9/11 / JFK / Sandy Hook / Holocaust
Fetzer sits in for John Stokes. See http://johnstokes.info/
Monday, November 3, 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)
A message to all commenters, I am going to be monitoring the comments on this site and ALL comments must be ABOUT THE SHOW! If it's not I will delete your comment without hesitation, and not one curse word will be tolerated. We would rather have 2 comments about the show instead of 60 off topic slanderous, profanity filled nonsense. I want to be able to allow my friends and family to view the post and right now the comment section is an embarrassment to me and the people who try to bring a decent radio broadcast to folks looking for the truth.
ReplyDeleteAs an eyewitness to the development and materials procurement process of combining exploding bolts and steel cutters to accomodate the total asorption of two jets into the WTCs I and II, am I a 'troll'? Final answer. Immediately after the quality control slacked off radically because of the realization of premature corrosion caused failure, the exploding bolts were ordered and were to be used "should a jet strike the towers." When i did the interview on September 11, 2013, I only faintly recollected this so I felt it was premature to mention this as a historic event. It was an historical event which I now recollect as such. No holograms. The exploding bolts were EXPRESSLY to facilitate 100% access to the impacting jets.At the time of this development during WTC construction, the organized crime factor' came through the mists and things got rough.
DeleteI remember this above commentas yesterday, and have failed in my attempts to deny it as fact. Your pal, Howard T.Lewis III
DeleteChas, bolts chosen or made to fail more easily does not explain Boeing postulate in official story vs no planes theory of all kinds.
DeleteAlso, bolts failure is not the sole issue for takedown: lack of pancakes enough at bottom, full destruction of centre spire which would have been left (like spindle) of elevator shafts, not to mention the large piece going 600 ft away or the amount of dust and fine type, are all considerations, among others.
Bolts are one point, though; unanimous failure per floor.
Thanks Gary. Sorry about the curse words... I'm a huge fan of your work and sometimes want to express my anger with a certain lack of dignity. I will cease to do so..
DeleteWill you please let us know when you have a complete you tube set if all your shows available.. I would love to see them set to visuals in a multipart
Multipart series'
DeleteWhen will the 'a priori' penny finally drop? The films all show the aircraft flying at a speed that Boeing, and all pilots, agree is not possible at that altitude. Ergo, the plane videos are fake. To speculate any further is pointless, which would have been the last word on the matter to Dr Watson from Sherlock Holmes, before he removed his violin from its case.
DeleteIsn't the example of the Zapruder film a warning? Its veracity was taken as a given (because most people couldn't even imagine the sophisticated deception in a 'believe what I see' culture) until all the great work exposing it as a fake was done by Jim Fetzer and his colleagues. 40+ years of making hypotheses on 'back and to the left' et al has just had the research community chasing its own tail for all this time to the great amusement, I'm sure, of the perpetrators. Taking Zapruder as 'a priori' meant that any conclusion was doomed to failure. Now we have as our 'a priori' that Zapruder is a re-edited version of what took place, the conclusions are becoming more and more convincing in the context of all the other evidence. What previously appeared to be riddled with paradox is now looking like a coherent narrative. If your a priori assumption is false then so will be your conclusion.
We're not seeing what actually happened to instigate the initial explosions at the twin towers, just as with Kennedy's wounds. If they needed to fake films of planes flying into the building then it's a probable certainty there were no planes, otherwise they could have shown the real ones flying in at the actual speed they could mange at 700 feet and demonstrating the 'Newtonian' crash physics that would have resulted. The problem there is that it would have made the subsequent collapse of both those massive buildings implausible, even to the really dim.
Zapruder's film was altered to remove the limo stop and try to make it conform with shots from the rear. I never could understand why it took so long for people not to see the paradox of the blood splash exit wound at the front, conforming with a shot from behind, countered by the sharp body movement to the rear, conforming with a shot from the front.
Perhaps it was a deliberate red-herring or an anomaly they couldn't fix in the alteration. Either way, it led to a lot of confusion and must be one of the most successful works of disinformation ever fabricated. Provable fake films of planes is evidence that there were no actual planes. If there was some clandestine, holographic projection that any credible eye-witnesses saw (this area seems complex) or missiles or whatever, they couldn't be Boeing jets. If they're not Boeing jets then the 'official story' falls. Who perpetrated the visual hoax, and the monstrous crime itself, is a matter for further discussion, but they're demonstrably the heirs and successors of the Zapruder manipulators. Let's keep the a priori where it belongs and not get 'suckered in' by the quagmire of endless paradox that comes from accepting something that's impossible from the outset.
Reading on below Gary King, it would seem as though you've got a full-time job ahead of you.
DeleteGood luck.
worms 1615?
ReplyDeleteTyping "Jew expulsion Worms 1615" achieved many hits.
