tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post682076592618253996..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Jim FetzerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-90532899940428316442014-09-29T14:49:33.784-07:002014-09-29T14:49:33.784-07:00OBF: you miss the indications of real parts of foo...OBF: you miss the indications of real parts of footage.<br /><br />However, you & Simon discovered a lot of how TV images are not to be trusted prima facie.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-63559664381316684322014-09-29T10:56:49.848-07:002014-09-29T10:56:49.848-07:00@Jim Fetzer. You still haven't explained how a...@Jim Fetzer. You still haven't explained how a classic controlled demolition can only make a 0.6 on the seismic reading data regarding WTC 7. Look at the s-wave and p-wave. I know you know better Jim and you have deliberately avoided this evidence. No use asking Richard Gage is it, as he doesn't even know how to read seismic data. Controlled demolition is complete nonsense and you certainly are NOT addressing the evidence are you? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-22210372269378844472014-09-23T10:47:14.905-07:002014-09-23T10:47:14.905-07:00If u're asking me, I must admit I don't kn...<br />If u're asking me, I must admit I don't know. But then, 9/11 stinks to high heaven, doesn't it?--practically everything about it.<br /><br />I know there is evidence for galvanic corrosion, not to mention the asbestos problem, which made the towers basically scrap--why then would lucky Larry have bought them?--and why would any Insurance co. have insured them?<br /><br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-83396498377271545682014-09-23T07:16:28.974-07:002014-09-23T07:16:28.974-07:00Joan Edwards said : "One would think that bef...Joan Edwards said : "One would think that before working on theories, researchers would first and foremost check the evidence. What Fox/Fetzer did was fit the evidence to the theory without testing it first." <br /><br />One would think, but you'd be wrong :-) . <br /><br />The hallmark of nearly all 9/11 research is to elevate unchecked possible "evidence" [e.g videos, photos, government studies, seismic info, "eyewitness testimony" etc.], to the level of genuine, trustworthy evidence , with virtually no deep checking and cross- checking of that "possible evidence". <br /><br />Indeed, persons such as Mr Fetzer have made, and continue to make a number of false, methodologically inexcusable [ for a scientist], assumptions- amongst them: <br /><br />1] that the MSM video archived footage [or any other claimed footage] can be trusted, and does not ever need to be thoroughly cross-checked before being considered reliable evidence.<br /><br />2] that if enough "eyewitnesses" say the same thing about a particular event, then that makes their testimony "true" [and therefor reliable], with no need to deep-check any individual backgrounds on an individual basis. { Or, as a variation on the exact same theme; if enough videos or photos depict the same event, then that somehow makes all of those various videos/photos "genuine"]. <br /><br />You gotta love it.<br /><br />Even worse, on top of all that, there are individuals such as Andrew Johnson [a Judy Wood supporter] who has a motto: "Check The Evidence", when it should be readily apparent that "checking the evidence" with anything like the standard scientific methodology , or even with standard legal principles ["burden of proof", "false in one false in all" in place ], is the very last thing that himself [and Wood] have any interest in. <br /><br />But let's not single Wood and Johnson out for "special treatment" here. <br /><br />Fetzer, Fox, Greenhalgh, Reynolds, Baker, Kalezov, and Jones etc. have all made the exact same false assumptions to reach their "indisputable conclusions " to date.<br /><br />And so it goes....<br /><br />Regards, onebornfree.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-50400353872299719842014-09-23T07:14:04.985-07:002014-09-23T07:14:04.985-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-8216277577882302102014-09-23T07:12:22.167-07:002014-09-23T07:12:22.167-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-52384365197069742202014-09-23T07:10:28.261-07:002014-09-23T07:10:28.261-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-3150103494311255602014-09-23T07:08:48.867-07:002014-09-23T07:08:48.867-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-43575578083589083852014-09-23T02:16:07.091-07:002014-09-23T02:16:07.091-07:00There are also DOE water samples that contain trit...There are also DOE water samples that contain tritium which is THE smoking gun of a thermonuclear explosion. The ground temperature was 600-2,000°F for 6 months after 9/11. No way can conventional explosives explain that. <br /><br />9/11 was a nuclear event. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-86352904356335908082014-09-22T20:59:43.075-07:002014-09-22T20:59:43.075-07:00? "CDI - The Art of Demolition" - YouTub...? "CDI - The Art of Demolition" - YouTube <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TARNVwF7Yg<br /><br />Note especially how they take down steel structures. Very easy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-38294696447517795022014-09-22T20:37:04.198-07:002014-09-22T20:37:04.198-07:00Anonymous said: "That the video evidence is f...Anonymous said: "That the video evidence is fabricated and can't be taken as evidence of what happened on 9/11. There's too many anomalies in the photographic and video evidence to trust that it is genuine evidence so to draw conclusions based on it is a fool's errand. Does Fox/Fetzer and co. accept that the video evidence is tampered or totally fabricated?" <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />The only physical evidence we have of 9/11 is the television footage which has been archived of the five networks broadcasting that day. Remember there was no local coverage because the transmitters were atop the WTC2. There was one station operating (not sure which one, must look it up) as its antenna was on the Empire State. <br /><br />One would think that before working on theories, researchers would first and foremost check the evidence. What Fox/Fetzer did was fit the evidence to the theory without testing it first. Therefore, they have a top-down demolition which is rare if not impossible. There is no evidence for the 3,000 people killed except government reports about forensic evidence being matched to some bone fragments of the missing victims. Only the USGS is hard evidence, but it is still a report. Are there any samples available for independent testing? <br /><br />Because, according to the videos, there was no rubble, they have assumed the towers were "vaporized" along with the people. People, being mostly water could be vaporized I suppose, but a building that is mostly steel? Can you even dustify steel to a white powder? Steel is iron. Iron dust especially when oxidized, I would think is like iron ore--red. Or are they suggesting the iron was melted into a big blob?<br /><br />Why couldn't 9/11 been just another demolition like Hudson's department store or the Biltmore hotel? You can see these implosions and they look exactly like the smoke clouds seen in NYC people were fleeing from. Granted, the buildings were taller with a lot less concrete and masonry, but people watched, got dust on themselves and cheered the event. (Go to You Tube CDI implosions.)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-55760818436160189872014-09-22T18:48:10.930-07:002014-09-22T18:48:10.930-07:00Do you think the towers were largely empty on 9/11...Do you think the towers were largely empty on 9/11 as Phil Jayhan has argued?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16708237992272581374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-12403808918565248982014-09-22T17:30:41.647-07:002014-09-22T17:30:41.647-07:00I know Prof. Fetzer acknowledges the vid of the pl...I know Prof. Fetzer acknowledges the vid of the plane MUST be fake as the event couldn't have happened as it was shown on vid.<br /><br />Vids must be demonstrated as real evidence--just like ANY evidence. But note there's other evidence--like lack of rubble pile, hardly any seismic impact showing on graphs, etc.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-87297850274000584542014-09-22T16:46:37.841-07:002014-09-22T16:46:37.841-07:00That the video evidence is fabricated and can'...That the video evidence is fabricated and can't be taken as evidence of what happened on 9/11. There's too many anomalies in the photographic and video evidence to trust that it is genuine evidence so to draw conclusions based on it is a fool's errand. Does Fox/Fetzer and co. accept that the video evidence is tampered or totally fabricated?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16708237992272581374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-64069288191493706652014-09-22T14:23:52.479-07:002014-09-22T14:23:52.479-07:00"Anonymously...": exactly WHAT was one-b..."Anonymously...": exactly WHAT was one-born-brainless "more convincing" about?apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-48199733583534528472014-09-22T13:47:41.335-07:002014-09-22T13:47:41.335-07:00I'm not sure about this constant bashing of Sh...I'm not sure about this constant bashing of Shack and OBF... From what I heard, OBF was much more convincing than Fox in that debate they had. Why not go another round (this time, no reading from prepared scripts)? AnonymouslyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01709043004281192817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-24923556204760966232014-09-21T15:00:56.048-07:002014-09-21T15:00:56.048-07:00Norwegian said : "That's an excellent sta...Norwegian said : "That's an excellent statement, Don - the best you've ever made! In fact, WHY would anyone believe in the 102-minute movie aired by TV Networks aired on 9/11? :O) " <br /><br />Cripes! You are right, Simon. Maybe his brain was not vaporized on 9/11 after all. [Now that's a terrifying thought :-) ].<br /><br />regards, onebornfree.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-43308146716836775252014-09-21T14:43:16.123-07:002014-09-21T14:43:16.123-07:00Don Fox wrote:
