Monday, December 30, 2013

Clare Kuehn / Don Fox

9/11 TV fakery


  1. Preliminary recap of the show:

    Clare claimed that the "live" broadcast 911 was a Hollywood production/real news reports. She didn't use those words, but that is what we can infer.

    Don Fox behaved like and adult, and shot himself in the foot much less than expected.

    Beatles fans should not be disappointed either.

    (Reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks)

    1. Modern hypotheses supporting a flat Earth originated with English inventor Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Based on his incorrect interpretation of experiments on the Bedford Level, Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, called "Zetetic Astronomy", which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe, expounding his views. According to Rowbotham's system, the earth is a flat disc centred at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice (Antarctica), with the sun and moon 3,000 miles (4,800 km) and the "cosmos" 3,100 miles (5,000 km) above earth. He also published a leaflet entitled "The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures!!" which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture."

    2. Yes, but the Flat Earth Society does not, it seems, follow this line from Rowbotham.

      Theirs is a complex theory, with items hard to debunk because reliant upon some unknowns which would be key parts of the theory.

      Let us leave aside Flat Earths and stick to whether there is CGI and layering in the media videos, photoshopping of victims, and so on ... and whether all that (it is true, by the way) means ALL video was COMPLETELY FAKE.

    3. Lower down here, and on the show, Don continues his "September Clueless" bearbaiting, along with claims he is pursuing it to the barricades because they are agents. That is just patently false, prima facie, shall we say, and upon many converging lines of argument against it.

      However, though they are right in many ways, they are not right in radical doubt which stays at that level when there are simpler, prima facie and more deep reasons to suggest there are real elements in the video record.

      Nevertheless, of course, for the sake of accuracy about 9/11, I wish Don would be more patient and take the time to notice the extent of media controlled imagery (including layering and fake elements -- non-camera original stuff) from the day of and after, and so many (bloated numbers to reach Pearl Harbor levels of) victims.

    4. How about he starts behaving like an adult?

  2. The visual record of 9/11 has to match the official story of PLANES hitting the WTC:

    1. The plane shaped cookie-cutter gashes in the sides of the towers, prove it.
    2. The fireballs prove the jet fuel from the planes exploded on contact with the towers.
    3. The smoke proves the iinteriors caught fire,
    4. The fires prove the story of the weakened trusses.
    5. The jumpers prove how hot the fires were and that there were people in the burning towers..
    6.. The collapse from the area where the planes hit and from the top down (contrary to classic implosions which are done from the bottom up) prove the planes caused the collapse.
    7. The top down collapse proves the floors pan-caked on eachother and that it was not a demolition.

    1. Okay, you are SO behind in understanding each of these points that it will waste time here. Please catch up on the gashes (and their insufficient size at first), the planes (and crash physics and missing passengers/victims for most), the trusses (which were localized weak and the fires which were not hot or long enough to do more), the construction strength (millions or more of welds and rivets to have to bust simultaneously on each floor for the effects seen), missing floor-pile for 1&2 (which means your collapsing floors left nothing layered in situ in the way they should have), the jumpers (footage taken before by Gelitin B group possibly, combined with real reports and maybe a few real footage clips of real jumpers who were, supposedly, in such numbers that no-one had seen this before ... jumping is against instinct in a fire), collapse location (one can set detonations ANYWHERE ONE WANTS and so classic controlled demolitions usually set them at bottom and throughout, but these needed to blow out and up, to make sure it didn't look too much like a controlled demo and also to get rid of the debris in, likely, nuclear blasting).

      There are some summaries.
      If you, Joan, are not a shill or agent, and are just behind on how your IMPRESSIONS (complex though they are) are belied by more information (which is more complex, but simplifies the case of conspiracy), then please do a lot of work and figure this out. We can't re-prove these things in detail for you here. I've given you some starters.

    2. Oh Joan, I think I see what you were doing here (above) was giving a case for the general narrative of the video record's having to have matched real planes as a claim in the narrative.

      Convergence of general story.

      Well, yes: but it does NOT, in detail, including the inconveniences in the planes imagery, the physics behind what could cause parts of what is shown in the imagery for plane idea, gashes, cover-up of other explosions lower-down, higher up, and other things in the air, as well as process of demolition. (The black line straight across the 1st-gashed tower, in the Naudet, being a striking example, pun intended, of bad work to imply the gash was wider in the general impression at the moment of the 1st gash creation, not later when it had been completed -- and would be necessary if they had only certain real frames to work from, put it through processing and realized they could sloppily throw in a wider gash with only us noticing. Of course, radical doubt suggests that this was done not only sloppily to show us how intensely smug these Naudet agents were, but also because the whole image was fake. This is less likely, but also is inconvenient, because whatever came toward the tower is so ripply, like a hologram or tiny missile cloaked, that it counters the official story AND matches the natural ball photographic imagery AND matches many witness statements AND matches a very inconvenient radar data set, which of course could have been faked, too, but was so buried that it was likely real, unless one is insisting on radical doubt always.)