DeleteOne was: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15013-worms
Scroll to "Thirty Years' War".
Mr Fetzer's ongoing comparison of WTC photos for buildings 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7, as presented in this show is just a further continuation of his [and many others] own ongoing exercises in futility.
ReplyDeleteComparing one never verified 9/11 video/photo with another never verified 9/11 video/photo, and then drawing "scientifically verifiable" conclusions from them is in fact a complete denial/ ignoring of the scientific method.
For example, insisting that mini-nukes were used, based on the available [entirely unverified ] video and photographic "evidence", or, that WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds based on similarly entirely unverified video and photographic "evidence", is nothing other than bald speculation on Mr Fetzer's part.
At the very same time, it is also a complete denial of the standard burden of proof concept.
See: 9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/10/911-scams-911-truth-movement-versus.html
_None_ of the photographic "evidence" he talks about in this show has in fact ever been verified as being authentic by either himself, or others - indeed, Mr Fetzer [ and, I would guesstimate, 99% of the "9/11 truth movement"], has to this day studiously avoided the [admittedly very tedious] necessity of trying to authenticate the many photographs and videos they unanimously cite as being bona fide evidence [of whatever] .
Since day one, all 9/11 videos/photos have instead somehow been mysteriously elevated to the status of "genuine 9/11 evidence", violating both the principle of the burden of proof, and basic, standard, scientific research protocol.
Fl.175's 3 Second Time Hit Discrepancy On Live TV:
Anyone who has taken the time to research/compare, for example, the alleged live video feeds for 9/11 as archived, will discover that there is, in fact, an [at least] 3 second discrepancy between the time Fl.175 allegedly hit WTC2 on CBS and when it performs the exact same feat on ABC and CNN.
See: "9/11, Deja Vu, and "The Matrix""
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/11/911-deja-vu-and-matrix.html
I submit that _none_ of the alleged 9/11 video and photographic record should, even now, be trusted, especially by any/all alleged "professional" 9/11 researchers.
Regards, onebornfree
This guy is a hack. I have over a dozen articles on what happened to the WTC, which include evidence BEFORE and AFTER the events of 9/11. Gordon Duff, Don Fox, Jeff Prager, Dr. Ed Ward, Dennis Cimino, Ian Greenhagh and Dimitri Khalezov have all published on the use of nukes on 9/11. The sources of evidence are many and varied. Those making claims like this are either ignorant or duplicitous. There is too much rubbils like this out there. I don't want it cluttering up this blog,
DeleteThe problem with OBJ and Simon Shill's "theory" is that there is mountains of evidence that refutes it. The videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers match up perfectly with what eyewitnesses reported seeing during AND after they were nuked. The videos show the buildings exploding from the top down and inside out. That's what witnesses reported seeing. The videos of the North Tower destruction show debris being ejected towards the Winter Garden and lo and behold the Winter Garden was destroyed by North Tower debris.
DeleteThe videos shows the Towers being largely converted into very fine dust and this dust covering all of Lower Manhattan. What do you know Lower Manhattan was covered in tons of dust. Does it make any sense that the perps would produce fake videos that show us exactly what happened? Of course not. September Clueless is full of it. Their job is to spread disinfo to confuse the public.
http://1b9m613yi0qa0r935crzosac.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/keepcalmcohen495.png
ReplyDeleteTruly unbiased looking-for-the-f*ing-truth research on my part would have me tend to agree with your larger points, Apsterian. Go where the evidence leads, and it does, most every time (but give us a break from the ho ho's will ya?) OneBorn's points are always worth reading, and they make me think; but they tend toward solipsism (and I've said this here before, also to Simon) - it reduces to NOTHING is knowable, therefore NOTHING is BELIEVABLE. So we can't trust any of the video from that day. I get it. Can we trust Silverstein on PBS? At least as confirmation that 7 came down at the time we are led to believe? Or is everything fake and thus we should just throw our hands up in despair. And again, are the many "first responders" (can we believe there were any?) dying of cancer - are they part of the plot? I'll extrapolate all the way to infinity and tell my kids life is but a dream, and nothing matters.
ReplyDeleteWell not if I'm sober, I won't.
I'm sorry to know Jim Fetzer has not verified the video tape of the alleged attack on the WTC and is basing his theory of the demolition of the towers on the details found in the images.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe no progress has been made in this area. Surely, Fetzer and his associates are aware of the contradictions between the TV account and reality-- especially the insertion of CGI planes into the videos during the event itself, or were they inserted in a pre-recorded movie of the event?
Fetzer's entire 9/11 theory is based on the assumption that the television footage of the so-called attack on the WTC is an actual, real, live, accurate record of what happened.
