Monday, March 16, 2015

Unequivocal 9/11 Nukes

Jim talks 911 with Structural Engineer Joe Olsen
Posted by at

17 comments:

  1. OnebornfreeMarch 24, 2015 at 8:25 AM

    "Unequivocal 9/11 Nukes"?

    I'm sorry, but this is more like unequivocal B.S., as far as I can see. :-)

    Mr Fetzer continues to entirely ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence uncovered by researchers such as Simon Shack, who have repeatedly demonstrated, since 2007, [ ie for 8 years !] , that _all_ of the original, as archived, MSM network footage of the key events of 9/11 was/is all pre-fabricated [ on computers], including the "live" 2nd plane strike [Fl.175] into WTC2, plus all 3 "live" broadcast tower destruct sequences [WTC's 2, 1 and 7] .

    Meaning, photographs and/or /videos of the tower collapse sequences _cannot_ be relied on as irrefutable evidence that proves a definite demolition methodology, whether it postulates nukes, mini-nukes, direct energy weapons [D.E.W.] or something else.

    Those photos/videos simply do not/cannot meet the burden of proof standards for evidence required by any real "stickler" for the common or garden scientific investigative methodology, let alone those required in legal [ie criminal courtroom] investigations.

    And so it goes.....

    See: "The Power of Imagery": http://septemberclues.info/power_of_imagery.shtml

    See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 24, 2015 at 1:26 PM

      Simon Shack fails to adequately prove his assertions, although the parts about fake airplanes makes some sense. However, to insinuate that ALL video is faked is ludicrous.

      And this does not delve at all into his other, more insane claims about other subjects.

      Shack, at this point, offered some insight to the 911 story, but pitifully falls short other than the one issue I agree with.

      On another note, you appear to have some sort of weirdo fascination with Mr Fetzer. Is it the mutton chops you so desire?

      Delete
    2. joan edwardsMarch 25, 2015 at 12:24 PM

      Beulahman doesn't seem to know whether there were planes or not. If he hasn't figured that part out yet, what makes him an expert on "ALL" of the video evidence or Simon Shack's work? He needs to take a year of so off from posting and do his homework and get up to speed on 9/11.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 29, 2015 at 3:51 AM

      @joan:edwards (the misdirection specialist)

      When did Buelahman ever express he was an expert on any of this? Unlike you, who apparently feels they are quite the expert.

      I bow to your superiority and vast knowledge (found in a lonely spot within your own mind).

      Delete
  2. OnebornfreeMarch 24, 2015 at 8:51 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OnebornfreeMarch 24, 2015 at 9:51 AM

    Oops, I forgot to mention in my previous post the very important question of whether or not nuclear weapons even exist.

    Question: If they _do_ exist, then why are all of the apparent visual records of alleged nuclear events quite easily unmasked as being fraudulent?

    The sheer volume of fraudulent , but "official", nuclear test footage and photos is actually very funny after a while; it is so easy to spot these amateur attempts to look like real photos or filmed events, so that after awhile one has to laugh, on a daily basis!

    For such daily laughs I invite you to visit Simon Shacks thread devoted to the "Nuclear Hoax". The thread is over 40 pages of research, and starts here :

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=452

    If you have not got the time to read the entire 40 pages, I'd recommend you start at around page 35 or so- and pay particular attention to the newer, very funny, examinations of nuclear test imagery by "Critical Mass" .

    What a hoot! :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. joan edwardsMarch 24, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    Very disappointing. You have returned to ignoring the evidence which is the video record. A structural engineer is not the same as a demolition engineer. Also, part two was not only old news but false news. Moussaoui? Please. I suppose we should not expect much when the researchers are establishment types with careers and reputations to protect. I ask then, why bother at all when you just end up further misleading the public?

    ReplyDelete
  5. joan edwardsMarch 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM

    The perps had to have created the gashes, the fires, the smoke, rigged the buildings early with nuclear explosives, trapped 3,,000 people, and not one lawsuit against the airlines? This is a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Max SmartMarch 25, 2015 at 5:42 AM

    Alex Jones was there .... who gives a damn!! Just don't mention Mossad, Satan Yahoo or Israel. Don't mention no planes. Having Jonestein there lends no credibility to any event at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OnebornfreeMarch 25, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    Buelahman said :"Simon Shack fails to adequately prove his assertions, although the parts about fake airplanes makes some sense. "

    OBF asks: "....if the on-line archived mainstream media [MSM] video records for the morning of September 11th, 2001 are in fact all accurate, and are all genuine real-time records of what happened, as recorded live by those five networks [ ABC,CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC] that morning, [as most still claim], then why does the impact of Flight 175 into the South Tower [WTC2] occur at two distinct times, 3 seconds apart, on a minimum of at least 3 out of the 5 separate MSM networks, according to those very same alleged recorded live-in-real-time on line archives?"

    See: "9/11, Deja Vu, and "The Matrix" ":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014_11_01_archive.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  8. MusketteamsMarch 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MusketteamsMarch 25, 2015 at 5:58 PM

    Mr. Olsen stated that he could not see how Judy Woods theories on directed energy weapons could be correct as there was no peripheral damage from these weapons on buildings in the surrounding area.

    Musket Teams wishes to point out that Ms Woods spend a significant portion of her presentation showing the damage to buildings in the area such as melted windows, buildings turning to rust and metal in these buildings beginning to burn years later.
    We wonder if Mr. Olsen has in fact even reviewed Ms Woods work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. joan edwardsMarch 25, 2015 at 9:06 PM

    Who is Pete Santilli and why should we care? 9/11 was a conttrolled demolition. If Fetzer and Fox want to believe it was nuclear,let them. But they shouldn't ignore evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OnebornfreeMarch 27, 2015 at 10:18 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OnebornfreeMarch 27, 2015 at 10:21 AM

    Alex DeLarge Jones said :"But they are seriously either working for Pete Santilli or some other agency to cause a divide and conquer among people who know that 9/11 was a controlled demo."

    That is a misconception, at least as regards Simon Shack.

    All he's saying is that the demolition videos are all fakes, therefor it is impossible to know exactly what demolition technology was utilized [ nor does he even care which], and also that, since it is impossible to know for certain [ because of fake videos], that he personally leans towards the idea of standard demolition technology being used [ie dynamite], although again, as far as I can tell, he really does not care if it was dynamite or not - his main point being that:

    the US MSM broadcast 100% faked imagery for 102 minutes on 9/11, including fake imagery of a plane hitting a tower, and fake imagery of 3 WTC towers disintegrating {WTC' 1, 2 and 7].

    Mr Shack [and people like myself]does not give a flying fuck about any supposed "real" demolition technology, that divisive argument is primarily between Fetzer, Fox, Wood, Khalezov etc. , and is either a deliberate distraction, or a result of genuine misunderstandings between researchers [i.e. the inevitable result of mistakenly starting from the assumption that videos and photos portraying the 9/11 events were genuine], but I'm not sure which it is, deliberate or just plain old bad research premises.

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joan edwardsMarch 28, 2015 at 9:59 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. joan edwardsMarch 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)