  3. My latest comments at the franklyspeaking interview vanished, and have been reappearing and vanishing again. I'm guessing there's a technical problem, maybe server storage overload. In the franklyspeaking comment section, after Clare made several comments about the (at least) four kinds of prima facie evidence, I replied with this comment, which I'm paraphrasing from memory in what follows.

    There's also the possibility that the perpetrators may have used digital manipulation to add signs of fakery to authentic photographic evidence to convince analysts that it was originally faked. They would know that technically competent people would have looked for signs of fakery, so they added fakery to direct that segment of the population away from what was actually authentic. Those could have accounted for many of Simon Shack's "clues". This would have been selective misdirection. That's different from creating original fakes, such as the fake planes. Clare is covering this possibility now, I think, in so many words.

    Hey! I just heard Jim make this very point of mine! After minute 39:50 of the interview (Jim's point 7). Adding fakery to non-faked photos and videos would have been used to misdirect just the segment of the public they wanted to in order to set them up to be discredited. I don't buy Clare's point that "adding bad apples for us to find" would have been beyond them; they may have even been having a great laugh while they were doing it.

    The point that Jim makes, and also Joan (above), that all the ostensible evidence has to be mutually supportive is a crucial one. For general consumption, all the prima facie evidence had to support, or as Joan says, "match," the official conspiracy theory. Don't you know that the people who spent years formally studying "the creation and maintenance of myths" are following how Jim, Clare, and the Real Deal regulars are unraveling their professional work before their very NSA eyes.

    I take exception to the claim that we aren't getting somewhere with our understanding of the event. How would we ever have gotten to this point without the intervention of the Fakeologists? They've served as much-needed gadflies!

    I still consider the Khalezov thesis the most cogent and his take-down the most economical solution for the perpetrators.

    1. Atlanta Bill,

      It is very useful for the operation management to release conflicting information from the get-go. The opposition will be divided and cannot unite behind a common story line, so that no group can grow and become a real threat to the official conspiracy theory and the operation management.

      The controlled opposition will also spin this conflicting info so that the opposition will become even more divided. What the controlled opposition will spin is what they can make believable.

      They don't necessary need to bury the truth, but it is sufficient to delay it for so long that no one will care when it is becomes known.

      Spending lots of time on dead ends is something the operation management will like, of course.

    2. Conflicting information in some general sense, yes, but the case OBF is trying to make is that the many inconveniences which occur in clear embarrassment (fade to black, whitewash & other footage loop of spire, ball and black blog) are all seeded, instead of that they fit with a real missile/hologram hitting the tower and being covered with CGI, and fit in with the other footage which showed more close-ups of the takedown.

  4. Re: My latest comments at the franklyspeaking interview vanished, and have been reappearing and vanishing again.

    You need to open all the comments down to the bottom, and then scroll up again. I have a new comment almost at the top there that you will not see unless you do this.

    1. I've tried that, El Buggo, and several other things besides. Many things.

      I've had no trouble here. I'm going to re-post the last paragraph of the second part of my reply to Pshea that I made in that interview because I just heard Jim give some support to some of Judy Wood's evidence, and I agree that some of her work is good.

    2. I think the sheer number of posts on Frank's last show blogged down the database. If we get 300+ posts on this show the same issues may crop up again.

  5. That was a point worth considering you (meaning Pshea) made about the perpetrators' possibly setting up a nuclear rabbit hole from the get-go. The nuclear hypothesis had some supporters early on; I recall the discussions and most of its support had the appearance of disinformation. Since that time, however, a lot of new evidence has come to light: even a lot of Judy Wood's evidence has made a good circumstantial case for extraordinary devices (perhaps just planted among disinformation in order to bolster her support). It seems to me that it would have been the safest and most economical way of pulling it off in a way that matched the official theory -- Khalezov's thesis does, by the way, account for the appearance of a top-down collapse of Towers One and Two. Khalezov's theory about Chernobyl has the ring of truth, as well.

    1. It accounts for to-down but not for the successive floor blow-out. One nuke in the basement triggering upper floor events does not demonstrate a perfect blow-out all along.

      But it is, perhaps, unknowable exactly right now what way they did it. I think Don is likely more correct than Khalezov, but his vision of how it basically could have been nuclear seems to have been borne out.