Since we now know there were no planes, the images of planes, the fireballs and the gashes have to had been special effects. Fetzer has acceded to these points but insists the demolition pictures are real.
These are spectacular pictures of what Fetzer claims are controlled demolition by mini-nukes. Unlike standard CDs, these pictures show volcano-like ash spewing from the tops of the towers. In a conventional CD, the tops of buildings fold in on themselves and clouds of dust form at the base of the buildings. They don't explode outward as seen in the videos with clouds of dust starting at the top and running to the bottom.
In an effort to affirm the mainstream story that 3,000 people were killed in the towers, the Fetzer group has decided mini-nukes could have killed 3,000 by "vaporizing" the bodies along with the interior contents of the towers--fixtures, file cabinets, computers, etc.
After searching death records, other researchers have found evidence that 3,000 did not die in the towers and that the towers were empty on 9/11 so that a conventional implosion could be facilitated and there would be no flying projectiles created by objects in the buildings.
Judy Wood has made the same mistake by assuming the photo evidence is real. Too bad Fetzer is also doing it.
It's such an obvious mistake, one wonders if this is some sort of plot on the part of leading researcher to distract and delay the solving of the 9/11 mystery.
apsterian mostly likes C Bollyn for the emphasis on Zionist networks in his work.
DeleteFetzer, etc., also emphasize Zionism, but know that there are home-grown and other agendas also in play.
I am sick of this kind of rubbish from Compass, who must be Simon Shack under another name As I have pointed out again and again, there are at least a dozen reasons for rejecting this line of argument, including (1) that they were standing; (2) then they were not; (3) they appear to have been blown apart from the top down; and (4) converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust; (5) when it was over, there was nothing in their footprints; (6) we have lots of photos to confirm what is seen in the video footage; (7) the photographic record hangs together with regard to videos and photos taken up close, far away, in high definition and low; (8) no one has claimed that these videos differ from their own eyewitness reports; (9) the attempt to discount the video record appears to be an effort to eliminate crucial evidence receiving support from many other sources; (10) it has the objective of attempting to undermine serious research on how it was done; (11) I have therefore been forced to conclude that Simon Shack, onebornfree and Compass are working against 9/11 Truth with phony and concocted claims about failing to verify the film and photographic record, which (12) because it is internally consistent and not contradicted by any source, creates a prima facie case for its authenticity, which these faux pretend adherents to scientific method fall properly into the category of fakes frauds.
DeleteYou can't be "sorry to know" what isn't true, Compass. You are being played for a sap.
DeleteYes, Jim, there is a point after which "verification" is impossible and the choice is between radical doubt or some credulity, though even then the conclusion might seem radical to some.
DeleteHowever, Compass and Shack and OBF's radical doubt aside, there are some tower shots which have to be fake (overlaid with computer towers in some cases and in others, with fake, overlaid layering) to communicate general controlled pictures while other events were going on.
The record, without becoming a radical doubter, does contain outright fake elements.
One good example is where the semi faraway shots where the air-conditioning floors (the ones with the different design on them) are light coloured bars, not shadowed normally. These mean the longer, generally bad-looking photography shots have to include outright fake controlled scenes.
Others seem to have colour balance adjustment & different cropping to populate more channels with what are often the same shot.
However, there are other aspects of other shots and other shots in entirety which show normal-looking photography at different times, just an odd takedown method in the end, which the radical doubters add to why they think all is fake, but the two issues are not necessarily linked.
DeleteThere are images -- such as the white-out in the background controlled real-photography layer, where the inconvenient dustifying spire is cut out from view -- and the "ball" which shows something inconvenient from a camera flyby, etc.
"In an effort to affirm the mainstream story that 3,000 people were killed in the towers.."
DeleteWhat complete load of BS Compass. How do you explain the persistent high temperatures at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/11? How does a standard CD explain the responders shoes melting? It doesn't. The high temperatures PROVE underground nuclear detonations.
Your handlers will need to come up with better material if you are going to engage in complex debate on this blog.
Claire, You respond as though I am theorizing here. I am not. I was closely exposed to the WTC I and II construction from the two prototypes built and demolished out at the Brit's ARCO Nuclear Testing Reservation unttil dad bailed and still went to the WTC I and II Grand Opening where he is featured in severral of the photos of that event. We need to find out about Dick Eisenger and YOU need to realize the truth in that these portions of the exterior walls were so altered as to allow passage of the jets. This is not theory. They tested a jet crash into one in the Idaho desert early 1969. I was still in Idaho Falls living with a family associated with the project. Get somebody else who worked on this project out here so I have somebody to talk to. I have a few Thousand dollars for polygraph tests. No HOLOGRAMS. Look at the damage and get some experience working with steel and aluminum. Shoot lead bullets through a few steel and aluminum stop signs. This is not rocket science.Where is Stew Webb?
