Terrific episode.Professor Fetzer, Allan has pretty much confirmed what Phil Jayhan and his friend Larry have been exposing for years. That 9/11 was almost entirely a Hollywood style movie presented to us as real events by the media.I myself had a hard time buying into this theory given the extent of Mossad involvement (who I now believe were simply outsourced thugs whereby the operation went horribly wrong for the Americans as a result). But on their forum called "let's roll" they expose countless frauds claiming to be witnesses, survivors, and even firefighters. People making the most absurd claims. I went through each and every one of the videos featuring these hoaxers and lo & behold I found Phil and Larry were spot on.The problem is that all the youtube links on their forum is now out of date so one has to take down all the names and manually search for these phonies on youtube to confirm these findings. But they are absolutely correct.Jim, all the stuff about deathrays and holograms and exotic technologies, has been the work of disinformants like Judy Wood. None of it is true.The explanation behind all of this is simply special effects, fake witnesses, contrived evidence implicating the Arabs, and so on. Indeed there were no planes.Once again, you have my thanks for another great show. And to Allan as well.
"Allan has pretty much confirmed what Phil Jayhan and his friend Larry have been exposing for years" Let's give credit where credit is due. Jayhan's research is, as far as I can ascertain, primarily based on the pre-existing research of Simon Shack: http://www.cluesforum.info/..... and before him, researchers like "Still Diggin": http://911logic.blogspot.com/Regards, onebornfreehttp://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/
This show can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuhZxjeUSwUThe guest is on the right track, I guess, but like Fetzer he's still "way behind the curve", in my opinion.For example, regarding the burnt out car imagery he presented: If we disregard the photos that obviously were taken nowhere near the WTC complex, and concentrate only on those that show some sort of obvious relation to the alleged destruction areas via their backgrounds/foregrounds of building wreckage and dust etc., it seems to have completely escaped the guest that these images are wholesale fabrications, that is, an image of a burnt or trashed car or truck or bus was planted [via photoshop or similar], into a fake back ground and foreground. Instead he holds to the photos as being genuine, BUT with real , wrecked cars being towed to the WTC area, and then photographed . Yeah , right :-) . Also, the "plane into building" videos, [Fl. 175], all of which he mistakenly assumes as being genuine because he "knows" about "laser cannons" and sees "evidence" of one in the footage. Now You See It- Now You Don't:Unfortunately for him, for one thing the supposed tell tale sign of a laser cannon he focusses on does not appear in all versions of the various videos he referred to [Fairbanks, Hezarkhani etc.].For another thing _all_ of those videos reveal many _internal_ anomalies and inconsistencies , which prove them to be 100% fabrications individually [ i.e sky, foreground, background, buildings etc.], as well as many external [i.e. video compared to video] anomolies and inconsistencies. No Laser Cannon!In other words, there was _no_ laser cannon; the flash is fraudulent,[possibly a left-in by mistake video fakery marker for the plane image entry point] just like the plane images, the building images, the explosions and smoke, and the the foregrounds and backgrounds seen in the various Fl.175 sequences.This has all been demonstrated , over and over again, [almost "ad nauseum" in fact] by researchers such as Simon Shack:http://www.cluesforum.info/ and Still Diggin': http://911logic.blogspot.com/since around 2006-7.Regards, onebornfree.http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/
This comment has been removed by the author.
At the end of this show a caller comes on and an analysis of the first strike movie [ the Naudet Bros footage] is seen. The voice over in this "analysis" sounds suspiciously like the, er, "researcher" Richard Hall. Regardless of whether it is Hall or some other charlatan doing this "analysis", as far as I can tell from the sample clip shown, they have blatantly ripped off the pre-existing [7 years old!] research done by Simon Shack in his expose of the Naudet Bros fabrication:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyMI'm betting that Mr Shack received no credit whatsoever in this particular [Hall?] video :-). Regards, onebornfree
Anything dense and heavy falling from about 1500 feet will be going about 300 ft/sec, 210 mph. If the thing weighs 9 tons it would have 27 million ft. lbs. of force. Since it wouldn't be falling straight down it would probably make a crater that it would bounce out of and roll. Dr. Fetzer's comment that R. Roth has a photographic memory brings to mind that K. O'Brian also has one. Maybe Ms. Roth is not consciously aware of her programming.
Dear Mr Powell, For your information: seeing alleged evidence of "laser cannons" in various videos, regardless of whether or not such things exist [I have no idea myself], is absolutely no excuse for the researcher [yourself]] to then assume that the videos themselves are in any way genuine. To make such an assumption is procedurally incorrect, or to put it another way, you have your investigative procedures "bass ackwards" :-) . All of those videos have to first be individually checked to see if they contain signs of video fakery, _before_ they could ever be individually, or collectively trusted as conclusive evidence of "laser cannons", or of anything else. No wonder Jim likes you, he has consistently endorsed, and identifies with, the exact same "bass ackwards" investigative procedures as yourself :-) . 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.htmlRegards, onebornfree
I tried to comment at the youtube site for this show while logged in to my own account there, but was unable to so do. WTF? No regards, obf
Allen Powell @ 2:32 asked:"Tell us what Goebbels said about the big lie?"Prof. Fetzer replied:"Well, Goebbels and other propagandists well understood that if you tell a lie that's big enough, that the people just don't challenge it because well, they're used to telling little lies."Wrong about Dr. Goebbels, Dr. FetzerGoebbels always maintained that propaganda had to be truthful. I know of no evidence that he actually said it. I haven’t read everything Goebbels wrote, but I have been through a lot of it. Goebbels actually accused others of using the technique.."One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”--Dr. Josef Goebbels, “Churchill’s Lie Factory,” 1941
It is nice and useful piece of info. Please keep us informing like this. Thank you for sharing this.Money For Junk Cars | Junk cars | Junk Yard
(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: