just curious.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow OBF!

      The link you provided is very convincing. I totally agree the Hezarkhani clip can not be from a handheld camera. The shot is just to steady & centered.

      I agree. It is the building moving not the plane.
      It would be impossible to keep the plane centered in that shot.

      Good Job!!

      Now, I think you got Fetzer, Fox, Greenhalgh hands down! Fetzer has spent much time focusing on the Hezarkhani. So I think it is safe to call it missed focused.

      So, if the guys run and hide not addressing your point.

      WE CAN ALL CLAIM. THE REAL DEAL IS A LIMITED HANGOUT!!

      Dr. Fetzer we are calling your name. What have you got to say for yourself?

      Will this be another one of my comments you remove?

      Delete
    2. You're jumping to conclusions. "It was a 500,000 ton building so only mini or micro nukes could bring it down." Look, everything is scalable. If you can bring down a 50,000 ton building with conventional explosives then you just multiply your factor by X to bring the larger building down. I don't think it's any big deal they brought the towers down by a conventional method. I guess exotic weapons makes everyone get excited.

      Delete

    3. John: why are u soooooo consistently stupid?--if it was conventional demolition, then where's the rubble pile?--it would have to be about 10 - 12 stories high, wouldn't it?

      But there was no rubble pile, as Jewdy Wood pt.s out, w. numerous notes, Wood then posing DEW. Fetzer goes w. nukes, though he doesn't explain Bankers Trust bldg. which had to be dismantled.

      Bldg material went UP into the air, for the greater part--this is Wood's entire thesis--at WhereDidTheTowersGo.com

      Delete
    4. Then there's the seismic evidence--the bldg. materials don't seem to have hit the ground, eh? Ho ho ho ho. And there was none to little damage done to "bath-tub" walls, per Jewdy Wood, etc.

      I say it could well have been any number of things happening, both conventional explosives, and also either nukes or DEW--it could have been both nukes AND DEW, but I rather go w. conventional and DEW.

      Delete
    5. apsterian,
      You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

      You praise OBF on his research related to the Hezarkhani footage. Yet, you are still arguing over the points Fetzer and Wood make.

      IMO, Fetzer has been totally discredited as a scientist and a real 9/11 researcher.

      Fetzer, COME HOME and RETIRE!!! If you have not taken the time to look at OBF research. It means you are ignoring evidence that could be used to arrive at a correct hypothesis.

      I no longer trust your views, Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh, and Gordan Duff. You folks are just another LIMITED HANGOUT!!

      OBF points out too many shenanigans in the 9/11 video footage not to be take seriously.

      "apsterianAugust 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM

      Thanks much for ur quite sensible analysis--the bldg. really does seem to move into the plane, and as u say, it's impossible for plane to travel at 500 mph--or anywhere near that speed--which is mere aerodynamic principle well-known by aviators, such speed only possible quite high-up in atmosphere where air is much thinner, allowing such cruise-speed. Thanks again. A."

      Am I confused?

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

      Delete
  20. No Black Knight as of yet put meat on the table. It's like playing a video game on the easiest settings. Just pull the trigger. Planes were faked and so were faked the victims. This is beyond reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt. With that in mind all John can grab is a pizza, even if he tried to say something interesting, which he won't, because they never do, the Black Knights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No people killed?--there seem to have been many victims, much damage. "Families" report missing members, etc., then there are the people suffering fm the nuclear residues and other contaminants at the scene. "Beyond reasonable doubt," ho ho ho--u're a moron. Ho ho ho ho

      Delete
    2. apsterian show me the verifiable proof of one person died on 9/11?

      Delete
  21. yea yea, and my neighbors families friends parrot who happened to know the deceased Eminence for years will back me up on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Exactly - well put, Simon Pimon:

    Fetzer will rather grab a pizza rather than making any serious, physical efforts to unveil the 9/11 truth. Oh dear...oops! I'm typing these words on Fetzer's very own blogspot - I guess I'll be banned in a minute or two. Then again, probably not. Fetzer loves me - and he'd love to chew me as pizza everyday - beyond any reasonable doubt. ;-)

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  23. Simon Pimon said....."Planes were faked and so were faked the victims. This is beyond reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If the planes were faked with CGI, so were the fireballs, the smoldering fires, the billowing black smoke and most of all, the huge openings in the facade where the "planes" entered. Then, of course, there wouldn't have been people trapped in the upper floors. There wouldn't have been people anywhere since the buildings were rigged for a classic controlled demolition.