    2. I'm not understanding what you mean by the "successive floor blow-out", Clare. Admittedly it depends on which video you watch, but my overall impression is that there were (in Towers 1 and 2) four stages of what I would now call unabashedly a collapse:

      (1) the smoking tower without movement

      (2) tower shaking and immediately an explosive fireball from within where the airliner "hit" had previously been hoaxed (my focus is on videos of the North Tower)

      (3) straight-down collapse at uniform, free-fall speed without any indication that the fall was in any way braked at the successive floors (Judy Wood's claim, too)

      (4) empty sky while (pyroclastic?) dust jettisoned itself in all directions from the base at near-ground level

      I still can't explain why the video "evidence" shows a different collapse for Tower 7, but I wouldn't characterize it the way Jim does. What Building 7 looks like to me is a hollowed-out building with only the outer walls left to collapse as one solid unit. If this is an example of a building which does NOT exhibit successive floor blow-out, I guess I can see what you're saying about Towers 1 and 2. But I believe (although I could be wrong) that the walls of 1 and 2 were of a different construction than the walls of Building 7. Were the walls of Building 7 merely curtain walls, then their weight would have been carried as a vertical dead-load weight and were reinforced only from below (but deliberately reinforced vertically) -- whereas 1 and 2's walls were mutually reinforcing with the interior structure, which interior structure would have been pulverized at the onset of collapse so that the vertical forces that held that held up the walls would not have been adequate to cause them to retain their integrity.

      The point of the Khalezov thesis is that the detritus from the macro-device in basement was channeled up through a chimney created by least resistance and going from 77 meters below ground level to the bottom of the subbasement 27 meters below ground level. This would have given the detonation the character of an enormous shaped charge. The detritus would have reached a height of 350 meters-- "miraculously" the height where the "planes" hit. There was still enough impact force at this level to produce the effect of the internal fiery explosion, through a combination of the friction going up and the friction of impact with the bottom of the top floors (11 in the North and 16 in the South) that were not hollow.

    3. Apologies for the couple of typos above. This one is important to correct. I wrote "macro-device in basement"-- which not only left out the 'the", but misstated Khalezov's case. The macro-device was buried far below the basement and subbasement, 50 meters (half the length of a football field) below the very bottom of the building.

  6. A good reason to question the prima facie (ostensible) evidence: the controlled media produced or at least introduced it, or government agencies controlled it.

    Like the good reasons you couldn't see, Jim, for not supporting Obama: (1) no one really knew where he came from (no history in the civil-rights struggle, for instance), (2) he was "elected" as the Democratic Party candidate by the electronic voting-machine companies, (3) he had more support from the major banking corporations than his opponent, (4) one of Zbigniew Brzezinski's sons handled his campaign (while his other son handled his opponent's), (5) Hillary Clinton ran against him but after Bilderberg dropped out and supported him, (6) he never supported any progressive, anti-war candidate (esp. those who were African-American), (7) he was cited for corruption by the Senate in connection with the Chicago pharmaceutical firm that produced the swine-flu vaccine and shipped live samples to Europe -- and many more.

    1. Baracula was pulled up by the gang who control the media. He didn't raise to the top. Guess whether they control that puppet too? They probably had several other acceptable puppets in the race, just in case. The gang who control the media have total control on the election process too.

      Anyway, when the gang who control the media also control the puppet in the White House, they can get their agents in wherever they want in the Gov. If they need some fake lab reports, from say USGS, their puppet will assist if necessary, and so on...

    2. The group rose to about 3,500 members during its peak under Charles K. Johnson. The organization faced overwhelming scientific evidence and public opinion that maintained that the Earth is a sphere. The term "flat-earther" became commonly used to refer to an individual who stubbornly adheres to discredited or outmoded ideas.

      The society fell to around 200 members by 1980. These members still believed that the Earth is flat. Eugenie Scott called the society an example of "extreme Biblical-literalist theology: The earth is flat because the Bible says it is flat, regardless of what science tells us". The society was further affected by a fire at the house of Charles K. Johnson which destroyed all of the records and contacts of members of the Flat Earth Society. Johnson’s wife, who helped manage the database, died shortly thereafter. Charles K. Johnson himself died on March 19, 2001.

  7. FYI: until someone from the Clueless Forum (El Buggo, OBF, Simon Shack) comes out and states that satellites exist and the Earth is a sphere you're going to keep getting Flat Earth and satellite posts out of me. I'm not going to seriously respond to anything that a Flat Earth dipshit posts.

    1. Too bad, because the work on SOME MEDIA FAKING ON THE DAY is solid that far.

    2. Clare,

      These guys should not be taken seriously on ANY subject let alone 9/11. Anyone that believes the Earth is flat should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinery. They have no credibility. ZERO NONE NADA ZILCH!

      They don't believe nuclear weapons exist or that rockets can travel into space either. They can't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Fetzer should ban them from posting. All they do is clog up the discussion.

      Jim's policy here on the blog is to let be a free for all. This is place where people can let off steam. He may want to re-examine that if we keep getting hundreds of posts per show from people who think the Earth is flat.

  8. To anyone out there reading who is unswayed, but interested/ curios:

    Clare Kuehn IN NO WAY represents the views of Simon Shack, Hoi Polloi, or their website :

    In my opinion she does not know what the hell she is talking about.