ReplyDeleteHi. You mean "mere theorizing", since all thought on how something works is theory, all explanation good and bad.
DeleteMy name is Clare, by the way. (Irish, not French.)
Anyway: I am saying, whatever the case for holograms in the sky, the bolts issue is insufficient to explain the total event happening to and remaining after the towers, but it is part of the problem.
The planes issue is far more than mere bolts, again: it involves lack of flight schedules, parts not breaking off, insufficiencies of speed and solidity for planes to act as bullets even in their main section when impacting not merely steel rivets & bolts, but layers of floors and welded outer pieces.
DeleteYou are imagining the problem without parts of the consideration you need to include; you must imagine it while including all parts of the problem.
Your testimony is important, however: Exploding bolts aside, to allow for more crunching in a 1970s-planned takedown method, THIS event was perfected over time in a different way, with NO planes.
DeleteThe wealthy people who thought they could selfindulge a 1300 story building were not geniuses. Obviously. They were arrogant, messed up, and into mind control on a Grand Scale. Fetzer is good to keep slapping myself and others with this hologram nonsense. It is the most annoying thing I can imagine. But it kept me on topic until I could remember the conversations with my father during these times of decision. My father was the guy in charge of procurement of components for a large part of the initial stages in construction. One of his assignments was procurement of exploding bolts to enable passage of a jet into the WTC I or II. We thought it was to isolate sections of the exterior should a jet attack the building. Soon it became apparent they were going to blow this place up soon after completion. Listen to my interview with r. Fetzer at The Real deal september 11, 2013. Compare the data you hear with any other interviewon the WTCs. It should be obvious I was there. Others who were there are dead of old age or given cancers or heart attacks. Skilling, my dad's boss, and others all died prematurly of heart attacks and I have had several violent attemopts on my life. I am not a criminal or do dope, or disgrace sisters and daughters. This is organized crime and it is a DRAG to deal with. my life is fukt and people still want to prance around not knowing what the heck they are talking abut because it entertains them more than the truth. I think DJFetzer wants the truth. He gets it from me. Exploding bolts and obviously cut steel provided access zones for the jets homing in on some apparatus I know nothing about. See the square steel panel cuts and smashed aluminum and steel and composite cement floortray assemblies which sliced the jets, one of which skidded the length of a WTC tower and bashed out the opposite side, flattening the nose. those panels were thin and prepped. Not theory.
ReplyDeleteThe negative effects of this e-migration was corrosion at the spots where steel met aluminum siding and the interiors of the perimeter walls rusting like mad. The predicted date was known to the point where demolition bids for a 2007 takedown was the specified time range for the project. Bids of 4.5, 5, and 5.5 Billion were received. The Bush criminal cabal had a different idea, with Larry Silverfish the queen duct taped to the prow of the pirate ship. The siding was beginning to fall off, but for the time, manageable.
DeleteSonnenfeld took a HUGE number of photos which may include a spot where an exploding bolt went off. I would never do a surgery with general anesthetic on my best friend for obvious reasons. Leave exploding bolt research up to the gods or get smart and know who to ask FIRST. Ask Dick Eisinger(pronounced Eiz'inguh'). He should be about 80 years old now, blonde to white hair, 5'8", 130-160 pounds, blue eyes, in hiding. I have found ZERO search results on this guy. He KNOWS. Is probably in Israel. I am only one such person who KNOWS about the presence and the use of exploding bolts to accomodate the jets. Silverslime only came up with part of the buyout money. MANY records have been destroyed concerning the WTCs. Note the prototypes and demo sytems were constructed out on the Idaho desert at queen Lizard II's nuke training facility.
DeleteExploding bolts are nice, but there were still no planes needed or used.
DeleteThe fact is, a) explosives deteriorate over time, b) even with the wish to help a plane into the building, it would not envelop itself wholly, without parts flying off, nor leave its wing 1/2-in 1/2-out with building in the way, etc.
Exploding bolts aside, to allow for more crunching in a 1970s-planned takedown method, THIS event was perfected in a different way, with NO planes.
The htin aluminum siding accurately recorded the shapes of the jets passing through the 'hatches'. The efforts to create a system by which these jets could pass is evident when the impact zones are carefully examined. I think they designed and incorporated these doors during construction and performed necessary maintenance until 9-11-2001 through access panels, like maintaining a mousetrap, car or truck.
DeleteThe preparation of these doors was a topic of discussion at our home in 1969 or 1970, including exploding bolts, "like Gus Grissom used to blow the hatch on his sinking space capsule after splash-down" so he could get out before the capsule sank in over 15,000 feet of water.
DeleteThe exploding bolts were an essential part of the production witnessed on 9-11-2001.
