tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post3593434001339048685..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Allan WeisbeckerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-83758104654964707312014-06-16T04:02:29.148-07:002014-06-16T04:02:29.148-07:00Ralph has lost his mind. Somebody please that cre...Ralph has lost his mind. Somebody please that creature, before it's too late.Mark A. O'Blazneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11322821438266439471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-72947726763223911772014-03-21T02:57:38.214-07:002014-03-21T02:57:38.214-07:00Well written post. I really appreciate your writin...Well written post. I really appreciate your writing skills. You expressed great information in your blog. Thank you.<br /><a href="http://www.eloanfinance.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Loans for Bad Credit</a>Melissa Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420484656398057113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-15412279551170252013-12-16T17:42:39.504-08:002013-12-16T17:42:39.504-08:00It seems to me that OBF and SS have a problem of t...It seems to me that OBF and SS have a problem of their own when they cite footage that they take to be fabricated or faked: WHERE DID IT COME FROM? That seems to me to be a real question for them, since it would have been easy to fake footage AFTER THE FACT--child's play, actually. So what have they done to satisfy the standard that OBF obsessively reasserts. If there is an answer to this question, I would like to know.<br /><br />Because it seems to me overwhelmingly easier to have created fake footage AFTER THE FACT and then offer it as FAKE FOOTAGE than for the perps to have created a mass of fake footage for a complicated event like the destruction of the Twin Towers and yet have ALL THE FOOTAGE--from the air, from the ground, from afar, from near--fit together so well as all of this footage does. <br /><br />And I have yet to hear of a single witness who claims that the footage shown on television of the destruction of the Twin Towers was not what they saw themselves at the time. OBF has alluded to ONE SUCH WITNESS, but surely there should have been hundreds, if not thousands. And what precisely did they not want us to see? WHAT WERE THEY COVERING UP? I have yet to hear a peep about this from OBF or SS. Please tell me.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-27496071373724721142013-12-16T17:35:37.887-08:002013-12-16T17:35:37.887-08:00John Judge recently wrote to the editor of a book ...John Judge recently wrote to the editor of a book about me and Kevin Barrett asking him why he continues to promote a disinformation agent. I suggested he write back and ask Judge for some proof. Judge replied that some experts disagree with me. So what? When he asked Judge the basis for his conclusion, he replied with one word, "Research". This is so disgusting that I can hardly believe it. If I ever entertained any doubts about Judge in the past--and I must admit that I have--they have been resolved and not in his favor by this exchange. What a fraud!Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-60211123704784657622013-12-16T17:31:02.589-08:002013-12-16T17:31:02.589-08:00Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour sh...Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour shows M/W/F on revereradio.net (this one). I am doing a two-hour show on Tuesdays on revolutionradio and a half-hour video news program on Thursday mornings. And I am publishing articles on Veterans Today and doing other interviews on other shows. I do not have time to monitor all the comments that show up here.<br /><br />But I am disturbed that OFB, Simon Shack and the norwegian are distorting my views to make them easier to attack. I agree that some of the 9/11 footage is faked, where I have been expending a lot of time on the Fight 175 footage, where Allan has now convinced me that the hologram hypothesis appears to be wrong because of the lack of blurring--which was confirmed tonight by Ian Greenhalgh, who explained why Allan was "spot on". So I welcome serious students with something to say.<br /><br />OFB and SS are committed to something that I regard as rather extreme (but not on that account therefore untrue), namely: that ALL THE FOOTAGE BROADCAST ON 9/11 is fake. I have explained that that is a bit much, because it was taken from so many points of view: from the air, on the ground, in the city, across the river, and all that. Where IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT IF IT WERE AUTHENTIC.<br /><br />That is an ARGUMENT for its authenticity. So I reject the simple-minded remarks of OBF and of SS who simply dismiss the point I am making as being "UNSCIENTIFIC", which is completely absurd. I have done what I can with OBF, in particular, who has some bizarre misconception about science. There is always a bottom to research, but it can be challenged IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO CHALLENGE IT. As for the 9/11 footage, which hangs together so well, that poses a PRIMA FACIE CASE that it is authentic. Unless and until they can prove good reasons to override that presumption -- which is tentative and fallible, like any other scientific conclusion -- there IS no good reason to doubt it. And distortion what I say about it is disgraceful and shallow and self- serving. I am sorry, but I have yet to see any good reason to believe that all the 9/11 footage is fake. If you have one, produce it.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-83614754147615002322013-12-16T17:29:12.077-08:002013-12-16T17:29:12.077-08:00Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour sh...Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour shows M/W/F on revereradio.net (this one). I am doing a two-hour show on Tuesdays on revolutionradio and a half-hour video news program on Thursday mornings. And I am publishing articles on Veterans Today and doing other interviews on other shows. I do not have time to monitor all the comments that show up here.