    Why has no one followed this train of thought? JF is content to say the planes were CGI, but makes no mention of the other effects which depend on the existence of those planes. For a special effect that lasted 102 minutes, would the conspirators use cutter charges to cut outlines of a plane in a building when they could photoshop the same effect? And effective it was. What other image could have sold so many on planes hitting and damaging the WTC towers so badly as to bring them down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do something hard way if I have to, otherwise I take the easy way, then again,I make blunders. So, to judge the perps actions in hindsight trying to think of the best possible way they could follow may get you off track. What if the script was poorly optimized? The gashes could be cut and unbolted parts of walls. It's easier to do that than cover it tightly in smoke and photo shop. And it's real, whatever flavour of reality we are talking here. Then again, it's easier to photo shop and film and 3D all in advance. in peace. rather than improvise in situ when the whole thing is going down. Truthers can't come with anything useful to back up at least some parts as live videos. It could be lack of motivation. They have nothing to win. There is this guy Yankee Doodler who makes the habit of counting and measuring angles of every sticking out or in piece of metal in the gashes and makes circles around it. He wants desperately to say something but he doesn't know how.

      Delete
  24. I think it happened like this:

    9/11 was sold to the participants, the firemen, police, the media anchors, their producers and other staff, Port Authority officials and others, etc. as a "terrorism drill" featuring planes hitting the WTC.

    Much like Sandy Hook, actors were hired and in place on the date including FEMA who were present and set up on the 10th. The script of Muslim hijackers and leader OBL was implanted into the brains of the news department. The air controllers, radar, etc., had their scripts also.

    Since the buildings stood only for 102 minutes after the announcement on the "first hit." Smoke screen machines were immediately set off to obscure the buildings and the police and FEMA were in place to stop and re-route traffic and pedestrians. WTC buildings were closed and the underground trains probably halted. Lots of smoke from a smoke screen would be consistent with the narrative especially if the smoke came from near the tops of the towers.

    There were large herds of people watching the story unfold on the huge TV screen in Times Square. Many people said they didn't know planes had hit the towers until they got home and saw it on TV.

    I'll bet if you went to NYC and just hung out talking to people, on the street types, you'll get witnesses to the above scenario. (You certainly can't look like a professional researcher. You'd likely be arrested.)

    As to the photographs and videos, photographers must have collected tons of footage of the WTC, the skyline and important streets long before the event for their files. They pull these out for splicing together pieces for You Tube documentaries, etc.

    What have I forgotten? The couple of eyewitnesses for whom we need to make a hologram so their plane will be real to the eye and the Hezarkhani photo real to the video? How much time has this silliness wasted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing Will Change Till US Dollar Collapses

      If what u say is true, it isn't "silliness"--it was dilligent work done according to a plot carefully worked-out and conceived which was deadly accurate for predicting people's willingness to follow leaders, believe the Jews-media, etc.

      So what?--nothing is going to get done or would have gotten done without people getting wise to the real nature of Judaism, which is satanism (and why and how it's satanism), and Jews who are liars, criminals, psychopaths, etc.

      People were already--and still are--programmed upon Judaism being legitimate religion, based on "Biblic values," etc., the poor moronic fools. And now fools are reaping the consequences of being stupid suckers for Jews and their accomplices.

      People have known about numerous anomalies fm day one, and the anomalies have increased ever since. But Jews and satanists have activated their schizoid accomplices to keeping things going and working--which will ALWAYS work long as US Federal Reserve Bank continues to put out "money" that continues to be accepted as payment for goods & svcs.

      Jews and satanists still have all politicians and judges (and everyone and anyone) bought & paid-for, never doubt--NOTHING will change till US Dollar finally collapses as world reserve-currency.



      Delete
  25. Oh, I forgot the most important thing.

    I believe there were five tapes made--one for each network. That accounts for the difference in tints, etc. Just refer to the very first image of a plane--that big fly-like object jerking its was across the screen and from the wrong direction--on the right or from the west. Besides no blur of a plane going 500 MPH, it would have had to make a left turn to hit the south tower.

    Then, there is one lone tape, I forget which network, of the plane--a "dive bomber-"-in the form of a dot traveling in perspective from the correct direction--the south--to hit the south tower. So, the famous CGI plane footage is seriously flawed since all should match. No?

