Jim, I would like to hear another program with THIS program as the topic. It would consist of OneBornFree's using his consultative and psychological abilities to analyze the conversation you and he had here. You could listen to yourself exploding when OBF dared question the details of your current theory (which I'm tentatively agreed upon, by the way). You could play back the portions where you were exploding while OBF was as cool as a cucumber, and I think that sometimes you weren't listening to him while you were doing so. If there were any point of weakness in the hologram theory, it would be that Hall's radar-data analysis was lauded by a colleague who did a study proving(?) that only two highly questionable witnesses saw any planes (I shouldn't have to name this colleague). Glad you let OBF make his points in the final moments. As I was listening, I was remembering how dead certain you were when you were supporting Barack Obama. OneBornFree is a very sharp guy who can hold his own; a great guest. You were right in the end: you HAVE to have him back on. With apologies for this long comment, I'd like to make one more request. Could you please in a future program tackle the problem of intellectual certainty? And especially this... When does an hypothesis become a theory? Is there a definitive test, or battery of tests, for that?
Good try OBF but sorry to say you got mauled by the bear! Jim is a formidable adversary out of the gate but I noticed he got quiet or tired near the end and let you get in a few punches. Personally I wouldn't have debated him on the hologram nonsense and gone right for cluesforum.info information. Good job nonetheless.
Fascinating discussion, but I have to disagree with the theory that all the twin tower videos were faked. How could the plotters have disabled all video and still photographic equipment with viewing distance of the event? Simon Shack claims all cameras within recording distance were disable by an "electrmagnetic pulse weapon." I have to see some convincing evidence to support this claim before I can believe it to be a valid theory. we are talking about thousands of witnesses; where are all the people screaming about how the official videos show something completely different from what they saw? Very farfetched theory in my opinion, but I remain openminded.
I agree with AtlantaBill -- in being both shocked and disappointed with Dr. Fetzer's gross and intemperate conduct during the first 2/3rds of the program. He performed very much like the Fox news gangsters did when Jim himself was being interviewed/bullied/browbeaten by them, years ago. Fortunately for all concerned, he resumed his customary, open-minded politeness in time for OBF to make some salient, SeptemberClues-supported points about the MASSIVE video fakery of the networks' "live" (cover-up) coverage. If only Jim's "coming to his senses" had occurred a bit earlier, then perhaps OBF might have moved on to the comparably MASSIVE fakery involved in the perps' publicising of the victims' identities, something Dr. Fetzer has, AFAIK, paid even less attention to, so far.
Andy Tyme said:"I agree with AtlantaBill -- in being both shocked and disappointed with Dr. Fetzer's gross and intemperate conduct during the first 2/3rds of the program."Oh, please...it wasn't as 'terrible' like you make it out to be. OBF was clearly not receptive to logic and reasoning, and in turn, I understand why Dr. Fetzer would be a bit annoyed and perhaps frustrated same as most other people would.WLP
Able Irato said:"Personally I wouldn't have debated him on the hologram nonsense..."Nonsense? Anyone can claim it's "nonsense." Please elaborate. Show us where Dr. Fetzer is 'incorrect'. Inquiring minds want to know! WLP
There are inquiring minds who also want to know Dr. Fetzer's evaluation of the SeptemberClues "Vicsim Report" -- which points out in intricate and compelling detail the wholesale re-cycling and morphing of facial and biographical details that took place while the perps were crafting hundreds of bogus identities with which to "stuff" the various "9/11 Memorial" websites -- including the highly suspicious one long maintained (and more recently, selectively scrubbed) by CNN.
I did an extensive, conservative and detailed examination of the evidence about the padded numbers of victims. Do a search for Clare Kuehn on this site and you'll find it.
There was definetly victim fakery. I wont go the whole 9 yards and say no one died, but a lot of the memorial photos are photoshopped. There is a photo of the twin towers, supposedly taken in 1978, that shows sunlight beaming through the upper 1/3rd or so of the buildings. These floors were suppossed to have been filled with office space at that time. Is this photo genuine, or a red herring to get researchers to go down another endless rabbit hole? I have come to the point where I can't make heads or tails of the entire body of evidence, and have become agnostic towards the whole mystery. It was a massive inside job, to that we can all agree.