<br /><br />But I am disturbed that OFB, Simon Shack and the norwegian are distorting my views to make them easier to attack. I agree that some of the 9/11 footage is faked, where I have been expending a lot of time on the Fight 175 footage, where Allan has now convinced me that the hologram hypothesis appears to be wrong because of the lack of blurring--which was confirmed tonight by Ian Greenhalgh, who explained why Allan was "spot on". So I welcome serious students with something to say.<br /><br />OFB and SS are committed to something that I regard as rather extreme (but not on that account therefore untrue), namely: that ALL THE FOOTAGE BROADCAST ON 9/11 is fake. I have explained that that is a bit much, because it was taken from so many points of view: from the air, on the ground, in the city, across the river, and all that. Where IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT IF IT WERE AUTHENTIC.<br /><br />That is an ARGUMENT for its authenticity. So I reject the simple-minded remarks of OBF and of SS who simply dismiss the point I am making as being "UNSCIENTIFIC", which is completely absurd. I have done what I can with OBF, in particular, who has some bizarre misconception about science. There is always a bottom to research, but it can be challenged IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO CHALLENGE IT. As for the 9/11 footage, which hangs together so well, that poses a PRIMA FACIE CASE that it is authentic. Unless and until they can prove good reasons to override that presumption -- which is tentative and fallible, like any other scientific conclusion -- there IS no good reason to doubt it. And distortion what I say about it is disgraceful and shallow and self- serving. I am sorry, but I have yet to see any good reason to believe that all the 9/11 footage is fake. If you have one, produce it.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-38307237277476201182013-12-14T18:50:21.784-08:002013-12-14T18:50:21.784-08:00OBF, Simon, everybody, check out the latest podcas...OBF, Simon, everybody, check out the latest podcast with physicist Frank Lee Speekin, Wednesday, December 11, 2013<br /><br />At long last, truth has been told thanks to "September Clues.." This is very good news! Tell me you agree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-27827700890221733552013-12-14T12:45:48.831-08:002013-12-14T12:45:48.831-08:00seu bobo said : " you'd think the good pr...seu bobo said : " you'd think the good professor would be able to find a more - let's just say - capable apologist." <br /><br />Hah!<br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-60684887399076852182013-12-14T12:36:36.402-08:002013-12-14T12:36:36.402-08:00Jeannon said : "I would like to submit that t...Jeannon said : "I would like to submit that the reporters, indeed our entire mainstream media, was purchased a century ago. " <br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />Jeannon said : "I do not see why we are pointing the finger at a discreet entity identified as the "TV networks" and it is that entity that we must take to court. Our government and the media are one entity." <br /><br />Agreed. The media is the propaganda wing of the government.<br /><br />Jeannon said : "Our government was taken over a very long time ago. "<br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />Jeannon said :"It is not possible to say absolutely that "the Jews" or "Israel" or "the Zionists" are in total control of our government and media." <br /><br />I agree. All governments everywhere are self-legitimized criminal organizations, nothing more. As such, many groups try to influence them in order to get what they want [whatever it is] for their own particular group. If you have a government in the first place, you must have these types of groups, including other states [eg Israel]. It is possible that some of the groups directly involved in 911 have not even been identified yet.<br /><br />Jeannon said :" It appears most likely that the international banking interests control our government and the media (independent journalism) and our congress and our courts. It is possible to identify the dominant faction of the international banking interests." <br /><br />As I said before, various groups must be involved- among them "the usual suspects" such as the government of Israel, the international banking cartel, the Pentagon, defense contractors etc. etc. etc. Most likely it is impossible to name all of the groups- only guess at them. <br /><br />Jeannon said : "If the "TV networks" have committed a crime that should be tried in a court of law, I would submit also that all of our courts have been taken over by the same international banking interests." <br /><br />Yes, although I would say that the link between these courts and international banking is far less easier to see than is the connection between the US government and its own courts. <br /><br />The US government, like all governments before it, is a self legitimizing, 100% criminal organization- a 100% scam, nothing more, nothing less. Always has been, always will be. <br /><br />As such, we have no rights, the "Supreme Court" and other government-run courts are all criminal scams [ part of the greater scam called "government"], as is the constitution, and, more importantly, as is the "Bill of Rights". <br /><br />There will be no "911 justice" in these scam courts [nor in any other government-run/controlled "legal system"- that's pure fantasy, as is "getting rid of the jewish influence in the US government", or some-such.]<br /><br />If you like, listen to my own composition about the scam called "government" : "Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]":<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk<br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-76661758054566957532013-12-14T01:35:58.332-08:002013-12-14T01:35:58.332-08:00you'd think the good professor would be able t...you'd think the good professor would be able to find a more - let's just say - capable apologist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12532399333891528837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-2444574871199817012013-12-13T17:24:55.216-08:002013-12-13T17:24:55.216-08:00Joan Edwards wrote.