    The fact that Fetzer has her on to represent/review/present/interpret the information to Fetzer IS A COMPLETE JOKE!

    Please ignore her ramblings and instead go to the site itself and take the time to seriously review/consider the information presented there and the conclusions reached.

    Regards, obf

    1. No ramblings, OBF. You misunderstood what Jim Fetzer meant by when one needs to remember the prima facie arguments for reality (as a double check on everything you do, just in case something is real, such as when it is inconvenient to the official story and comes in at the kind of moment when inconveniences would happen and need covering up and are); and you misunderstood what he meant by whether he would "debate [WITH] you" -- of course he would -- or whether he would "not debate" the point in the end, meaning "find no cause to agree".

      The sites you mention are great, but not their overstatement of their position, meaning, the final conclusion goes too far, is sloppy.

      Yes, there are some CGI towers in there, i.e., altered so there is no shadow on the north face, etc.

      The rest are controlled tower views, masked.

      The takedown is itself entirely plausible for the amount of dust and the strange condition of the steel that was left.

      The spire has MORE detail than a crappy CGI would give, and in some photos and videos is entirely visually, physically plausible if something can become dust: parts fall, dust blows naturally. So though there is a prima facie FEELING that the event of the spire is impossible, there is a prima facie CASE from the details in the videos and photos that the spire is real,and because it got special treatment (whitewash & edit in one place and sloppy overlay dust loop in another), it also fits with how natural cover-ups work -----

      Along with the "ball". And the nose-out and banners.
      Beyond all this, the USGS which COULD have lied did not; its findings, highly inconvenient, could only be explained as fake if, as you overdo, one pleads specially (special pleading, in law), that it was seeded into the record. But all indications of odd results in the leftover materials (residue on the ground and in the air: so much dust and strange steel), the diseases, the reports of high heat and the constant wetting down of the area and bringing in dirt all converge on the conclusion that the USGS actually did find those elements in those concentrations, and did not recognize what they had, which is why Steve Jones went to the trouble to ignore that aspect.

      It is you who are rambling now, in a loop.

      In deciding that all must be fake, nothing can prove real to you. It is as Othello suffered.

    2. What you may be granted, fully, is that there is much evidence of INAUTHENTICITY FROM CAMERA ORIGINAL in the record. This required some CGI and some editing layering in computers.

      You are also correct there are lots of sloppy victim alterations and other indications that no-one is mourning lots of these victims, because so many of them are not real -- to bring numbers up to 3,000. It is likely, however, that some died in the upper floors and in WTC 7 and around the area.

      Jim Fetzer speaks of the convergence of the footage, and, in gist, he is right, but he is not right if he thinks there is no CGI or computer masking ON THE DAY OF, as well as later.

      Best wishes.

    3. Clare,

      Your use of English is weird. Are all English speaking Canadians as incoherent, rambling, inarticulate, disjointed and downright unintelligible as you are?

      Just curious.

    4. As a Canadian who speaks English, I have to concur that her prose and speech ties my brain into knots for hours as well. She may understand what she's saying perfectly, but it doesn't translate in her communications.Intentional or not, the word obfuscate fits her to a "T".: confuse
      intransitive verb
      : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

    5. In 2004, Daniel Shenton (not related to Samuel) resurrected the Flat Earth Society, basing it around a web-based discussion forum. This eventually led to the official relaunch of the society in October 2009, and the creation of a new website, featuring the largest public collection of Flat Earth literature in the world and a user-edited encyclopedia. Moreover, the society began accepting new members for the first time since 2001, with musician Thomas Dolby becoming the first member to join the newly reconvened society. As of March 2012, around 420 people have become members. Shenton has also conducted several interviews since the society's relaunch, including in The Guardian newspaper.

    6. unintelligible. master at disinfo by creating uninfo and babbleinfo.

  9. Kuehn, you are complete a joke, setting yourself up as some sort of judge/arbiter of truth about Shack's research with your half-assed, cock-eyed "defense" of Shack which approximates :" it's good but it goes too far" . Yadda , yadda yadda.

    Regardless of Shack's and my ultimate conclusions about the 911 imagery we have all been presented with, the bald fact is that both you and Fetzer [and most everyone else here] remain in complete and absolute denial of the scientifically methodological requirement to authenticate [or make a decent attempt to] ANY/ ALL claimed "live" 911 footage _before_ it _ever_ can be used as evidence of anything; you because you [apparently] simply are ignorant and don't know any better, and Fetzer because either he's mentally lazy and just an extremely bad scientist or, he's an all out fraud - I know not which [nor do I really care.]

    No regards,[ but many guffaws] obf.