Deletel base my stated opinion on personal experience during conception and fabrication of the features of access hatches built into the WTCs I and II, not on stated hypotheses of the alleged existence of as yet undocumented or even viewed or witnessed equipment and projections. It's a guy thing.
DeleteWhat a relief. Some sensible comments here that are actually relevant to the show posted and not as simplistic as "Jewz did it, man (pass the bong)!"
ReplyDeleteLizards did it.
DeleteGreat show, James!
ReplyDeleteCrooked nose Cameron (Cameron is "Cam shròn" in Scots Gaelic and actually means "Crooked or bent nose". It is not a racist slur). When will JFK CTs be classified as "non violent extremists"?
Has Pinochio Cameron anything to say about that? I know somebody will... sooner or later.
Dr Fetzer,
ReplyDeleteWill you respond to this HONEST QUESTION of mine?
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2392547#p2392547
Simon Shack
PS: And no, Dr. Fetzer - I am NOT posting here under "Compass" or ANY other aliases - nor have I EVER indulged in such lame trolling activities in my entire life. Yes, I've been posting here for years through my old 'norwegian' Google account - but everywhere else on the web I post as 'simonshack'. .
Very intriguing. Are you saying there that image B should be a even more acute tilt than A because it was a few instances later? It is amazing that gravity didn't knock it off the side of the building after it started tilting.
DeleteBut if this is computer fakery why would they screw it up like that (contrary to what you would expect the laws of nature to be).
Simon, with great respect for your findings and your non-trolling, may I comment?
DeleteThe picture B is face-on, thus only the left-right tilt is visible (and it's slight -- evening out), whereas the picture A is from the side (corner), not to mention using a wide-angle lens, which distorts the relationship of the other building, but that is not the point.
In picture A, we see the forward tilt due to camera position, but not so much the sideways (left-right) accurately, due to lens.
I wrote:
ReplyDeleteFetzer's entire 9/11 theory is based on the assumption that the television footage of the so-called attack on the WTC is an actual, real, live, accurate [VISUAL] record of what happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Professor Fetzer, how is the above statement "rubbish." You tolerate the most outrageous posts on this site, allowing an obviously ill manic to post endless inflammatory rants here. You seldom visit the site, but the minute someone questions your nuke-Israel-did-it theory, you respond like lightening.
Thanks for showing up, Simon. I just read the link you posted and the video on Gordon Duff and was not surprised at his comment that only 40% of what he writes is true. That's the way the news media operate along with the book publishing business.
I have always taken this blog here with a grain of salt. Sometimes, there is a unique guest truth teller which makes it all worthwhile. I've followed this site for a couple of years and am not surprised the "research" has gone nowhere.
Anyone who has access to the mainstream as does Fetzer is protected by the military-intel establishment and knows he may only go so far. Imagine what would happen if he admitted 9/11 was a hoax--no hijackings, an ordinary demolition and no one died. I'm surprised they haven't called the reason for secrecy is national security.
So call any criticism "rubbish." How long do you think you current theory of holograms, missiles and witnesses is going to last? Your mind and speech are quick and you are seldom thrown on any topic and therefore the perfect guest on TV and also host should Alex Jones bow out.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2392547#p2392547
ReplyDeleteGordon Duff admitted long ago that he makes up a large part of the news at Veterans Today.
In late 2012 he said:
"About 30% of what's on Veterans today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is, at least purposely, partially false. Because if I didn't write false information, I wouldn't be alive."
Here is a video:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m-ZY0R1HdQ
It's still probably better than Infowars which has lots of correct information yet when it comes to for example 9/11 they have more false information than the Fetzer show. And despite that I still listen to Infowars! Alex Jones sometimes has really good information, so instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater I look for what could be true in alternative media.
DeleteCase in point: There were NO real planes on 9/11. To Alex Jones I would say: I repeat: there were NO planes on 9/11. Jim Fetzer has hammered the points of this fact again and again. Alex Jones was even a producer for one of the Loose Change documentaries iirc. Hello? Wake up. Alex should invite Jim on his show and have a discussion.
DeleteThere were jets hitting the WTCs I and II, but not the jets sent up as flights 11, 77. 175, or 93. Hatches had been prepared.
DeleteI think I should hide. There were entrance hatches prepared during construction, and the siding was destined to begin falling off from corrosion 30 to 35 years after the Grand Opening. Holograms do not bash holes in steel buildings. Note details of the damage.
@Chas Pinking The holes in the towers were done using explosives including shaped charges. The flashes that can be seen at the time of both "plane" impacts were flares that served as time and position markers for video editing and the insertion of CGI planes.
DeleteNo. Hatches were designed and at this time, I recall only two actually built in. Cutter charges square cut incident exterior perimeter panelling unless the hatch concept was totally carried through back in 1969-1970. The bright flashes witnessed just before contact appear more to be electrical discharge than phosphorous or any cutter. The hatches needed to be opened to allow pqssage of delicate jets. These flashes could haveserved as markers for image insertions, but only on video poduction. Access hatches were not built for video production.markers. They were made to allow access to jets or other aircraft.
DeleteFROM THE VINNY EASTWOOD-JAMES FETZER INTERVIEW:
ReplyDeleteQuite a number of witnesses who saw the plane. Guided missile cue to 30:00 interview by Vinny Eastwood full link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-r1SXFcc6Q
Don Fox said:
ReplyDelete"How do you explain the persistent high temperatures at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/11?
"How does a standard CD explain the responders shoes melting?
It doesn't. The high temperatures PROVE underground nuclear detonations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do you know how high the temperatures were? State your source and explain how any work got done if shoes were melting.
I've heard your mini-nuke story which you expect us to believe without proof. What I see is that your "handlers" have said to blame everything on Israel and not the US government or the FBI which did the investigation.
Compass wrote: "How do you know how high the temperatures were?"
DeleteI did some basic research buddy. Which you have either failed to do or you're a total shill. I've posted this stuff so many times that I figured everyone has read it by now. But for the record here we go again:
Handheld app eased recovery tasks
By Trudy Walsh
Sep 09, 2002
"the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.
'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said.
I'm not going to repost all of the melted shoe stuff again. You can read that in the comments from my 3/25/13 appearance.
Clare Kuehn said:
ReplyDeleteYes, Jim, there is a point after which "verification" is impossible and the choice is between
==radical doubt=== or some credulity, though even then the conclusion might seem
==radical== to some.
However, Compass and Shack and OBF's
== radical doubt==aside,....The record, without becoming a
==radical doubter==, does contain outright fake elements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Must have hit a nerve. The troops have been sent out to discredit. Clare likes the word "radical" and "doubter." Don Fox just believes because he wants to. Forget logic and common sense. Also, they're protecting their vested interests. There must be quite a cottage industry in 9/11 as there was with JFK.
Troops? I made specific points about footage and planes.
DeleteRadical doubt means deep doubt which forgets all compass points from common sense; even when some things from common sense must change to fit a new common sense, not all must always.
DeleteIt is a philosophical mistake.
Radical means root, from radix in Latin. (Radish comes from the same root, by the way.)
DeleteIt is not a slight, from social insults, such as "you're a radical". It means holding doubt not as temporary, then checking back with less doubt, until the best sense of evidence can be gotten, but rather holding doubt as constant to the point of forgetting less intense positions which might better explain evidence.
There is plenty to remain doubtful about, for 9/11, or JFK's death, but not all things.
"Radical" comes from the Latin word "radix" meaning "root" (Late Old English "rōt", from Old Norse "rót", related to Latin "radix" and also to the English word "wort".)
DeleteJust to say that ' getting down to the "roots" ' is something you know plenty about, Clare.
Just kidding, Clare.
DeleteCanada and Canadians are great!!
2 indications Ottawa Shooting was fraudulent (except, perhaps, killing the nut-patsy dupe):
DeleteID for "corporal" expired 2 days after shots, relatives from US only, no indication he was Cdn Citizen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylHXhNZnVKc
CPR on at least 1 = fake (to the side: news moving footage shown after still from news footage):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx1qznkr-b8
Nice point, Berg.
ReplyDeleteWell, JFK CTs are called buffs (a kind of extremism) and nuts (implying non-violence).
But most disinfo or mere misinfo pieces on CT tend to use JFK CT as a tossoff item, not a current-issue hot button.
I'm sorry, Clare, but "radical" and "extremist" are words used by the MSM to discredit people whose ideas are too truthful for their taste.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I have a hard time understanding your posts. You have a unique style of writing.
By "troops," I mean those who always show up to defend the Fetzer point of view.
I can't understand why examining the now archived videos, shown by the five networks of the first 102 minutes, is so threatening to your theory. You do acknowledge there are planes in those videos and not the Hezerkani shot. Because the transmitters were atop the WTC, the local stations were not broadcasting. Sometimes its the lack of evidence that is the evidence.
Compass:
ReplyDelete" Frankly, I have a hard time understanding your posts. You have a unique style of writing."
"...a unique style .." ?
I think the you mean "disjointed, inarticulate and rambling gibberish". Clare has always had severe communication skills and lacks the ability to think straight or write coherently. Clare's comments here are almost Kafkaesque and Joycean in their abstruseness that you'd need a machete to cut through her rain forest stream of consciousness BS to find out what she actually means. Professor Fetzer himself has written that Clare can be dumb as a post
on occasions. The truth is that Clare is ALWAYS dumb as a post as far as posting comments on this blog is concerned. I really think it has something to do with Clare's being Canadian.