"Why weren't lights ...Joan Edwards wrote.<br /><br />"Why weren't lights on in the Towers?."<br /><br />Indeed, dear Joan...<br /><br />Why weren't lights on in the Towers?<br /><br />An Ockham's razor proof - if there ever was one...<br /><br />http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388620&sid=39d0eb5b4b99afab861cc1ac37f15ce4#p2388620<br /><br />Light never lies ! :O)<br /><br />warm regards<br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-38280207071844753022013-12-13T15:58:01.611-08:002013-12-13T15:58:01.611-08:00Onebornfree said : "This point, boring as it ...Onebornfree said : "This point, boring as it is, I will continue to make, like a broken record, over and over, both here and elsewhere,"<br /><br />The reason being that Fetzer claims that: <br /><br />“Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a PRIMA FACIE claim to being taken as authentic. Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it.” <br /><br />I am saying that the only "good reason" a real professor in the philosophy of science ,and indeed any investigating scientist, needs, is simply that it is in fact REQUIRED by the scientific methodology itself to first fully investigate prospective evidence in order to determine whether or not it is actual genuine evidence or not. <br /><br />So for a genuine 911 investigating scientist, _none_ of the 911 videos/photos can be regarded as either being authentic, nor fake, until they have first been thoroughly analyzed. <br /><br />Until Fetzer admits this extremely important procedural point, there is absolutely no point in "submitting" to him "proof" of imagery fakery, however blatant an example it might appear to be to us. <br /><br />Furthermore, outside of the Zapruder example, at this time he does not even appear to have a short list of criteria/ give-away signs of video and photographic fakery, as far as I can see ;-) . <br /><br />So if he ever admits to gross procedural error,[sometime in the next 10 years, perhaps], the next step would be to establish with him what would he consider to be reasonable signs/clues/giveaways to video fakery. <br /><br />So , given his thoroughly egotistical and bombastic nature, don't hold your breath waiting for his retraction/enlightenment :-) <br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-29386434920193735372013-12-13T15:53:19.803-08:002013-12-13T15:53:19.803-08:00I knew long before that Santilli was FBI, http://d...I knew long before that Santilli was FBI, http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/open-letter-to-pete-santilli-shove-it-up-your-ass/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-72728146205825243372013-12-13T04:04:17.118-08:002013-12-13T04:04:17.118-08:00Joan Edwards said:" I would hope OBF would be...Joan Edwards said:" I would hope OBF would be asked back for another podcast so he could complete his presentation. We need to hear what he had to say." <br /><br />I'm not sure I'd be willing to do that without a neutral moderator, Joan. <br /><br />Besides , the only point I have to make at this stage is the same old boring one: <br /><br />that J. Fetzer and the 911"researchers" whose "research" he has championed [i.e. Richard Hall, Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward] are all entirely evading the scientific methodology via their automatic [and ongoing] , wholesale acceptance of the 911 imagery as bona fide evidence WITHOUT FIRST EXAMINING THAT IMAGERY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GENUINE EVIDENCE of anything. <br /><br />This point, boring as it is, I will continue to make, like a broken record, over and over, both here and elsewhere, not because I ever expect Fetzer or his favorite "researchers" to acknowledge this huge methodological error on their part, but simply because its fun/entertaining to watch the "pretzel logic" of his ongoing defense [eg his "prima facie" defense.] <br /><br />Regards, onebornfree.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-14653027107773348672013-12-12T21:26:34.727-08:002013-12-12T21:26:34.727-08:00Here is the record of the selling out of independe...Here is the record of the selling out of independent journalism, "the media", a century ago.<br /><br />Those who sold out independent media to J.P. Morgan interests a century ago were most likely not Jews but <br />simply ordinary flawed humans who will sell out true independent journalism for a buck. That is genesis of today’s “Jewish media”.<br /><br />"On February 9, 1917, Congressman Oscar Callaway inserted the following statement in the Congressional Record. <br />In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests. . . and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers. This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments. . . ."<br /><br />The Anglo-American Establishment, Books in Focus, 1981, p. 3<br /> <br />"By 1917, J.P. Morgan and his associates controlled twenty-five of our most influential newspapers. The atrocity stories were designed to raise public support for American entry into World War I."