    1. Flat Earth News, was a quarterly, four-page tabloid.

      Some headlines from Flat Earth News during the 1970s and early 1980s:
      "Whole World Deceived... Except the Very Elect" (Dec. 1977)
      "Australia Not Down Under" (May 1978)
      "Sun Is a Light 32 Miles Across" (Dec. 1978)
      "The Earth Has No Motion" (Jun. 1979)
      "Nikita Krushchev Father of NASA" (Mar. 1980)
      "Galileo Was a Liar" (Dec. 1980)
      "Science Insults Your Intelligence" (Sep. 1980)
      "World IS Flat, and That's That" (Sep. 1980)
      "The Earth Is Not a Ball; Gravity Does Not Exist" (Mar. 1981)

    2. Totally agree.

      Kuehn should stick with her Paul-Is-Dead crapola. I blame Jim Fetzer for giving Kuehn the platform of his blog to spout her asinine PID and other assorted shinola in various podcasts. Now Kuehn is muscling in
      on 9/11. All of a sudden she's a fucking expert - an authority on 9/11!!
      What fucking next? An expert on
      everyfuckingthing? Gimme a fucking break, will ya??

      Best regards,

      He haaaaaw!!

    3. Don,

      Flat Earth News??

      Are you sure those are not some old Monty Python Flying Circus scripts you've found?
      Those issue titles are hilarious!!

      NO one expects the Flat Earth News!!!

    4. Jean,

      Since September Clues appears to believe that the Earth is indeed flat I've been scouring Google to find Flat Earth stuff so I can goof on them. In this case good ole Wikipedia came through again. I'm glad you found those titles funny - I was laughing my ass off when I saw the Flat Earth News bit.

    5. Don:

      Here are a few Flat Earth News headlines you may have missed:

      Archimedes was just a jerk in a bath tub. (Mar. 86).

      Sun is dark and cold. Apparent light and heat are mere illusions.
      (April 84).

      Michael Angelo ate Flat Earth News' pet rabbit. (Jan. 72).

      Telescopes cause atrophy of the testicles and balls of the feet and are therefore dangerous. (Aug. 77).

      When round actually means
      flat. (Feb. 71).

      Flat Earth means cheaper gasoline at the pumps. (July 83).

      How the Earth flattened itself in seven days. ( Dec. 75 - With pop up pictures and free coloring pencils).

      Full moon causes obesity in unborn cattle. (June 76).

      The moon was my Pluto. (Nov. 86 - Dr Ray Lunerberk).

      Train your dog and cat to accept a flat earth environment. ( Aug. 72).

      Why Flat Earth News is shit and knows it. (Oct. 73).

    6. Don:

      Calculate your Flat Earth footprint. (June 89).

    7. Spoofing an extreme result of an extreme position taken too far and radical doubt (openmindedness) taken too far, does NOTHING to help the discussion of the true position from evidence.

      Don knows Paul McCartney died (in spite of the oddity that sounds like), but that all the Beatles were gone not only sounds wrong but is disprovable. SOME go that far on an "already dumb" idea which turns out to be quite right.

      Let him sit with that.

    8. Jean,

      You have beat me at my own game! I highly doubt I'll be able to top those Flat Earth headlines so I'm going to switch to nukes. They don't believe in them either so everyone will be in for some basic nuclear physics...

      Clare: these guys have spent months attacking me so let me have a few chuckles at their expense! Jean got a kick out of it!!

  10. Tarzan prouvé la terre est tout simplement une sphère creuse.

  11. jorge!!!

    Tarzan a prouvé...

    If you're going to write in French, write proper French. Dickhead!

    Si tu vas écrire en français, écris le français comme il faut. Tête de vier!

  12. Le mien est plus petit que le vôtre.

  13. Atlanta Bill said: "A good reason to question the prima facie (ostensible) evidence: the controlled media produced or at least introduced it, or government agencies controlled it. "

    Excellent points Bill, but even more important than those reasons, the scientists methodology requires it, "no ifs, ands, or buts", regardless of source.

    For a real scientist, the only pre-assumptions would be the discovered laws of physics, everything else [including all imagery] must be pre-assumed to be neither true or false until satisfactorily tested.

    If proven genuine,_then_, and only then could it be regarded as genuine reliable evidence and perhaps be used to formulate a hypothesis , or disprove another.

    Fetzer Kuehn and Fox etc. are all in complete denial of this necessary preliminary step [of course :-) ], choosing instead to deem various cherry-picked 911 imagery as "genuine evidence" seemingly merely via personal whim.

    For example , these images:

    Regards obf.

    1. OBF, it's not the usual thing that's meant by "the scientific method", so in that sense Dr Fetzer is right. But it seems to me that, in a case in which all pronouncements and exhibits coming forth from the government and the government-controlled media have to be assumed prima facie to be suspect, the scientific method can't be applied as it normally would be. We don't have the ordinary evidence we would find in a natural, unmanipulated reality; instead, we have the evidence that's presented to us in a contrived reality -- "We'll create history; you report it." -- remember?

