Prof. Fetzer, I listened to your interview with Scott Forbes and I agree with your observation that he is a very genuine, honest witness. This makes his statement that he saw the second plane all the more disconcerting and confusing. Perhaps you have commented on this elsewhere but I wonder if you have a view based on what we know (or understand) of 'no planes?'Thanks, E
My view is that they had discovered that no real plane could penetrate the Twin Towers, so they had to rethink their plan to use remote-controlled drones. They finally had to settle on the use of holograms, as much of a stretch as that sounds. The reason why Scott is important is that, if there were witnesses who saw (what they took to be) a plane BEFORE the hit, then it cannot have been done using CGIs or even video compositing, since then the images would only have shown up during broadcasts. Go to "The Vancouver Hearings" and check out my "Fraud and Fakery in the 'official account' of 9/11" where I explain how all four crash sites were fabricated but done in different ways. Thanks for asking.
Jim has commented, eamonnc, that no planes of course means no planes that people would generally mean (Boeings); that flybys and decoys and possibly holograms from real planes are consistent and part of no planes theory, if used.
Thank you for the reply. I raised a couple of points on the Strunk post regarding possible involvement of The Beatles with The Tavistock Institute and occult, Masonic imagery in their album/single covers and films etc. It's all very curious and I'd be very interested in your take.Many thanks, E
See interview with Total on this show, from late 2011, about Beatles and Tavistock and Paul is Dead ... for his thoughts on Tavistock.See interview with me (Clare Kuehn) from Jan 4 2012 for a more thorough treatment of Paul is Dead and a conservative treatment (but very wild) and thorough on what the circles around the Beatles were up to in the USA and likely somewhat in Britain: Crowleyite "Masonic" symbolism and so on is covered.The Tavistock Institute was involved with the CIA, etc., in mind control stuff, but it's likely, to my mind (not Total), that they piggybacked on the success of the Beatles and some other bands, as well as creating some (in Laurel Canyon: see Davesweb.cnchost.com for an extensive set of "papers" on Laurel Canyon bands).It's also likely that the 2nd Paul (or Faul), now seemingly well-established as a 2nd Paul -- through well argued photo forensics, carefully done, I might add, by an Italian team in 2009 -- might have been an infiltrator for disrupting the band's close-knit circle and influencing them. He also though seems to have been Paul's body double at the time of death and wanted in.
Are there any credible witnesses to the plane the flew in parallel to the hologram and made the noise attributed to the hologram, and if so, did they see what they thought to be two planes?
I believe there's a distant plane flying at a such a parallel trajectory in Richard Hall's analytic video at http://www.richplanet.net/911.php The plane looked bloated and seemed to have very short wings, if any. It reminded me of one of NASA's experimental "space planes". If I recall correctly, there have been some who claimed to have observed such a distant plane, and other more imaginative observers claimed it was a flying saucer (also bloated in appearance and without wings).
Dr. Fetzer, you are succeeding in making the hologram theory seem, at least, plausible. But IF that is what was actually done in the sky over lower Manhattan that morning (to provide at least a few genuine "eyewitnesses" -- it still doesn't cancel out the perps' likely employment of (later proved by Shack and Co. to be grossly defective) CGI animation in the pre-produced (originally for wargames) psuedo-live TV coverage and fake "amateur" videos and stills shown endlessly thereafter to the rest of the country. Please, please make another request for Simon Shack to appear on your program, so the two of you can sort through your prodigious and shared knowledge of 9/11.
Personally I found the Scott Forbes character completely unbelievable. Total video fakery is so much simpler to believe, and I'm sorry to say the hologram angle is equally unbelievable. The witnesses who saw something are equally unbelievable since I am convinced lower Manhattan was evacuated and cleared out. To hinge a whole theory based on the actors of the 911 movie is preposterous.
It is possible that only fakery and no hologram was used. It has always puzzled me that there are so few films of the alleged second plane hitting. One would have expected literally thousands of films surfacing of the second hit. There certainly must have been thousands of people with cameras aimed at the burning tower when the explosion in the second tower took place. So why have so few films appearing to show a plane hitting turned up? Again, if a hologram was used, one would have expected hundreds, or even thousands of films of it appearing to hit the second tower. In order to investigate this, perhaps a call could be made for people who have films of the explosion in the second building, but not the plane hitting. There must be tremendous numbers of these that have not been made public.
@stooy44 Actually cameraplanet.com has allegedly gathered "amateur" footage from the get go. Of course they're on the short list of firms alleged to have manufactured the fake footage. As you can see the perps have covered all the bases.
Able Irato, that is interesting, thanks! There is no doubt that there were no planes used, and there is no doubt that video fakery was used. And whether or not a hologram was also used is interesting, but not absolutely essential to our conclusions. Either way, it would not change much else.
@stooy44 go to cluesforum.info and spend as much time as you can reading. I have read only a small amount but the bottom line to 911 is the media is blatantly Soviet style controlled and you now cannot know what is real. Once you realize this then your world will change. All the infighting as to how it was done is irrelevant to the big picture. The fact that 95% were fooled by the hoax is the biggest problem and why 911 is important 11 (magic occult #) years later.
I agree that how it was done is not especially relevant to the big picture. In America it might be the case that 95% of the people are fooled, but I assure you that in Canada it is far less. In fact, more than half of the people you speak to will agree that 911 was fishy, and probably an inside job. But the problem is that they don't care. We can convince people of the truth, but if they do not care anyway, then we have an even more serious problem. As long as people get their beer and hockey games (our national relgion up here) they just don't care about what is happening.
Was Billy Lovelady telling the truth when he said he was sitting on the steps of the TSBD eating his lunch when the JFK motorcade passed by?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djFu7WK615g
Yes. -----------Part 1:http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/Part 2 (I wrote the first 3 of the last 4 sections, by the way, in Part 2):http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
What we have to do in the 9/11 Truth movement is to discredit all the false directions that can lead us down blind alleys or set us up to be discredited by the perpetrators, who, of course, know exactly how it was done. Dr Fetzer has gone furthest, I believe, in pulling all the pieces safely together with his impeccable sense of scientific logic. I think Jim has also gotten Noam Chomsky's number (a topic broached at the end of the interview here). I watched the short YouTube(c) video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFB4VjcmJw in which he exposed Chomsky's lack of intellectual honesty and faulty basis for his "psycholinguistics". I'm an amateur linguist myself, and I was never so impressed as many by his linguistic innovations - although I think he did a very good job of building on the earlier work of European linguists, esp. the Prague School. Chomsky should be celebrated as a leading voice in dampening the over-exuberance of the 1950s-60s cyberneticists who mistakenly believed that reliable machine translation was right around the corner and then getting down to doing some valuable work to overcome the massive obstacles that still keep us from reaching that goal. Like Barry Zwicker, I once admired Chomsky for his politics, as well as for his dedication to linguistics, as derivative as much of his work was. But Chomsky has acted as a political shill in many regards, not least of which was his support of the NATO hoax that there were Bosnian-Serb death camps, as seen in this video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ih4LgWak0&feature=related (while I don't support other positions of this channel owner). It's sad to see someone I once admired definitively exposed as an intellectual prostitute, but too many facts argue that that is exactly what he is.
I was never very impressed by Shack and SeptemberClues except 1) the 'nose out' thing, which Anthony Lawson demonstrated was flawed at best, a deliberate hoax at worst and 2) that long shot that cuts and appears not to leave enough time for the plane to come in from the right. Lawson showed there that hack ha actually messed arund with the editing to make it appear less possible.Recently that new Richard D Hall film proves that plane projectories that Shack asserted did not match were all identical. If Shack's so doubtful a source why is there so much certainty about the fake videos?Someone here please point me to what thy consider the best single piece of evidence for photo/video manipulation ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Hezarkhani, Fairbanks, and Naudet CGI animations are each much easier to disprove than defend, Joe, thanks to that ol' troublemaker, Sir Isaac Newton!You need to spend a lot more time studying at Septemberclues.info than you have apparently done so far -- and get past the (rotting) simplicities of Lawson's "orange".
Professor, when does your show air live? I have tried to catch your show on many occasions' I tend to run upon it weeks later. Can you post the live link.. Also what is your opinion about James Files? He claims he did the actual shooting and his story is convincing. He claims Atlie Phillips gave him a Remington to do the shooting. I've never heard your opinion about this man. Also, Joseph Hugh West (1933 - 1993)I believe got approval to exhume JFK body and after going into surgery they mysteriously gave him the wrong medication. His wife believes he was murdered. What is your opinion about James E. Files... He gave a full jailhouse confession and claimed he only came forward after Joe West was murdered. Have you reviewed JFK Murder Solved...website...
In case you missed Andy Tyme's reply about Jim's live shows, it's below here. (He didn't press the right reply button, because it's not showing inset to your comment above.)Note: if you go to revereradio.net to catch the show (MWF 6 pm eastern), you have to not click the link of the show name in the upper right. You actually click the icon for the player you want to use, which is just below the show name on the right. Then you get an option to Save or Open. Click Open.
This 2part chomsky lecture, is SUPREMELY TELLING.It is PRE 9 elven HE EVEN COMMENTS HIS OWN CHILDRENCANT UNDERSTAND "THE RULES" ACADEMICS ARE GROOMED AND SELECTED FOR/BY.ISEND IT TO YOU, CLARE CAUSE I KNOW YOU'LL HEAR ITS UNINTENDED MESSAGE, AND FILL DR. FETZER IN.
Duh. This might help (links) http://mbanna.radio4all.net/pub/archive3/old2/archive2/MP3/chomsky-propaganda_1.mp3 http://mbanna.radio4all.net/pub/archive3/old2/archive2/MP3/chomsky-propaganda_2.mp3
Dr. Fetzer's interview program is transmitted live at 18:00 hours (6:00 PM) Eastern (U.S.)Time each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on the Revere Radio Network:http://www.revereradio.net/
I wonder if in his recent article at VT Jim Fetzer goes too far in his claim that Chomsky told tales to the WH about Tillman? Is there evidence for this? Even if Tillman was not communicating his concerns to anyone other than Chomsky, it seems likely that both their emails would have been monitored and no tip-off necessary.
"I think Jim has also gotten Noam Chomsky's number"Chomsky I do not trust. Pat Tillman did and next thing you know, he was executed...er, I mean, (conveniently) killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan. WLP
The Top 200 Chomsky LiesThe Lie: “In the Soviet sphere of influence, torture appears to have been on the decline since the death of Stalin… Since it has declined in the Soviet sphere since the death of Stalin, it would appear that this cancerous growth is largely a Free World phenomenon.”The Truth: Until the late 1980s, the Soviets ran 1,000 concentration camps where at least 2 million inmates endured constant violence. Torture was systematic in Soviet satellites in the Third World.More Chomsky lies here:http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdfWLP
The guy's a very, very smart huckster, a for-profit disinformationalist who mixes some shocking, always-favorable-to-the-Asians, horrible true facts about U.S. history with even more always-favorable-to-the Asians, wild and impossible-to-verify fantasies.And we're supposed to believe they're all based on scads and piles of ultra-secret documents that a teenage file clerk was blithely able to memorize and/or photocopy before shredding and incinerating them. Uh-huh...(Somebody should check out the dude's real bio.)"Buy my books! Buy my DVDs (limited-time-only specials, of course)-- then and book me (for generous speaking fees) at every crank/UFO-contactee/survivalist/new-age/health-food/militia-gunshow/hollow-earth convention my agents can fit into my busy schedule!"...or something like that. (Check out his website.)And Fetzer just let him run on and on with his Asians-Uber-Alles delirium, never challenging him as to the moral rectitude of Japanese imperialism justifying its own ghastly invasions and mass murders of its own neighbors -- and then allying with the Nazis!As much as I enjoy Fetzer's program and respect his own research, this interview marked a new low of seeming gullibility for Fetzer and was eerily reminiscent of his previous pandering to the "everyone's a pedophile except me" ravings of fanatic anti-monarchist Greg Hallet.