<br /><br /> The Brotherhood of Darkness, Stanley Monteith<br /><br />______________<br /><br />Dr. Monteith wrote in his book, Brotherhood of Darkness...<br /><br />"When I was involved in a research project at Yale University, I came across a letter that President Roosevelt sent to Colonel Edward Mandell House on November 21, 1933. In those days, J.P. Morgan was one of the most powerful financiers in the world, President Roosevelt wrote: "<br /><br />"I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day. . . .The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W."<br /><br />The Anglo-American Establishment page 5<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-87455970741884756932013-12-12T21:07:35.370-08:002013-12-12T21:07:35.370-08:00"Where were the reporters? "
I would li..."Where were the reporters? "<br /><br />I would like to submit that the reporters, indeed our entire mainstream media, was purchased a century ago. The purchasers then, J.P. Morgan interests, can be identified then and now as strongly Jewish.<br /><br />I do not see why we are pointing the finger at a discreet entity identified as the "TV networks" and it is that entity that we must take to court.<br /><br />Our government and the media are one entity. Our government was taken over a very long time ago. It is not possible to say absolutely that "the Jews" or "Israel" or "the Zionists" are in total control of our government and media. It appears most likely that the international banking interests control our government and the media (independent journalism) and our congress and our courts. It is possible to identify the dominant faction of the international banking interests.<br /><br />If the "TV networks" broke have committed a crime that should be tried in a court of law, I would submit also that all of our courts have been taken over by the same international banking interests.<br /><br /> That is where the reporters went, and the reporters are not coming back.<br /><br />(I will post in a separate posting the basis of my assertion that our independent media, our press, of one century ago was purchased by international banking interests. )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-66856541295267539602013-12-12T20:01:05.049-08:002013-12-12T20:01:05.049-08:00Simon Shack wrote:
"As you [Jim Fetzer] well...Simon Shack wrote:<br /><br />"As you [Jim Fetzer] well know – and will surely agree with – we have long provided some very strong prima facie evidence that the TV networks aired fabricated imagery on 9/11. Exactly how much of it was fabricated is not even an issue here, what matters is that we have an eminently valid prima facie case to present to any court of law willing to review it."<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Now that the JFK conference is over, maybe Jim will come to his senses and study the TV network archives. It is important that he and the followers of his work, get 9/11 right. One would think Sandy Hook, Boston, etc. would be enough for everyone to rethink WTC. To be hung up on "eyewitness testimony" as is Fetzer, is a shame. All of the witnesses I saw were family to or connected in some way to the producers and directors of the news networks. Also, they were calling in to the shows. Where were the reporters? They should have been on the streets. <br /><br />No cameras filmed the evacuation of the Towers. Surely, there would have been thousands fleeing the buildings. )(The largest group of people I saw in one place was watching the huge TV in Times Square where they might have thought they witnessed a plane hit the tower.) If you are going to demolish a building, I don't think you would want 3,000 people inside all smashed to pieces in the rubble not to mention how it would impede the demolition.<br /><br />Why were the cameras on the choppers so far away? The fact that they were so far away implies foreknowledge of a plane or something entering the scene. It also makes the image resolution fuzzy as the camera zooms in for close-ups.<br /><br />How amusing to see the plane enter from different directions in the videos supposedly filming in real time. Why weren't lights on in the Towers? The perspective is off on many of the shots of the demolition among so many other things. One could have a field day just finding these errors. They are as obvious as everything that happened at Sandy Hook.<br /><br />I would hope OBF would be asked back for another podcast so he could complete his presentation. We need to hear what he had to say.