    There are other small things differentiating the tapes. Coming to mind is the Empire State building from which the chopper is either on the left or right of the building depending on the network. And don't you love the zoom ins and outs as the camera catches the action at just the right moment?

    ReplyDelete
  26. 911truthnc said: "Wow OBF! The link you provided is very convincing. I totally agree the Hezarkhani clip can not be from a handheld camera. The shot is just to steady & centered. ......Now, I think you got Fetzer, Fox, Greenhalgh hands down! Fetzer has spent much time focusing on the Hezarkhani."

    You need to be aware, Mr Fetzer was shown that same exact gif analysis of the Hezarkhani clip over a year ago, [12/28/12], when he interviewed me on his show concerning my analysis of the Richard Hall holographic plane theory.

    That same exact clip was/is a part [part 3] of my analysis of the Hall hypothesis:

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/3-total-911-video-fakery-vsthe.html


    He ignored it then, and he ignores it to this day :-) .

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record I haven't commented on the veracity of the Hezarkhani clip one way or the other.

      Delete
  27. John Connour said: "You're jumping to conclusions. "It was a 500,000 ton building so only mini or micro nukes could bring it down." "

    If that comment was addressed to me, then _you_ are "jumping to conclusions" , if not just fabricating a quote out of thin air!

    I have never stated: "It was a 500,000 ton building so only mini or micro nukes could bring it down." , neither within this site, nor elsewhere.

    If it was not me you were addressing, then you need to make that clear, and name the person whose quote you were responding to.

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John said - Yes to both. I believe that the videos for the most part are real enough with planes being added using CGI. I endorse Ace Baker's work. Why do I need to comment on the collapse times? They were what they were. Gravity free fall. Possible with the explanations I've previously provided.

    --------------------------------------------

    Adding any CGI to footage from a camera on a tripod or automated pulley is one thing. But inserting the planes images on to live broadcasts from cameras which are supposed to be on hellicopters is very risky. Why take that risk when you could just press play instead? If there is any amount of camera shake or turbulance the whole operation would be blown.

    Ace Baker says they had 17 seconds to account for any issues, I say they had more than 17 months.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's not "risky" at all. The networked WESCAM helicopter cameras are military systems with the built-in ability to overlay GPS-positioned computer graphics over video feed. Sticking in a simple blurry plane figure is child's play compared to the "everything was faked" scenarios postulated by some commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Total, all the settings were the same--the towers from a distance with the river in the background. How come one of the networks showed a dot coming from the south, the "dive bomber" shot, while the other networks showed a plane coming from the right of the screen (west). What CGI technician would make such an error? Or is that your point? Not enough time to get it right?
    (I hope you understand the "dive bomber" is the Richard Hall hologram plane theory image.)

    If you don't think waiting for the right moment to insert a plane image under such pressure is easy and wouldn't have been taken care of long in advance, you've never worked under that kind of pressure.

    Pre-recording 102 minutes of this drama,and distributing it to the networks as part of a drill was brilliant. Making it a drama, was the smartest thing to do and key to the whole success of the 9/11 event. When will you admit it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Let's make it clear the Hezerkhani clip was not seen on 9/11. Many clips were shown long after the event with the claim they came from independent amateurs. SC has traced these clips and photographers to their source and I'm not up on these details, but I believe they all come from the same commercial photo source. All of these "amateurs" are professionals, you will find.

    Something should be said about the "collapse" scenes. Since they are on the 102 minute pre-taped footage, they have to be false, special effects created and not to be taken literally as JF has done with his "top down" demolition. Please notice in this hour and twenty minute tape, there are no scenes of reporters on the ground, no ground scenes at all of pedestrians or evacuation from the towers. There are scenes of the aftermath with have to be falsified as well. Please wake up to this scam.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joan Edwards said: "Let's make it clear the Hezerkhani clip was not seen on 9/11. "

    Yes Joan,the Hezarkhani clip was first shown on CNN on the evening of 9/11 [12 pm?], I believe.

    Nevertheless, the "plane image inserted into otherwise live footage guy", Ace Baker, still claims, in part 7 of his "Psyopera" series, that the Hezarkhani sequence is all genuine, except for the plane image itself, which he claims to be an inserted image into that allegedly real time video of Hezarkhani's.

    However, this claim can be easily shown to be incorrect.

