Tuesday, November 18, 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)
-
▼
November
(12)
- Joshua Blakeney
- New JFK Show #37 with Larry Rivera, Gary King
- Leon Smith / William B. Fox / Donny Buswell
- Larry Rivera
- James Tracy / John Judge
- Ibrahim Soudy
- Bob Fitrakis
- Jim Fetzer / John Hankey / Karl Golovin
- James Fetzer / George Lees
- Greg Johnson w/ Joshua Blakeney
- Peter Feneht / New JFK Show #34
- Jim Fetzer
-
▼
November
(12)
No link
ReplyDeleteNo link.
ReplyDeleteJust got done listening to the show. Great discussion about why Jewish Zionists are our misfortune.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant stuff from Nick Dean and SW. As the Polish saying goes: 'The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.'
DeleteI think Fetzer is correct about thermite might have been used for some of the WTC demolition but not all. For example there were huge underground explosions some 20 seconds before the collapses of the towers (in one video the camera seemingly standing firm on a tripod can be seen shaking).
ReplyDeleteThermite seems to have been used to soften the steel on the floor(s) where the collapses started.
And here is a new(?) theory: The huge subbasement explosions caused an opening up to deep, beforehand dug, holes. And that removed the bottom support for the core columns. So when the initial collapse started the whole core column section started to fall down the deep hole, literally pulling the whole building down.
Ah, I found one video with the camera shaking: 9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds before collapse -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA&t=1m25s
DeleteWell researched and designed nuke devices installed per US/USSR treaties concerning commercial application of nuclear technologies were installed per US Government/NYC/NJ Port Authority and detonated to excavate three huge basements w/o notifying the public. These were not high velocity/high pressure nukes that throw things a mile or two away. These nukes got much hotter than the surface of the sun and vaporized granite, steel, and cement, as in 'poof'. This totally and justifiably enraged enough of the public to initiate a cessation of setting off nuclear devices in urban areas and incorporating them into structures of 50 stories or more, and ANY structures within city limits. The WTCs I and II, The UN Building, and The Chicago Sears and Roebuck, however, squeaked in under the 'grandfather clause' as already done or in progress. WTC7 was delayed to be included in this exemption. NOT THEORY. I documented this stuff as it happened so my fater could bail out. That, he did.
Delete....so my father could bail out.
Delete@Chas Pinking I think the nuke theories are completely false, but yes huge excavations under at least WTC 1 and 2. That explains the tiny pile of debris at ground zero and how the core columns looked like they just disappeared.
DeleteAlso notice the soften floors at the collapse and the molten steel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2aUkKWg0J0&t=16m50s
apsterian, your parents were slobs.
DeleteAnders Lindman, the cement used throughout was a resin/filler composition cement which was more lightweight yet stronger. It was not 'pulverized' by the central nuke/mininuke updated apparatus. It was incinerated. Reports were a mere 6 psi above ambient air pressure with a mild shock wave travelling a few hundred fps. It was, however, hotter than the sun for a fraction of a second in the basement zones and perhaps higher up.
apsterian, find a good gym with a boxing ring so somebody will show you humility. Find a labor job to learn your true worth. You are too old to act the pest. Take it back to your parents. They and they alone deserve you. Or tell Michael Aquino you think he's cute.
After the initial excavation nukes, different specialized nuke based demolition rigs were installed. See Veterans Today Gordon Duff online lectures on specialized nuke technologies. It is fairly sophisticated steps all integral with decades of specifics. Dmitri Khalazov is the closest describer of what actually was originally installed, with mini-nuke updates as told by GDuff documenting and explaining some events not explainable by the original preset, which was retriggered by saboteurs. You can watch the corner columns of the Twin Towers being slow cut until they toppled, dropping the lower portions out from under the impact levels. Help find who these saboteurs were. We are too few and congress can only prance and mewl to the satanic strength behind the CFRtv.
Delete@Chas Pinking I heard, I think it was from someone on the Let's Roll forum, that the WTC towers were largely hollow and the dust a result of cement bags mounted on the inside of the facades. Outrageous I know, but it fits the "stage magician" stunt which it seems to be.
