Monday, January 12, 2015
Seattle 911 Truth Conference
Seattle 911 Truth Conference En route to the Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012), I flew to Seattle and had the opportunity to speak about the four 9/11 airplane crash sites, all of which appear to be fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways. Ben Collet and I would drive together with Dennis Cimino and Nick Kollerstrom from the UK, whom I invited to discuss the 7/7 London bombing attacks prior to my presentation. We incurred the minor disruption of a bomb threat, which I believe came from someone very prominent in the Judy Wood camp, who continues to be upset with me for not being sufficiently supportive of her and where, during the hearings, it became even more apparent that the heavy lifting on 9/11 was done by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes, which can be directed and therefore (ironically) qualify as a special kind of DEWs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent start by Fetzer in his presentation where he said that all four of the 9/11 crash sites were fabricated. Presentation from 2012? I'm amazed that people in the 9/11 truth movement still today believe there were real planes involved. They still cling to Loose Change probably. In the beginning I believed in Loose Change too, but after having looked more closely at the supposed plane crashes it was obvious that CGI planes fit what happened whereas real planes clearly do not. And at Shanksville there wasn't even any footage of a plane at all. Must have been swallowed by Dr. Strangelove's mineshaft gap.
ReplyDeleteHere again is some decent raw footage including splattered pieces of jet after one of the Twin Tower impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpfldDF52oI. Time to hit the road. Your pal, HTLIII Chas Pinking
ReplyDeleteTo what exact footage in that link are you referring, Chas?
DeleteJet pieces, really? There were items flying out from the explosions; there was possibly a part of a missile or items from within the tower which spewed out. Even if you could identify what spewed, parts could have been placed inside the explosion areas, for effect -- but no, parts of planes cannot be identified in the air and anything claimed to have been identified on the ground has problems.
Time to reconfigure your "hit the road" comment, Chas.
although I find great value in much of Prof. Fetzer's work, I refuse to believe in that which by personal experience know to be false . Though Fetzer may have done a brilliant job on Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, president Kennedy assassination research, his 9-11 contribution is merely antagonistic to me and alienates many. I am in contact with some upper level military people and know the demolition systems in the WTCs better than anyone I have spoken to or heard about in 44 years. Take care and the 'Paul is Dead' campaign was a gesture of humility over two simultaneous paternity suits.
DeleteJust so sad that our presentation audio was lost to a combination of bad technology and possible conspiratorial interference (with the choppiness of whole sentences and phrases intercutting others, interspersed). Thank you for posting this piece of the time. My slide presentation on Wood's merits and on the problems in Wood's work is available at https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/clare-kuehns-vancouver-powerpoint -- Though I am now more of a believer in mini-nuclear bombs as having contributed to the 9/11 events in NYC, the general information and considerations of merits and demerits and some side and background points stand, so I post the link here.
ReplyDeleteJim, for all that I support your inquiries into nukes vs Wood's thesis, no, it is dissembling to link nukes with "DEW" terminology, though if one looked only at the components of the DEW term, yes, one could describe directed mini nukes with those words "directed", "energy" and "weapon". You know well that the DEW term was used for both known and a type of somewhat unknown, long-debated form of energy weapon, if using a conditionality in space (not outer space) which could change matter's bonds without nuclear explosion, but with, possibly, explosive force and some nuclear effects.
DeleteThis debated form of energy weapon might be, as I outline in Part 2 of my presentation, supportable if some debated implications of public science work and some anecdotal testimony about black projects are accurate.
I am not debating here whether such weaponry is real (or whether it is possible but as-yet-undeveloped), but your repeated attempts at irony about how mini-nukes fit the component terms in the short form "DEW" are not appropriate.
I just find it ironic that, given her own definition of DEWs as sources of energy that are far greater than conventional and can be directed, mini and micro nukes qualify. We all know that is not what she has had in mind, but it illustrates that she has really not given us a lot of information about her theory (which, of course, we also know she denies even having). Judy Wood, alas, is a strange case.
Delete