      @ima and Becket et al., are you listening to the right interview? The Clare Kuehn that I've been listening to is rational to a fault, and her English is immaculate. If you chaps are just going to spam the comment section with nonsense, there's no reason we should respect your rights as Internet users. We might just as easily clutter the Fakeologist chatroom with such outrageous and beastly falderol, but that's not why we're here. Hyperbole has its place; but, if you want to be extended courtesy, you'll have to show some of your own.

    2. Atlanta Bill:
      I have listened to Clare speak and she speaks faultlessly. It's her writing that I find difficult to follow.I am sure Clare is a perfectly lovely girl and that she would perhaps be the first to say that she has problems with writing.
      Maybe Clare is in a rush to get it all down and this enthusiasm and eagerness or whatever cause her to
      sell herself short in her posts. That's all I'm saying. I wish Clare and you all the very best.

    3. Bill,

      Some of what makes them angry is that Clare doesn't toe the Sept Clueless line 100%. Clare isn't part of their clique and doesn't speak for them. She is approaching Shack et al's research from the perspective that they are honest researchers when nothing could be further from the truth. Clueless has constructed yet another phony mythology surrounding 9/11. No surprise really that the Clueless mythology does not include nukes or Israel.

      Clare's problem is that she's trying to shoehorn a bunch of Shack's BS into the reality of the 9/11 event. It's not possible so she was left in a rather untenable position.

      My approach is to acknowledge that Sept Clues is totally full of it and go after them.

    4. No, my position is far from untenable; Shack does some great work.

      Stop calling it clueless.

      Your position has more credit when you acknowledge what they got right and wrong.

      Remember: Paul died; not all the Beatles. "Featles" nonsense (which must be not only seen as odd nonsense but proven it is untrue, which we can) is a good example of what is going on here with "Clueless". Part right, part strange 100% faking claim which -- unlike Sandy Hook or the 9/11 planes themselves which are strange claims of untrue which turn out to be right -- turns out to be disprovable in a general sense.

    5. Jean Bichet -- Yes, though I write as I speak, by the way -- with parts aside for emphasis, all in long thoughts. With speaking, one can emphasize things better with tonality. I also am in a hurry to put it all down here.

    6. OBF:

      "If proven genuine" is not the same as "if proven fake", in the context we are speaking here. If something has a general claim of being genuine (with good arguments from normal human behaviour in cover-up messes) but there are provable fakes as well, then the assumption SHOULD be (though it is not absolute, I grant you), that the perps had a problem and pre-conceived some layering to help a cover-up and control of storyline, but that other than that they fixed up the real errors.

      The assumption cannot be to prove all real things real directly (an impossibility); the reality comes through a constellation of types of things -- such as witnesses (most witnesses), aftereffects, arguments about what physics could NOT have done this and what we are left with for the dust, and, again, normal cover-up plans, which know there will be some real stuff to have to include.

      Sandy Hook, for example, includes real images from the DAY, but it was a fake drill at the firehouse. Get it?

    7. September Clues is a gatekeeper operation start to finish. Nobody died on 9/11? The whole 9/11 event was nothing but a Hollywood style production? All the footage was faked? Nuclear weapons and satellites don't exist? They are obviously full of it Clare.

      They have made a minuscule at most contribution to 9/11 research. They spend far more time attacking other researchers than they do anything else. Sound familiar? Yep. Just like Judy Wood and her merry band of cult members.

    8. I didn't use Sandy Hook to suggest fake imagery wasn't part of (in layers) the 9/11 footage. I was using the Sandy Hook example just to point out the way we cannot assume no real footage in a complex coverup.

  14. Clare wrote:
    "Okay, you are SO behind in understanding each of these points that it will waste time here. Please catch up on the gashes (and their insufficient size at first), the planes (and crash physics and missing passengers/victims for most), the trusses......"
    Clare, to think I was going to compliment you on your understanding of and excellent articulation of many points in September Clues to a confused and angry Dr. Fetzer.
    (I could not get the volume low enough for comfortable listening to the podcast.)

    I thought it was clear that what I wrote above
    meant the video we saw on 9/11 was designed. or more accurately, "faked" to support the official government 9/11 fiction and act as evidence.

    Originally, I thought just the planes in the news footage
    were CGI and the gashes were real--bown out of the buildings simultaneous to the fireballs.

    Now, I realize that would be ridiculous and dangerous with a building wired for a demolition. The entire scene shown to the public--from the first hit to the collapse of WTC 2--had to have been pre-taped.

    (Dr. Fetzer said in an earlier comments section that he was working on how those gashes were made. I have yet to get an answer.)

    1. Sorry to have precluded a compliment; the gashes are explosions and cutter charges; there seems to have been something which hit (from multiple lines of reasoning, including some bent-in beams, the "ball" footage, the need, even with hologram ionized around it maybe, to have something through the air), the homing beams (white laser dot in some of the footage before the 2nd "plane hit").