I did an extensive, conservative and detailed examination of the evidence about the padded numbers of victims. Do a search for Clare Kuehn on this site and you'll find it. -- As to the "hollow towers" theory, the ins and outs of it and the one witness comment about it, see LetsRollForums comments by me about Tom Della Latta (the witness, whom I happen to know), and what he actually says. I am unsure what to think about that, for I don't think the whole towers were tinker-toy beam supports (no proper floors, with interlaced beams), but if sections were left as an insurance scam, this would be interesting.
onebornfree provides no good reason for dismissing the witness testimony, as he must if he wants to rule it out of the discussion. It’s hard not to conclude he simply wants to ignore it because combined with other data it presents a challenge to his prior belief in the Shack stuff.It’s been a while since I watched the Richard D. Hall presentation but I’m sure that the swerve so clear in the ‘divebomber’ footage obf talks about was acknowledged there. It was present though less obvious in the other videos, suggesting that the camera position in that one clip exaggerated the swerve, and was represented in Hall’s simulation -- where he found that all the data including the ‘divebomber’ clip matched up perfectly. The radar data pinpointed the position of the ‘plane’ at time sequenced intervals and Hall did likewise, merely joining the dots which was perfectly correct. His (uneven) line therefore doesn’t end in an obvious curve into the face of the tower as obf seems to have expected, but there is a definite directional shift in the line drawn between the final radar point (or points) and the putative collision site in the tower. If my memory is correct and Hall’s graphic representations of the radar data do show the late turn, then I really cannot understand how obf did not see it and could now allege that Hall was dishonest. Surely he would have verified the question when it appeared to him that Hall had misrepresented the data? He must have done. So if the swerve is there in Hall’s film, then I can’t see any other way out than to question whether obf himself is being dishonest.
I’m thankful to obf for helping me make a connection between shack and the Mises cult. I had wondered why, when I have been quite open to reviewing the evidence for their claims, so many of the swarming Shack groupies at this blog have failed to provide me with even a basic summary of the evidence for their beliefs despite numerous times of asking. But if Shack’s work appeals to the same mentalities that are suckered by Mises then the quasi-religious nature of the believers and their inability to properly articulate why they believe what they do, and even to grossly misrepresent obvious truths apparently without dishonest intent (see also Ron Paul’s seemingly sincere repeated statements claiming that the constitutuion calls for a gold standard), then things become more clear. Maybe obf isn’t truly dishonest about Hall, he’s just been rendered incapable of dealing honestly with theories that would undermine his cult’s tenets by the peculiar intelligence-paralysing capabilities that are characteristic of cults. ***Andy Tyme, Fetzer was quite right to call obf's prevarications trivial and ill reasoned. If obf wanted to move onto cgi/composite video fakery he should have stopped repeating the same weak points about other issues that Fetzer had already patiently explained were weak and spelled out why that was. Fetzer and Total seem quite easy-going about the comments threads here. Rather than constantly reiterate your belief that evidence for wholesale video / news fakery is overwhelming, why don't you post some bloody evidence for the claim? -- I have asked for your and other's assistance here before. Get on with it, even links would be welcome.
I think that Shack's insistence that ALL video content is fake started off with a more reasonable usage of the term "fake": that there was some form of manipulation and/or choice in what to narrate/suggest about the images to mislead the public on virtually every image. BUT Shack has "graduated" to applying the term in some cases to mean "all manipulated physically as images" (or at least for all significant shots).He DOES recognize that the turning to dust is odd (Wood calls it dustification; mini-nuke proponents such as Prager, Fox and Boldwyn point out it's called spallation in nuclear circles). But to Shack, coming from a video-editing awareness, all the oddness is faked (literally, not just narrated to distract us).Shack has noticed MANY things and compiled others' insights as well; but in the end, even if shots were pre-planned and some shots were wrongly, propagandistically, misrepresented, and yet others had fake-plane CGI and/or holograms (the latter is not Shack's position), some shots show detailed and good photography, and the buildings still are turning to dust. This part of his idea of "all fake" cannot be true.