Hey! I like Clare. She cares about the Beatles. Read my input and try to find an opening, you whelp. That part about Clare being Canadian was a low blow, ay.
DeleteYou talkin' to me, pal?
DeleteClare and me go back a long
way. So be silent! I'd write STFU in FULL but Gary doesn't allow it.
So be silent!!
You talkin' to me? I was saying about Clare, in public, in a favorable manner and I don't like abusive knuckle draggers. I am a knuckle dragger, but not abusive.
DeleteCompass said :"Professor Fetzer, how is the above statement "rubbish." You tolerate the most outrageous posts on this site, allowing an obviously ill manic to post endless inflammatory rants here. You seldom visit the site, but the minute someone questions your nuke-Israel-did-it theory, you respond like lightening."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree, funny, those lightening-like responses dismissing us as "rubbish" . :-)
Also, apparently I'm "a hack" [and presumably yourself too] according to Fetzer, merely for pointing out the undeniable fact that he has _never_ attempted to independently verify _any_ alleged 9/11 video or photo; and the fact that he does not even know how to so do; _and_ the fact that he has no intention of ever so doing, _and_ the fact that he is way too arrogant to ever admit to any of the above facts.
Also apparently according to his post here November 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM:
"........Those making claims like this are either ignorant or duplicitous. There is too much rubbish like this out there. I don't want it cluttering up this blog,"
Which sounds like a threat of a ban to me and you [ or am I imagining these things?].
But if I'm not imagining things, I'm not surprised at Fetzer's crazy irrational responses here- they are merely "par for the course"
Regards, onebornfree
Dear OBF,
ReplyDeleteI guess that also makes shack a hack?... :-P
Btw, is Dr. Fetzer going to respond to my simple, HONEST QUESTION that I submitted to him yesterday?
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2392547#p2392547
Yes or no? (*soft drum roll over ticking clockwork*)
Simon Shack
You guys should zip up and go home.
DeleteNorwegian[Simon Shack] said : "Dear OBF,
ReplyDeleteI guess that also makes shack a hack?... :-P
Sorry, I forgot to include you Simon. Please forgive.
Of course, you would be considered "Shack the Hack" - aka "hack" numero uno, I presume :-)
Norwegian[Simon Shack] said : "Btw, is Dr. Fetzer going to respond to my simple, HONEST QUESTION that I submitted to him yesterday?
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2392547#p2392547 "
Don't hold your breath waiting, Simon!
Regards, onebornfree
Delete" Sorry, I forgot to include you Simon. Please forgive. "
Am I included?
Isn't it wonderful to have some
ReplyDeleteof the old stalwarts back posting on
the blog? Clare Kuehn, Onebornfree, norwegian.
All boring, of course.
But reliably boring.
Everyone is all up in arms because of a questioning whether or not the video evidence is real or not.
ReplyDeleteSeptember Clues has spent years analyzing the videos played on TV that day and has concluded most of the videos were faked and what we saw "live" on 9/11 was not "live" but taped prior to the event using special effects and computer graphics imagery.
Now, what is so terrible about checking out the video record to see who is correct?
Why base your theories on tainted evidence?
Sincerely,
Joan Edwards (and I did not change my screen name on purpose.)
1. We don't need any videos to prove that the WTC was nuked.
Delete2. The extent videos of the WTC demolition match eyewitness reports.
3. The ADL has a big budget. Tell them to get you some better material. The September Clueless garbage is a total joke.
It's not just media fakery. It's all out mass fakery on all levels coming from the top of the ladder. Say, someone you can't see is kicking your ass. When your accusations are false he will continue and your butt will get sore. I'd say cut the leg and the problem's gone. Anyone is capable of fakery, not everyone has the means to pump big scams. What we are doing in the froth community is to work out how to defend ourself against ourself. Now you may not get it, but we are the only beings at the moment capable of ethical progress. Forget the perps whoever they are. Military or jews or otherwise. Cut the pipe. It will go belly up on itself.
Deletesee what I mean, cut the pipe, cut the pipe. The effects are already visible.
DeleteI and others have pointed out that parts of the labelling of "fake" are overdone, though pre-set and some controlled faking are part of the record; other evidence suggests live footage but under control in case of problems.
DeleteThe Sept Clues work finds many things; not all of the benchmarks they drop should be dropped. They move to radical doubt, where real must prove itself beyond the ability of real to do so. Faking and fudging and funnelling of footage sources is present. So is real footage, presumably because most humans don't dare to do all fake, nor would it truly suit perpetrators to have no record of an event for us, nor would it be good if something untoward happened (to have no example of it), nor is all of it from the moments of the takedown.
Sept Clues found doubtful items, but went too far. Love them otherwise.
Great to see the old favorites back!