      The entire sequence cannot have been pre-taped in case of inconvenient things going on and the inconveniences (banners covering parts of the footage) indicate real embarrassment most naturally, not seeded cleverness, since they are so awkward and humans in the moment think of such things, not beforehand, though that is not an absolute argument, of course); parts of the footage have natural photography.

      Radical doubt from some faking is sloppy thinking; it is fine to ask it, but there are plenty of ways to come back from that position quite reasonably.

      Radical doubt cannot be disproven formally. General lack of doubt must be (there are fakes provably in the record of the day -- meaning non-camera originals). Control of the overall impression would be the main motivation, not pre-taping; but to see this one must not get stuck in radical doubt.

      It is fine to ask a radical doubt kind of question, but then balance it with other lines of argument; in 9/11 these arguments hold together in the end (that there was sloppiness and naturalness to certain things) but in Sandy Hook the radical doubt of the main event does hold (there are actually missing pieces of the main story and counter-indications -- badges on drill members, check-in sign, many not just one of the children from the event singing at the Super Bowl only a few years older than their photos -- making the uncomfortable conclusion from radical doubt necessary).

    2. By the way, Joan, what I was saying about not being up on the event is that if you are saying there were real demolitions only, or natural collapse, these things are completely untenable, but it takes certain kinds of argument to show that.

    3. Clare,
      I can see a marked improvement in your posts. You must continue to take your time and curb your enthusiasm.

  15. Joan Edwards said : "...a confused and angry Dr. Fetzer."

    So what's new, Joan?


    1. And an overly self-assured OBF who thinks he's on a crusade for deprogramming people where only part of his crusade (but yes, an important part) is tenable, unless one goes to radical skepticism (extreme doubt) not careful skepticism.

      Radical skepticism looks as if it is careful, but is actually masking a false assumption: that no argument can speak for itself ever, to the degree it is testable. Not all things are testable fully, but meet general tests. That is where prima facie comes in -- one actually tests beyond the face of the thing, but if the test supports the face of it to some degree and has no other argument the other way, it can be assumed real, not fake.

  16. LOL, OBF! I was looking up a couple of names mentioned on Fakeologist with Shack and you. Very interesting "jobs" these fellows have!

    Steven Rosenbaum
    Rosenbaum also created the CameraPlanet 9/11 Archive, [1] an archive of footage from September 11 and its aftermath......CameraPlanet holds a large archive of videos from 9/11, mainly consisting of home videos taken by professionals and amateurs in September 2001.

    Museum and Memorial 911

    Rosenbaum has been documenting the entire process of creating the Museum and Memorial since it begun for a documentary, a book and a digital record of the decisions made........


    Kenneth Feinberg,
    9/11, Va. Tech. Mediator, Helps On Aurora Shooting Victims' Fund
    DENVER — The mediator who oversaw compensation for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks will oversee the distribution of money donated to the victims of the deadly shooting at a suburban Denver movie theater, Gov. John Hickenlooper said Friday.

  17. Don't you find it strange that so many photographers were sent out to film the two hour event known as 9/11?

    Let's see, there are about 40 photos taken of the 500 mph plane hitting the south tower from many vantage points. There must be hundreds of photos of the collapsing towers from every conceivable angle.

    What is the probability of so many photographs being taken just at the right moment? Seems to me this is prima facie evidence of something.

    1. You know, Joan, I think you've hit on some of the reasons the Fakeologists are so solidly behind Simon Shack. He does some damned good work! It's just Simon Shack's overall picture of the event that I can't buy. I don't want to speak for Clare, but my impression is that she feels the same.

      What really turns me off is their (including Shack's) insistence that Dr Fetzer is acting on behalf of a hidden agenda. Jim has every right to be furious with them. And yet he still extends an invitation to Simon Shack to come in for an interview! I wish he'd accept the offer!

    2. Yes, Shack did great work in many ways.

      He is not likely (sadly) to come on the show, feeling that he is so right in the end position he's taken, and that Jim will just attack (not reason).

      However, Happy New Year.

    3. I really can't, for the life of me, understand why you think Shack's work is great.

      He doesn't cross-check with other data sources, he doesn't accept even the slightest criticism let alone submit any of his work for peer review. He doesn't use proper scientific methods, it's all paper-thin.

      Honestly, his work is pathetic, it wouldn't get a passing grade in any university.

      Shack is a joke, and I really hope you can come to realise that Clare.

    4. Ian, we don't need to cross check info with other sources when we are sure that info has fundamental flaws. Like the 140 feet plane that was sucked into a 30 feet hole. We don't need to crosscheck that with a 9000 pages Pentagon crash report, or listen to "witnesses" telling us the wings folded backwards on impact. They are lying from the get-go!