    See: "Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani] ":

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

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  34. OBF, this is an intereting interview. Could the debris have been hauled away that quickly?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdBQOe85i3M

    ? ABC News 'Where's all the rubble gone?" (12:44pm on 9/12/2001) - YouTube

    Interesting Jennings and Stephanopolous on location on lack of rubble also "no recovery of bodies."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The debris wasn't hauled away because it was vaporized. The bodies weren't found because they were also vaporized. The people were blasted into tiny pieces. The soil was rich and moist with the bodies of the dead per Frank Morales who was at Ground Zero performing last rites hours after the Towers had come down.

      The problem you face Joan is the same one all of the other shills like Shack, OBF, Steve Jones, Bollyn, Gage and Wood etc face: describing a nuclear event while at the same time denying nukes. The contradictions you guys face are insurmountable.

      The word is starting to get out into the mainstream now that what really happened on 9/11 was that Israel nuked NYC. The 9/11 Truth snowball is rolling down the hill and it's going to crush the liars and shills like Shack and OBF etc.

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

    ReplyDelete
  36. Total said : "It's not "risky" at all. The networked WESCAM helicopter cameras are military systems with the built-in ability to overlay GPS-positioned computer graphics over video feed. Sticking in a simple blurry plane figure is child's play compared to the "everything was faked" scenarios postulated by some commenters."

    Total, instead of being [overly] impressed with what you and Ace Baker imagine military technology [or whatever] can or cannot do, in the long run wouldn't you perhaps be better served by just learning to use your own eyes and judgement, and by learning what the more obvious signs of total CGI within the claimed "live", archived MSM footage actually are?

    After all, it's not really that hard/complicated, and the more you develop the basic skills and use them, the easier it becomes to discern it.

    For example : "NBC "Live" on 9/11, or "Armageddon"- Which Picture Is Real? ":

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/nbc-live-on-911-or-armageddon-which.html

    And: "9/11 Scams: 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

    and.....: "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Don Fox said: "The debris wasn't hauled away because it was vaporized. The bodies weren't found because they were also vaporized. "

    Nah, the only thing that got vaporized on 9/11 was your brain Don :-).

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brainless one: if it wasn't vaporized, what happened to the rubble?--don't u think there was too little left?

      What about seismic evidence? Tell us, brainless one.

      Delete
  39. Don said - "The word is starting to get out into the mainstream now that what really happened on 9/11 was that Israel nuked NYC. The 9/11 Truth snowball is rolling down the hill and it's going to crush the liars and shills like Shack and OBF "

    Well judging by what's going on here on Fetzer's blog, he doesn't have much support from his listeners. The majority are coming to see that 911 was a movie. Those that oppose this view and spread the nuclear propaganda seem to be his guests and VT contributors, ie you, Ian, Clare and Dennis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      Most of the listeners never post here. I get messages from them on my blog and they think 95% of the people who do post here are shills like yourself, OBF and Shack.

      The ADL funded crews at September Clueless and AE911 don't count. Very very few regular people have ever even heard of Simon Shack. Nobody believes the "102 minute movie" BS except a few misguided souls at the Clueless Forum.

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

    ReplyDelete
  41. Don Fox wrote:
    "Nobody believes the "102 minute movie" BS (...) "

    That's an excellent statement, Don - the best you've ever made! In fact, WHY would anyone believe in the 102-minute BS movie aired by the TV Networks on 9/11?

    *********

    It just occurred to me that the acronym "VT" (for Veterans Today) is the mirrored / reversed acronym of TV !...:-D

    ReplyDelete
  42. Norwegian said : "That's an excellent statement, Don - the best you've ever made! In fact, WHY would anyone believe in the 102-minute movie aired by TV Networks aired on 9/11? :O) "

    Cripes! You are right, Simon. Maybe his brain was not vaporized on 9/11 after all. [Now that's a terrifying thought :-) ].

    regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm not sure about this constant bashing of Shack and OBF... From what I heard, OBF was much more convincing than Fox in that debate they had. Why not go another round (this time, no reading from prepared scripts)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymously...": exactly WHAT was one-born-brainless "more convincing" about?

      Delete
    2. That the video evidence is fabricated and can't be taken as evidence of what happened on 9/11. There's too many anomalies in the photographic and video evidence to trust that it is genuine evidence so to draw conclusions based on it is a fool's errand. Does Fox/Fetzer and co. accept that the video evidence is tampered or totally fabricated?

      Delete
    3. I know Prof. Fetzer acknowledges the vid of the plane MUST be fake as the event couldn't have happened as it was shown on vid.