"Nobody believes the "10...Don Fox wrote: <br />"Nobody believes the "102 minute movie" BS (...) "<br /><br />That's an excellent statement, Don - the best you've ever made! In fact, WHY would anyone believe in the 102-minute BS movie aired by the TV Networks on 9/11? <br /><br />*********<br /><br />It just occurred to me that the acronym "VT" (for Veterans Today) is the mirrored / reversed acronym of TV !...:-Dnorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-32822086275577885712014-09-21T14:32:10.177-07:002014-09-21T14:32:10.177-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.norwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-82355633238602891622014-09-21T14:02:25.175-07:002014-09-21T14:02:25.175-07:00Brainless one: if it wasn't vaporized, what ha...Brainless one: if it wasn't vaporized, what happened to the rubble?--don't u think there was too little left?<br /><br />What about seismic evidence? Tell us, brainless one.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-21562522506564363742014-09-21T13:26:01.130-07:002014-09-21T13:26:01.130-07:00Jim,
Most of the listeners never post here. I get...Jim,<br /><br />Most of the listeners never post here. I get messages from them on my blog and they think 95% of the people who do post here are shills like yourself, OBF and Shack. <br /><br />The ADL funded crews at September Clueless and AE911 don't count. Very very few regular people have ever even heard of Simon Shack. Nobody believes the "102 minute movie" BS except a few misguided souls at the Clueless Forum. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-17990771950514393662014-09-21T10:42:05.285-07:002014-09-21T10:42:05.285-07:00Don said - "The word is starting to get out i...Don said - "The word is starting to get out into the mainstream now that what really happened on 9/11 was that Israel nuked NYC. The 9/11 Truth snowball is rolling down the hill and it's going to crush the liars and shills like Shack and OBF "<br /><br />Well judging by what's going on here on Fetzer's blog, he doesn't have much support from his listeners. The majority are coming to see that 911 was a movie. Those that oppose this view and spread the nuclear propaganda seem to be his guests and VT contributors, ie you, Ian, Clare and Dennis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457403837436503928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-59201894038124254302014-09-21T05:46:05.249-07:002014-09-21T05:46:05.249-07:00Don Fox said: "The debris wasn't hauled a...Don Fox said: "The debris wasn't hauled away because it was vaporized. The bodies weren't found because they were also vaporized. " <br /><br />Nah, the only thing that got vaporized on 9/11 was your brain Don :-).<br /><br />Regards, onebornfree.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-78420603974620478452014-09-21T05:16:35.901-07:002014-09-21T05:16:35.901-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-68541154773529917212014-09-21T05:13:27.433-07:002014-09-21T05:13:27.433-07:00Total said : "It's not "risky" ...Total said : "It's not "risky" at all. The networked WESCAM helicopter cameras are military systems with the built-in ability to overlay GPS-positioned computer graphics over video feed. Sticking in a simple blurry plane figure is child's play compared to the "everything was faked" scenarios postulated by some commenters." <br /><br />Total, instead of being [overly] impressed with what you and Ace Baker imagine military technology [or whatever] can or cannot do, in the long run wouldn't you perhaps be better served by just learning to use your own eyes and judgement, and by learning what the more obvious signs of total CGI within the claimed "live", archived MSM footage actually are? <br /><br />After all, it's not really that hard/complicated, and the more you develop the basic skills and use them, the easier it becomes to discern it.<br /><br />For example : "NBC "Live" on 9/11, or "Armageddon"- Which Picture Is Real? ":<br /><br />http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/nbc-live-on-911-or-armageddon-which.html<br /><br />And: "9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples. ":<br /><br />http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/08/some-examples-of-genuine-pre-911-video.html<br /><br />and.....: "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"":<br />http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html<br /><br />Regards, onebornfree.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.com