ReplyDeleteClare Kuehn, Onebornree, Norwegian.
What this blog needs is incisive, insightful, coherent and cohesive debate. Clare Kuehn, Onebornfree and norwegian will supply what is needed.
No doubt about it!! No doubt about it!!
You are excused for your mockery by me, of anyone, but especially of me, where it is completely unwarranted.
DeleteMs. Kuehn, your lack of the necessary attention to detail is clouding your thoughts just a bit. My story is a strange one, to be sure. I have had numerous girl friends scream in my face what a son of a_____(cad) I was when I warned them about the violence potential and twice that many men told me to shut up and drink my beer or get lost. Meanwhile I watched time elapse and with a dread based on personal observation and experience, I waited in wonder if the pigs were actually going to blow up the WTCs I and II. WTC 7 was built by another company, so beyond generic questions concerning materials science or observations from 9-11 video recording, I can not say much. Larry Silverstein, Rudy Giuliani, the heads of the NYPD and NYFD all knew they had picked a day to blow the WTCs. Silverstein was merely the queen duct taped to the prow of the pirate ship which was mainly after the gold and laundering 240 billiobn in counterfeit securities. It is dangerous to physically shake someone into an alert state, So I will let you decide what event or action or observation would convince you of the veracity of my claims. Go back over the 9-11-2013 interview I did here at The Real Deal and compare it to what GDuff came up with. Obviously I knew a few things going back over 30 years, some of which has yet to be found in documents. some bizarre data verified by Sandia and President Putin. Read through my comments at VT and here at The Real Deal. I bullshit you NOT. I was there moments after the Skilling Engineering people decided to go through with the project even though this nuke demolition system was being installed. As I have said a thousand times since late1969, I researched and documented this sacrificial pyre to Molloch at least a year before the Grand Opening, where my daddy can be seen in numerous shots. Remember, if a piece of lead travels fast enough, it can pass through steel or aluminum traffic sign and continue on. I am not arguing with Dr. Fetzer, who I respect very much. I suggested the best way to elicit TRUE details concerning the construction of the WTCs I and II and the demolition systems (which I firmly believe were updated and refined) was for him to continue postulating that which was reasonable but would aggravate me until a historical truth could be accurately RECALLED, not invented. Exploding bolts installed at relevant locations and by examining numerous videos from MANY different sources, it is evident that the exterior perimeter panels were cut so as to be easily knocked into the WTCs with a minumum of lost forward momentum. These panels were all of a standard dimension. The 'hatch' could have been ready since 1970, but whether it was completed at that time or much later, as just before the attacks, I do not know. Perhaps the exploding bolts my father asked me about and electrical switches were swapped out periodically as a maintenance procedure.
ReplyDeleteMr Fetzer Claims WTC7 Collapse Time Was 6.5 secs?
ReplyDeleteLet's see.
Fetzer apparently agrees with the NIST that the total collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were approximately 9 and 11 secs.
And yet, contrary to Mr Fetzer's 6.5 sec claim, NIST states that it took 5.4 secs for a mere 18 floors of WTC7 to collapse:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
.....leaving 1.1 secs for the remaining 26 floors of WTC7 to magically turn to dust and confirm Mr Fetzer's claim of a total collapse time of 6.5 secs for WTC7.
Pretty impressive going for those "mini-nukes" :-)
I guess Mr Fetzer only agrees with NIST when its convenient to his magical "dustifying" mini-nuke theory :-)
Meanwhile, allegedly truthful [ :-) ] seismic records from Columbia University for WTC7's collapse appear to show a total collapse time of anywhere between 10- 20 secs :
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html#wtc7level
As someone once said here: "Ho, ho ho".
Regards, onebornfree.
Is Dr. Fetzer going to respond to my very simple/ straightforward / HONEST QUESTION that I submitted to him four days ago (Nov 13)?
ReplyDeletehttp://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2392547#p2392547
Thanks for a kind reply, even if the answer is "no".
Simon Shack
Don Fox November 14, 2014 at 7:50 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Jim Fetzer
"....The videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers match up perfectly with what 'eyewitnesses' reported seeing during AND after they were nuked."
"The videos show the buildings exploding from the top down and inside out. That's what 'witnesses' reported seeing."
Don, there should be a record of these "witnesses"--their names, addresses, and where they were located when they witnessed all this. Where is it?
================================
"The videos of the North Tower destruction show debris being ejected towards the Winter Garden and lo and behold the Winter Garden was destroyed by North Tower debris."
"The videos shows the Towers being largely converted into very fine dust and this dust covering all of Lower Manhattan."
"....... Does it make any sense that the perps would produce fake videos that show us exactly what happened? Of course not......... "
=============================
Don, you just finished saying the video footage matched what the (alleged) "eyewitnesses" saw.