      Vids must be demonstrated as real evidence--just like ANY evidence. But note there's other evidence--like lack of rubble pile, hardly any seismic impact showing on graphs, etc.

      Delete
    4. Do you think the towers were largely empty on 9/11 as Phil Jayhan has argued?

      Delete

    5. If u're asking me, I must admit I don't know. But then, 9/11 stinks to high heaven, doesn't it?--practically everything about it.

      I know there is evidence for galvanic corrosion, not to mention the asbestos problem, which made the towers basically scrap--why then would lucky Larry have bought them?--and why would any Insurance co. have insured them?



      Delete
  44. Anonymous said: "That the video evidence is fabricated and can't be taken as evidence of what happened on 9/11. There's too many anomalies in the photographic and video evidence to trust that it is genuine evidence so to draw conclusions based on it is a fool's errand. Does Fox/Fetzer and co. accept that the video evidence is tampered or totally fabricated?"
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The only physical evidence we have of 9/11 is the television footage which has been archived of the five networks broadcasting that day. Remember there was no local coverage because the transmitters were atop the WTC2. There was one station operating (not sure which one, must look it up) as its antenna was on the Empire State.

    One would think that before working on theories, researchers would first and foremost check the evidence. What Fox/Fetzer did was fit the evidence to the theory without testing it first. Therefore, they have a top-down demolition which is rare if not impossible. There is no evidence for the 3,000 people killed except government reports about forensic evidence being matched to some bone fragments of the missing victims. Only the USGS is hard evidence, but it is still a report. Are there any samples available for independent testing?

    Because, according to the videos, there was no rubble, they have assumed the towers were "vaporized" along with the people. People, being mostly water could be vaporized I suppose, but a building that is mostly steel? Can you even dustify steel to a white powder? Steel is iron. Iron dust especially when oxidized, I would think is like iron ore--red. Or are they suggesting the iron was melted into a big blob?

    Why couldn't 9/11 been just another demolition like Hudson's department store or the Biltmore hotel? You can see these implosions and they look exactly like the smoke clouds seen in NYC people were fleeing from. Granted, the buildings were taller with a lot less concrete and masonry, but people watched, got dust on themselves and cheered the event. (Go to You Tube CDI implosions.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are also DOE water samples that contain tritium which is THE smoking gun of a thermonuclear explosion. The ground temperature was 600-2,000°F for 6 months after 9/11. No way can conventional explosives explain that.

      9/11 was a nuclear event.

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

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

    Note especially how they take down steel structures. Very easy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Joan Edwards said : "One would think that before working on theories, researchers would first and foremost check the evidence. What Fox/Fetzer did was fit the evidence to the theory without testing it first."

    One would think, but you'd be wrong :-) .

    The hallmark of nearly all 9/11 research is to elevate unchecked possible "evidence" [e.g videos, photos, government studies, seismic info, "eyewitness testimony" etc.], to the level of genuine, trustworthy evidence , with virtually no deep checking and cross- checking of that "possible evidence".

    Indeed, persons such as Mr Fetzer have made, and continue to make a number of false, methodologically inexcusable [ for a scientist], assumptions- amongst them:

    1] that the MSM video archived footage [or any other claimed footage] can be trusted, and does not ever need to be thoroughly cross-checked before being considered reliable evidence.

    2] that if enough "eyewitnesses" say the same thing about a particular event, then that makes their testimony "true" [and therefor reliable], with no need to deep-check any individual backgrounds on an individual basis. { Or, as a variation on the exact same theme; if enough videos or photos depict the same event, then that somehow makes all of those various videos/photos "genuine"].

    You gotta love it.

    Even worse, on top of all that, there are individuals such as Andrew Johnson [a Judy Wood supporter] who has a motto: "Check The Evidence", when it should be readily apparent that "checking the evidence" with anything like the standard scientific methodology , or even with standard legal principles ["burden of proof", "false in one false in all" in place ], is the very last thing that himself [and Wood] have any interest in.

    But let's not single Wood and Johnson out for "special treatment" here.

    Fetzer, Fox, Greenhalgh, Reynolds, Baker, Kalezov, and Jones etc. have all made the exact same false assumptions to reach their "indisputable conclusions " to date.

    And so it goes....

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBF: you miss the indications of real parts of footage.

      However, you & Simon discovered a lot of how TV images are not to be trusted prima facie.

      Delete