DeleteInput from too many misbred slobs has rendered this forum a sick joke. I know for a fact that the cement used for the above ground WTCs I and II was resin based and incinerated instead of being standard silica/water based Portland cement high velocity pulverized by high velocity fission blasts. NEXT QUESTION. I had for my home use monthly progress reports each a few inches thick blueprints during the first several months of construction. Hatches utilizing sectional cuts of perimeter panels and exploding bolts facilitated the smooth passing of the jets through the steel perimeter panels. The thin aluminum siding was shredded and mangled. NOT THEORY.
DeleteWe're not going to "move forward" until the photographic evidence from 9/11 is examined by experts and authenticated.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the research groups, especially those of Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer, continue to assume the video footage is real and untampered with, their research is not credible.
All of their conclusions are based upon a false premise.
Anders Lindman said : "I found one video with the camera shaking: 9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. "
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, Anders, somehow the top of the tower in the Suaret version of 9/11 reality is in direct contradiction to the NBC "live" version of the same "reality" :-) .
How does a tower manage to fall in two opposing directions at the exact same time?
Inquiring minds want to know! :-)
See: "Are The Collapse Videos Fake Too? ":
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2353593&hilit=sauret#p2353593
Regards, onebornfree.
Compass said: "We're not going to "move forward" until the photographic evidence from 9/11 is examined by experts and authenticated. "
ReplyDeleteit's already been done Joan :-) . For example [32 pages of it] here:
"CGI Collapse Footage":
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802
Regards, onebornfree.
They don't want to accept September Clues research.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it matter what explosives were used? Everyone agrees, even lay people, that it was a CD and it had to be an IMPLOSION.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2353593&hilit=sauret#p2353593
"In my honest opinion, the research at Cluesforum.info has now attained 'closure' regarding the fraudulence of virtually every imaginable aspect of the 9/11 imagery. Any longstanding 9/11 researcher who keeps dismissing our countless findings as presented in September Clues (and years of further, painstaking and peer-reviewed analyses) should be questioned for his/her sincerity and legitimacy."
"For further proof (including the fake WTC2 collapses) please go to:"
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=802&start=15
simonshack
The research groups do not even agree on something as basic as whether there were planes or no planes. The government has offered no proof of planes which they could easily do by putting into evidence the plane parts unique to the planes which are claimed to have crashed at each location.
ReplyDeleteSince there is no evidence of planes, the plane-shaped gashes in the WTC, the fires, and the smoke had to have been faked. Why is there no interest in determining how this was done?
The 9/11 Commission Report relies heavily on a story-book narrative involving stewardess's and passenger's phone calls to the ground describing terrorists and scenes in the planes of hijackings, etc.
Isn't there a law against broadcasting false information to the public and why hasn't there been an investigation of the Commission and its false report when we now know, thanks to David Ray Griffin and A. K. Dewdney, that phone calls from the planes were physically impossible?
There is no evidence of the flights in question having been boarded by passengers or hijackers and no authentic manifests were made public by the airlines. There are no boarding passes, witnesses to boarding and no security photos of the alleged hijackers.
Why is there no unanimous acceptance of these basic facts by the research community? Not all have to agree on the explosives used, a minor detail when there is so much obvious fraud.
There is the question, most important, of whether 3,000 people died in the WTC. Some researchers have convincing evidence that possibly no one died. That should be good news, however, this news really angers some. If there were no planes, there would have been no passengers killed.
Does anyone know where the Pilot's group stands on these issues particularly the "planes, no planes"?
I hope vested interests such as raising donations for the group is not affecting the minds of these pilots.
(For a while, I was getting three emails a day asking for money from this group and had no way to contact them to stop.) They should be first on the no plane issue.
@Compass If you mean Pilots for 9/11 Truth then Fetzer has said that they have found lots of evidence that no plane at all was involved. I'm already convinced of that but it's a strength to have a lot of expert evidence to back up the hypothesis.