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-77337287090606902362013-12-12T17:07:09.252-08:002013-12-12T17:07:09.252-08:00I just need to make this little addendum to my abo...I just need to make this little addendum to my above post - just in case my little 'Silverstein-kept-in-the-dark' joke isn't grasped by everyone. <br /><br />Were jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course. Were ONLY jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course not. Do ALL those involved in the 9/11 crime live in Israel? Of course not. Do MOST of those involved in the 9/11 crime live in the USA? Of course they do. <br /><br />Consequently:<br /><br />Anyone saying that "ISRAEL DID IT" are gatekeeping for the ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS behind the 9/11 crime. <br /><br />"Hey guys! It's now been established that Israel did 9/11, beyond any shadow of doubt! Let's bomb Israel to smithereens !"<br /><br />Not going to happen, is it?<br /><br />So let's all go back to sleep - and to our daily work and routine - since the 9/11 culprits are totally out of our reach and jurisdiction... (*rolleyes*)<br /><br />Let's see now : WHO says that "Israel did 9/11"?<br /><br />Well, here you go:<br />http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/<br /><br />What clowns... <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> <br />norwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-17423883841991764402013-12-12T15:32:51.025-08:002013-12-12T15:32:51.025-08:00Don Fox wrote:
"The content on your site look...Don Fox wrote:<br />"The content on your site looks like lawyers wrote it (,,.)."<br /><br />That is most flattering, Foxy boy - thank you. I used to think my writing style was a tad simplistic and 'un-scholarly'. You Cluesforum-bashers sure are a funny lot: on one hand, some will complain that it is 'too amateurish' to be credible - while others will say that it's 'too professional' to be credible. Which one is it? Perhaps you guys need a supervisor to coordinate your spam? Anyhow, Foxy boy, I'm glad you rate so highly my English (not my first language) - I appreciate that. Btw, all I've ever written over the years originates from my brain - and my brain only. If you wish to poo-poo my research, that's fine - but I'll take responsibility for it anytime.<br /><br />There never was any 'big debate' about prima facie. Dr Fetzer cocked up miserably with his statement that "the TV networks have a prima facie claim of their footage to be authentic." See, he might not have made this blooper out of plain ignorance - in which case we can read this as a quite revealing 'slip of the <br />tongue': Fetzer couldn't have put it more clearly that he is, in fact, a news-media-9/11-collusion gatekeeper - something I've been saying for a long time. His silly 'hologram' and 'mini-nuke' theories are perfect ploys to get the media networks off the hook, as they both neatly serve their desired & all-important notion that "ALL THE IMAGERY SHOWN ON TV ON 9/11 WAS LEGIT AND AUTHENTIC".<br /><br />Wanna talk about gatekeeping, Foxy boy? Well, here we go: a mere couple of weeks after I'd released September Clues (June 2007), Fetzer rolled out his 'video-expert' "Ace Baker" (who screened SC at Fetzer's Madison conference and later faked his suicide - live on Fetzer's show...). See, there can be no more egregious, copy-book gatekeeper than this Ace clown. He soon set out to publish some personal imagery research - only to progressively start attacking my own - and ultimately reaching this 'conclusion' :<br /><br />"Simon Shack Pushing Video Fakery Falsehoods" <br />http://acebaker.blogspot.it/2008/11/simon-shack-pushing-video-fakery.html <br /><br />Note that Ace came to his 'conclusion' as early as November 2008. Also, and most interestingly, please note that Ace Baker ends his 'hit-piece' aimed against me with THIS sentence:<br /><br />"They are trying to destroy the credibility of the 9/11 tower videos, which in fact show them being disintegrated by NUCLEAR WEAPONS."<br /><br />Remarkable, huh? So Ace already "knew" the towers were 'nuked' - back in 2008! Sheesh, Foxy boy, what took you and your fellow nuke sleuths so long? Ace Baker had it all wrapped up - half a decade ago!... <br /><br /><br />ASBESTOS-GATEKEEPING, ANYONE?<br />So what's going on here? Is this old (and now re-packaged) nuke stuff just another gatekeeping op? Before I take a guess at the motives for it - here are some basic facts that people should know. It does seem to be true that a many New Yorkers suffer from respiratory diseases and a peculiar form of cancer - mesothelomia - both known to be specifically caused by exposure to asbestos. Now, has everyone somehow forgotten that...<br /><br />...2000 TONS OF ASBESTOS were strewn over Manhattan as the WTC collapsed? <br />http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/ <br /><br />So hold on a minute, folks - and let me just put this thought of mine out there (pure speculation, of course...) : could these 'nukes-did-it' peddlers be employed by SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES, perchance? Do I really need to elaborate as to why this may be the case - or why it would make perfect sense? But hey, maybe "Israel did it", as Don Fox says - and poor ol' Larry was kept in the dark about the whole affair !... :-D<br /><br />Over and out.