I basically agree with Nick Dean here. there is loads of interesting stuff on Shack's September Clues forum indicating massive fakery, but I simply cannot believe that evry single video of the events in new York are fake. The Shack crowd is asserting that even the "collapse' videos of the towers are fake, and that every single camera within viewing distance of the World Trade Center complex was rendered inoperable due to an "electro magnetic pulse weapon." out of all the thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the actual events with their own eyes, not a single one has come forward to claim that the whole thing looked different from what they saw. to say that every 9/11 video is fake is simply not plausible in my opinion.
Hello everyone and thank you for your comments, both positive and negative! All very useful to me. I had never done a live radio show extended interview before and I think my "newness" showed a little. Hopefully Dr Fetzer will invite me back again as the experience was interesting for me, and I hope, for some of you too, and maybe I can improve on my last "performance" as well. I am putting together a blog post related to the interview which will have links, photos and videos for all of the 9/11 points I tried to cover with Dr Fetzer in the show. I will let you all know via the comments section here as to when that blog has been posted at my own site. Regards,onebornfree
The problem with the footage of the planes is the nose out. There's no fucking hole. It's fake . Period. There's no point in blabbing about idiotic secondary problems. Stick to the core issue.
Come on, Nick Dean. The evidence for most WTC collapse photos and videos being fake is ALL OVER the Clues Forum. Numerous misalignments of perpsective, lighting anomalies, inconsistent details, missing landmark-objects, pixelized edging and related artifacts of digital forgery abound, as Simon and several others have amply demonstrated. I agree that taking a quasi-religious position (as some of the regulars do over there) that there simply CAN'T be ANY genuine footage or stills of the collapse OR the bizarrely tiny rubble pile doesn't help the search for truth at all. But hey, it's a familiar and hard-to-escape aspect of human behaviour, in many contested fields of belief, to form "cults," isn't it?Much more serious and informed analysis still needs to be applied to the few genuine (if any) "amateur" videos of the collapse reportedly taken from the Jersey shore and other far-away locations -- carefully comparing the collapse time(s) & speed(s), the size and shape of the smoke plumes, the various debris ejections, etc. And even if Simon IS correct about the mil-intel perps deploying some sort of RF-induced "camera-disabling technology" in lower Manhattan on the morning of 9/11, the "inverse-square rule" (about the strength-decline of electromagnetic energy fields over distance) still suggests that ultra long-range photography (if it is truly genuine, of course) might still yield more "September Clues" about the obvious visual forgeries that currently pollute the "historical" record of 9/11.Much more research also needs to be done into the specific details claimed, and the verifiable identities of, those allegedly close-by "eyewitnesses" to the climactic tower collapses -- scrupulously excluding ALL those other folks who actually only recall seeing the mystifying, top-down explosions, ejections, and "dustifications" taking place ON TELEVISION
Hello all. i have finally completed 5 blog posts that expand on the "Real Deal" Interview I did with Dr. Fetzer, and they include various videos and stills that I referred to in my interview. Here is the link to the first of the 5 posts :http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2012/09/onebornfrees-real-deal-radio-interview.html[These posts will continue to updated/re-edited as necessary for clarity]Regards, onebornfree
My humble view on all this: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2377814#p2377814RegardsSimon Shack
If I remember this correctly, he loses his accent in many parts towards the end of the interview. Most ridiculous story.
Hello All, for any one out there who is interested in my further ramblings on this subject, I have just completed and posted to my blog a 4 part critique [demolition actually!] , of the Richard Hall hologram hypothesis. It can be read here:http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.htmlRegards, onebornfree
To elaborate on a point I brought up in my [2nd.,12/28/12: http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-OBF%202012%20Dec%20re%20911%20tv%20fakery%20etc.mp3] discussion with Jim:" Exactly Where Did Fl. 175 Hit WTC2?" : http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/911-video-fakery-so-exactly-where-did.htmlRegards, onebornfree