Deletehttp://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=4ASAVJPeOJH9yQSr24GgBQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&sig2=po0CPz1oNKCBFPQ0g38xmg&usg=AFQjCNFiSaF7nfQVF-W1ltn3itdejZH_FQ
ReplyDeleteIbrahim Soudy mentioned he asked his audiences if they read the 9/11 Commission Report and no one raised their hand. I have read the table of contents and the first few pages. If you want a laugh, you can read it online. How they got away with this fairy tale is beyond me.
With the research so far, this document--the official account--could be easily challenged in a court of law. No need to even figure out what explosives were used in the controlled demolition.
Although......It would be instructive to have a demolition expert--even just a worker--on the show to explain how conventional CDs are done and what the problems, if any, would be demolishing towers as tall as the WTC.
Compass said: " Does anyone know where the Pilot's group stands on these issues particularly the "planes, no planes"? "
ReplyDeleteStay away- they are controlled opposition as far as I can see. There are prominent members with official spokesperson "status" within that group who have officially stated that aluminum planes can indeed cut right through steel and concrete and disappear whole inside buildings.
Mr Fetzer even stands up for their er.. "research"..
Regards, onebornfree
PS, the Truth and Shadows site is chock full of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" jokers, too.
Fetzer told me in a private email that he had not read Dr. Wood's book, Where Did the Tower's Go? She quickly saw through him as controlled opposition and avoids him. But being a critic of a book without having read it is hardly what I would call "scholarly."
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell with Fetzer, he seeks to lead everything and be the go-to go-through guy, a way of keeping everyone under his thumb. A secondary goal appears to be to create as many divisions as possible among skeptics. He's very good at pitting people against one another.
He also colors the movement, as his overbearing nature and dominance of platforms, run-on sentences and horse laugh are a turn-off for passers-by.
This is a grossly uninformed post. I interviewed Judy 15 times on my radio shows and each time after the first we visited her web site and went through it time after time. You have quoted me selectively to create a false impression. My book is marked up with plenty of post-it notes, but the members of her cult do not care about being fair or just, only savaging anyone whom they regard as insufficiently deferential to her.
DeleteAnders, Fetzer likes to quote George Nelson of Pilots. Nelson, however, does not go all the way to say there could have been no planes. He comes close in saying there is no evidence of the serialied parts that would be at the crash scenes.
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written..................by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)
I think Clare (a brilliant instructor of critical reasoning/thinking about conspiracies) would disagree with most of this.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe Clare is potentially the most astute commentator that comes to this blog. She understands all the positions on 9/11, evaluates them rationally (meaning, not based merely on emotion) and comes to sound conclusions that aren't predetermined before examining the evidence. She could teach you a few things about scientific (inductive) reasoning and critical thinking about controversial issues like 9/11 if you'd let her. :)
DeleteMark Tokarski said: "Fetzer told me in a private email that he had not read Dr. Wood's book, Where Did the Tower's Go? She quickly saw through him as controlled opposition and avoids him. But being a critic of a book without having read it is hardly what I would call "scholarly."
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you don't really have to read Judy's book to know her theory because she has such a great website. I used to be a fan a few years ago. Her photos and graphs were excellent. I argued for her work on message boards until they were closed down.
Fetzer does like to complain about Judy. I don't see why because they both have nearly the same theory and are ignoring the fact that the photos they are basing their theories on are all fake.
In other words, the video footage of 9/11 we thought was being broadcast live was really made in a studio and later distributed to the major networks for broadcast while a controlled demolition brought down the WTC towers away from public view probably under cover of a drill. This accounts for the impossible physics of planes flying through steel building walls or planes.
The physics of the destruction of the WTC are also wrong. Demolitions are not done from the top down nor do they "explode." They implode and volumes of volcanic ash do not spew from the top of CD buildings.
Research has been done on the video footage by September Clues, but Fetzer will not look at it as it contradicts his "mini-nuke" theory.
In any case, welcome to the discussion. Are you a supporter of Judy Wood? We've been hearing she has almost become a cult leader and has a huge following. Maybe you could elaborate on the veracity of this.
I have dealt with OBF and Simon Shack's claims so many times it dumbfounds me when I read stuff like this. There were all kinds of photos and films of the destruction of the Twin Towers, from near and far, in high-def and in low res. They all show the same sequence. If someone has a decent argument to present about this, by all means, do that. But stop with this nonsense about all the videos and photos being fake. There is no good reason to believe it.