<br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-31653708788213698422013-12-12T15:24:45.585-08:002013-12-12T15:24:45.585-08:00Don Fox said: "Fetzer quotes the dictionary i...Don Fox said: "Fetzer quotes the dictionary in getting a definition for Prima Facie. You and OBP get the staff lawyer's defintion." <br /><br />That is total BS. If you read my article you will see that my definition of "prima facie" is taken straight from Wikipedia.<br /><br /> Simon never gave his own definition either, but that of a retired Italian judge he knows. <br /><br />My article: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":<br />http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html<br /><br />Don Fox said: "And why the big debate over the meaning of Prima Facie anyway?" . <br /><br />[Once more with feeling]: because Fetzer [an alleged professor in the philosophy of science] used the phrase as an excuse [or dismissal, more like it], in order to entirely avoid having to actually employ standard scientific protocol and to have to closely examine potential evidence [photos/videos] in order to ascertain whether it/they are actual bona fide evidence or not ,BEFORE ever using videos/photos as evidence of _anything_.<br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-34450171887668266862013-12-12T05:13:41.002-08:002013-12-12T05:13:41.002-08:00Simon,
Your Clues Forum has all of the earmarks o...Simon,<br /><br />Your Clues Forum has all of the earmarks of being a gatekeeper operation. <br /><br /><a href="http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=477" rel="nofollow">From the Tour Guide page of the Clues Forum</a> "The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions - not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme - just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda."<br /><br />That is a gatekeeper statement. Lower Manhattan was far from completely exacuated before the WTC buildings were nuked. Plenty of police, firefighters and workers got nuked. Again the Tour Guide looks like a lawyer wrote it. I was doing some website work for a local bankruptcy attorney a couple of years ago and I spent hour after hour on lawyer websites. The content on your site looks like lawyers wrote it not a real researcher. It has a similar tone as the text on Judy Wood's gatekeeper site. <br /><br />Fetzer quotes the dictionary in getting a definition for Prima Facie. You and OBP get the staff lawyer's defintion. That leads me to believe that you guys are regularily interacting with lawyers. Most likely everything you do is under the scrutiny of a legal team somewhere. And why the big debate over the meaning of Prima Facie anyway? As though haggling over that is going to get us any answers regarding 9/11. Change the subject, stall, waste time - more gatekeeper tactics.<br /><br />This is my last post on this show. I'm busy writing a JFK article. Once that's done there will be an article on September Clues rest assurred....<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-74439007837342324082013-12-11T16:59:13.329-08:002013-12-11T16:59:13.329-08:00Oh wait, I just realized that babe "Don Fox&q...Oh wait, I just realized that babe "Don Fox" is probably going to wake up and whine again - incessantly accusing me of being an ADL scumbag. Well I am not, Foxy boy. See, I am not connected /affiliated to/ paid for by anyone nor anything whatsoever in this whole wide world - and have never even been a member of so much as a tennis club. I am very much my own man - and pretty much a hermit - if that can make you laugh. However, I do have a little 'donate' button on my forum, so if you wish to chip in - you are most welcome. <br /><br />As for your jew obsession - please know that on the very TOP of my list of people to interrogate about the fake 9/11 imagery is this fellow here, by the name of Steven Rosenbaum. Please read this article of mine - and learn all about him:<br /><br />http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2346207#p2346207 <br /><br />Did you know that we're asked to believe that Steven Rosenbaum allegedly collected "500 hours" of 9/11 footage from private citizens in New York? And that he then planned to sell this purported video archive for $1 million?<br /><br />"THE 500 HOURS OF 9/11"<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/nyregion/30archive.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&<br /><br />Did you know that Rosenbaum shut down (around 2004) his CAMERA PLANET studios (with 80 employees) which featured state-of-the-art AVID equipment - the sort of which Hollywood uses for its special fx action movies - and that he now has somehow become the 'Master Curator" at the National Museum and Memorial at Ground Zero (taking care of the dear "3000" dead?) <br /><br />Well, NOW you know, Foxy boy. Welcome to the real world.norwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-81009477980518905212013-12-11T15:52:05.004-08:002013-12-11T15:52:05.004-08:00Dear A.C.