DeleteYou have to understand how easy it is to make such videos with the technology available today so that they all look like they are of the same "event" but from different angles, distances, blurry, high-def, etc. This can all be done artificially. There still are some anomalies in 9/11 videos which Shack has pointed out.
DeleteThere is scant chance of a detente between the Shack faction and Dr. Fetzer at this late date, due to the unfortunate history of all the gross insults the former have hurled at the latter and the (understandably) stubborn refusal of the good professor to re-visit and (for the first time) CAREFULLY study ALL the Shack research with a genuinely open mind.
DeleteWhile the merry Shacksters have long since (and wrongly) "written off" Dr. Fetzer as a "gatekeeping shill," Jim has been so put off by the outrageous Shackian proposition (but not yet a flat-out assertion) that "nobody died and the images are ALL faked" that he, by now, simply CANNOT appreciate the tell-tale nuances of how the plethora of 9/11 imagery only "hangs together" SUPERFICIALLY (just as it was constructed to do) but not with true FORENSIC PRECISION.
But in truth, there are just TOO MANY (usually minor, but sometimes in-your-face) INCONSISTENCIES in the images to chalk them all up to either coincidence or compression errors.
There is scant chance of a detente between the Shack faction and Dr. Fetzer at this late date, due to the unfortunate history of all the gross insults the former have hurled at the latter and the (understandably) stubborn refusal of the good professor to re-visit and (for the first time) CAREFULLY study ALL the Shack research with a genuinely open mind.
DeleteWhile the merry Shacksters have long since (and wrongly) "written off" Dr. Fetzer as a "gatekeeping shill," Jim has been so put off by the outrageous Shackian proposition (but not yet a flat-out assertion) that "nobody died and the images are ALL faked" that he, by now, simply CANNOT appreciate the tell-tale nuances of how the plethora of 9/11 imagery only "hangs together" SUPERFICIALLY (just as it was constructed to do) but not with true FORENSIC PRECISION.
In truth, there are just TOO MANY (usually minor, but sometimes in-your-face) INCONSISTENCIES in the images to chalk them all up to either coincidence or compression errors.
Andy Tyme wrote:
Delete"There is scant chance of a detente between the Shack faction and Dr. Fetzer at this late date, due to the unfortunate history of all the gross insults the former have hurled at the latter(...)"
********************************
Andy, I have to wonder what your definition of "gross insults" would be. As far as I can recall - and as much as I have forcefully expounded why Fetzer is not to be trusted - I have not hurled any gross / or vulgar epithets at him - other than calling him a 'clown'.
In contrast, Fetzer (and his merry crew) have regularly used gross / foul language to characterize yours truly (and assorted supporters of my work). Here's a shortlist of 'niceties' thrown at us by the Fetzer faction over the years:
-"idiots" (Fetzer)
- "moron" (Fetzer)
-"whack-job" (Fetzer)
-"incredibly stupid" (Fetzer)
- "time-wasters" (Fetzer)
- "ADL shill / Zionist"" (Don Fox)
- "asshole" (Gordon Duff)
This is all documented here for the record:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389364#p2389364
But more importantly / gravely, in the below-linked VT article, a crude and vicious "hit-piece" (signed by the Fetzer / Fox / Greenhalgh trio) clearly concocted to smear me / my supporters / and my forums' hard and honest work, we are called "demonstrable fakes and frauds" and "the latest disinfo crew". To me, these qualify as the grossest insults imaginable - but of course, I can easily live with them knowing that Fetzer is what he is. Yet, I cannot help but return those baseless accusations to the sender(s). Why you should keep advocating / wishing for a "détente" between Fetzer and myself is quite beyond my comprehension.
"Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors" :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
It would be nice of you if you kindly retracted your above, erroneous & unfair statement purporting about the "unfortunate history of all the gross insults the former (me) have hurled at the latter (Fetzer)".
Thanks
Simon Shack
Please read more carefully.
DeleteI referred to the invective hurled by the "Shack faction," Simon, meaning your coterie of very frequent posters and supporters -- some of whom have repeatedly, rudely and angrily ridiculed and lampooned Dr. Fetzer, calling him the "flabby fibber," for instance, and depicting him via gross, cartoonish images.
At one point I sincerely hoped for and tried to promote a positive dialogue between you and Jim, but as I explained above, the window of time for that has long since closed and now seems impossible to reopen.
The bitter irony is that despite the now unbridgeable chasm between the two of you, your respective web fora remain ALMOST (yes, there are also the Shack faction-attacked Let's Rollers, of course) alone on the web as discussion locations where the "sacrosanct" integrity of the 9/11 imagery AS WELL AS the impossible-to-have-occurred "official narrative" are frequently and intensely scrutinised and questioned.
OTOH, even though you have flatly refused ever to engage in a web/Skype debate with Dr. Fetzer, there is still the fresh possibility you might agree to grant imagery-doubting Clare Kuehn's wish to discuss 9/11 fakery with you on her new radio/podcast.
How about it, Simon? Clare's verbal style of parry and thrust is much more laid back than that of the good (and boisterous) Dr. F.
Andy said "How about it, Simon? Clare's verbal style of parry and thrust is much more laid back than that of the good (and boisterous) Dr. F."
DeleteThe problem is that one of them doesn't speak English. Simon will have a hard time understanding her native language.
Jim Hollander wrote:
Delete"The problem is that one of them doesn't speak English. Simon will have a hard time understanding her native language."
I don't think i have laughed so loud (in my native language) in a long, long time! Thanks, Jim! :-D
Simon Shack
OBF said:
ReplyDelete"Compass said: " Does anyone know where the Pilot's group stands on these issues particularly the "planes, no planes"? "
"Stay away- they are controlled opposition as far as I can see. There are prominent members with official spokesperson "status" within that group who have officially stated that aluminum planes can indeed cut right through steel and concrete and disappear whole inside buildings.
Mr Fetzer even stands up for their er.. "research"..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, that is interesting! It could be that the pilots don't want to lose their jobs by whistleblowing--the same with Architects and Engineers. It's just not worth the risk. I wouldn't go near Pilots, A&E or any other group. Soudy has asked Fetzer to get these people to "move forward." I think we know that will not happen. The move forward will come from individuals independent of groups.
What would your solution be, OBF? I think someone should put together an anthology (you) of all the evidence so far. These points could be argued by lay people anonymously, or by the groups if they are brave enough.
Chas Pinking said:
ReplyDelete"Hatches utilizing sectional cuts of perimeter panels and exploding bolts facilitated the smooth passing of the jets through the steel perimeter panels. The thin aluminum siding was shredded and mangled. NOT THEORY."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Chas Pinking saying there were planes and that they passed through the steel perimeter modular columns? "Exploding bolts"? Something is wrong here.
"Chad" sounds like Howard Lewis:
ReplyDeletehttp://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/howard-lewis-iii.html
Lewis Howard December 11, 2013 at 8:51 PM
"exploding bolts". For some reason in the summer of 1969, Dick Eisenger of Skilling/World Trade center customer employment, was looking for exploding bolts. Why? Thermi(a)te softened or liquified panels would be guaranteed to fall in if exploding bolts were initiated just before contact. One of the 'Dancing Israelis' was a demolitions expert AND one of the Israeli 'performing artists' camped out up in the WTCs.
Freeride September 30, 2013 at 5:30 PM
"Howard, brings very important info on how the planes, that were not commercial jetliners, could enter those buildings the way they did. I have suspected that the steel structure behind the aluminum facade, was not only rusted but rotten, because the water (humidity/condensation/rain infiltration) was trapped in between both layer of materials. So the steel at point of impact was not even 1/4 of an inch thick, like previously thought. Not much resistance left for the plane to enter in pieces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
These people are saying that in 1958, the plans for planes to fly into the WTC had been made?
X
ReplyDeleteWhat happened? Is posting not allowed?
ReplyDeleteThat was a mistake. I thought of moderating, but it would change the forum too much. I have reset it as it was before.
ReplyDelete