I just left a comment on your most inte...Dear A.C.<br /><br />I just left a comment on your most interesting video :<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM<br /><br />It really is fascinating to see how effective this old ploy (of using fabricated imagery to fool the masses) can be - even to the eyes of a professional photographer.<br /><br /><br />As I see it, it works a bit this way, psychologically speaking : since even a 12-year-old can tell how grossly fabricated the 9/11 imagery is, an adult / experienced professional (photo / video imagery expert of any kind) will look at it and think: "Duh! IF I HAD been recruited to do that crap I would have done a far better job! I cannot believe that anyone in my trade /line of work would have done such a mess of it." This thought, true and valid as it would seem, is further supported by the very professional integrity and self-respect that such a person observes for him/herself. These considerations - formulated from the perspective of a professional standpoint - will ultimately override any rational and objective analysis of what experts are asked to pronounce themselves upon.<br /><br /><br />In this case, the (pre)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery - a scam of such monumental scope / planning and resources which, "if it were true, would surely have employed the very best professionals in the field." <br />See, the 'Big Lie' professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world's population on a daily basis probably know better - when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts - and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes - or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere "in the middle" - so as to befuddle EVERYONE - and of course - to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other. <br /><br />So far, the "Nutwork", as I like to call it (i.e. the gang of pricks 'running' this world ) has succeeded quite nicely to deceive us all - but they are not getting away with it for much longer, in my honest opinion. Why, you may ask? Well - if all they can throw at us are 14-year-olds such as this boring "Don Fox" clown - you know that they've just run out of steam. :o) <br /><br />regards<br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-51158119993881906212013-12-11T10:32:29.238-08:002013-12-11T10:32:29.238-08:00Fortunately Simon has declined Jim's interview...Fortunately Simon has declined Jim's interview requests in the past. There is no need to have Simon Shill on a show that is actually trying to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11. Nobody wants to listen to an ADL affiliated shill talk in circles about 9/11. <br /><br />I have no need to waste hours staring at grainy videos on the Clueless Forum to determine what happened on 9/11. Of course the whole goal of the Clueless Forum is to get you to spend countless hours analyzing grainy videos.<br /><br />"The video archives are the only real evidence in existence." That's a load of bull. There is plenty of dust and water sample evidence along with eyewitness reports to determine what happened. Videos and photos are only part of the picture.<br /><br />Onebornpaid and Simon Shill are merely turds in the 9/11 research punch bowl. They are nothing more than ADL gatekeepers. They have not contributed anything of value to 9/11 research and can be safely ignored by the research community. Just as Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson can be ignored.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-58774224524622435722013-12-11T05:15:18.407-08:002013-12-11T05:15:18.407-08:00Joan Edwards said :" Why doesn't Jim ask ...Joan Edwards said :" Why doesn't Jim ask Simon to come on the show? "<br /><br />Simon has declined Fetzer's offers to appear, probably because of the bombastic, talk-down, egotistical manner constantly on display in other his shows [including mine]. <br /><br />Besides, Simon does not want/need Fetzer's psuedo -scientific approval for his research.<br /><br />Joan Edwards said :"You all have admitted to fakery of most of the evidence. Why not be consistent in your views? All we have is the taped video shown on TV on all the stations on 9/11 as evidence. Simon has dissected it skillfully and shown us the mistakes."<br /><br />This a psychological issue in my opinion, Joan. Many might say " I see signs of some fakery but why fake it all?" , or similar . <br /><br />That question is usually defensive, it seems to me. <br /><br />That is, instead of taking the time to actually analyze all of the original footage, the person using the "why fake it all?" question/defense is using that question as a defense mechanism to avoid having to actually do the anlaysis [which _does_ take time], and possibly reach a conclusion that would dramatically change their perceptions of the way the world works.<br /><br />The ego subconciously senses a danger to its pre-existing, "correct" world view and throws up endless, defensive questions [such as "why fake it all?"] in order to avoid actually having to closely examine anything and possibly reach conclusions that it wrongly assumes to be a massive threat to its existence. <br /><br />Thats my [unprofessional] opinion, anyway. <br /><br />Joan Edwards said :" The video archives are the only real evidence in existence." <br /><br />The funny thing is that most people calling themselves serious 911 researchers, including J. Fetzer [and possibly D. Fox], have absolutely no idea about what is original, network "live" footage, and what is not. <br /><br />Pathetic really :-). But I'm not surprised, [any more].<br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.com