    5. While uranium-235 is the naturally occuring fissionable isotope, there are other isotopes which can be induced to fission by neutron bombardment. Plutonium-239 is also fissionable by bombardment with slow neutrons, and both it and uranium-235 have been used to make nuclear fission bombs. Plutonium-239 can be produced by "breeding" it from uranium-238. Uranium-238, which makes up 99.3% of natural uranium, is not fissionable by slow neutrons. U-238 has a small probability for spontaneous fission and also a small probability of fission when bombarded with fast neutrons, but it is not useful as a nuclear fuel source. Some of the nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington and the Savannah-River Plant (SC) are designed for the production of bomb-grade plutonium-239. Thorium-232 is fissionable, so could conceivably be used as a nuclear fuel. The only other isotope which is known to undergo fission upon slow-neutron bombardment is uranium-233.

    6. But still no Ground Zero has been found in any of the historical films and photos from that military occupied and controlled area in Hiroshima. Pretty basic stuff that are still missing, Don.

      And as you know, first impression is really significant. That's when the story gets it legs. Might be hard to stop or correct after this first impression. Especially after one million reports. The "broken record" strategy, you know.

      Here is another guy that has investigated nukes and rocket stories for more that 30 years. His conclusion is that no one but US has nukes. I definitely don't agree with all his conclusions here, but found his reasoning quite interesting. He has a lot of good bullets points.

      Only the U S has Nukes Ralph Epperson

      The video is 3h9min, so pretty long and quite a lot of refined info there. This is of course only intended for the very interested and serious guys. Maybe Atlanta Bill will like this?

  18. Atlanta Bill said: You know, Joan, I think you've hit on some of the reasons the Fakeologists are so solidly behind Simon Shack. He does some damned good work! It's just Simon Shack's overall picture of the event that I can't buy. I don't want to speak for Clare, but my impression is that she feels the same.

    I think the recent fake events such as Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon, the shootings at numerous sites, etc. have opened our eyes to the fact that much that passes for real news events is really faked. I know it has been quite a shock and revelation to me. As you look back at the mystery of 9/11 and the continuing cover ups, much of what we have used as evidence--mostly videos and still photos--is easily seen for what it is--fake. Many researchers have a lot invested in their theories and therefore are reluctant to change.

    1. Lots are fake -- in the sense of doctored, manipulated, co-ordinated, reworked, layered, shot elsewhere and added ... but where they do these changes indicates what was real in the footage in a lot of cases in such a way which is entirely coherent and contrary to the official narrative and fits with other lines of reasoning.

      So it is not "fake" in the blanket sense.

  19. Atlanta Bill said: What really turns me off is their (including Shack's) insistence that Dr Fetzer is acting on behalf of a hidden agenda. Jim has every right to be furious with them. And yet he still extends an invitation to Simon Shack to come in for an interview! I wish he'd accept the offer!

    I think Dr. Fetzer is knowingly or unknowingly protecting the US government and the intelligence agencies. His JFK writings find alternative villains such as LBJ and take the light off of the US government by blaming the Mossad and Israel. He does the same with 9/11. On other issues like Sandy Hook he comes across as right on.

    Dr. Fetzer can be very intimidating and unreasonable when he hears something he doesn't agree with. As a host, he should let guests speak their thoughts without being interrupted and attacked as happened with OBF several times. It's just common courtesy. He can just say he doesn't agree with their point of view.

    Otherwise, this is a good forum partly because it is conservative. It takes some doing to change anyone's mind here. I'm grateful for the energy and work Jim puts into this. He is really to be admired for his hard work--writing, lining up guests and putting on seminars isn't easy. So, many thanks, Jim, for all that you do. All the best in the new year.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Atlanta Bill said :"OBF, it's not the usual thing that's meant by "the scientific method", so in that sense Dr Fetzer is right. "

    I don't think so. "Prima Facie" literally means "at first glance", or "at first blush".

    No scientist in his/her right mind assumes that because something looks OK at first glance, that it is in fact so.

    In order for something to become valid evidence to a scientist, it first has to be thoroughly checked, cross checked/compared etc. etc. surely?

    This would naturally include any /all imagery if there is the possibility that that imagery might later be used as evidence by the researcher.

    Otherwise, we have to deal with [and now are, on a daily basis!] the ugliness of completely unverified imagery being offered as incontrovertible "proof" of whatever, by "scientists" and other jokers.

    I posted an excellent clear definition of the legal principle of "Prima facie" by an Italian judge, given to Simon Shack recently; and printed verbatim in the comments section at my blog site exploring the whole Fetzer/prima facie subject and Fetzer's gross misunderstanding of the applied legal principle, here:

    " 911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

    Regards, obf.

    1. He doesn't trash the scientific method; he is suggesting that getting exact info (impossible) on all cameras is unnecessary for the take-down (destruction) because so many lines of argument converge (especially the resultant lack of tower debris in so many ways).

  22. Joan Edwards aid : "LOL, OBF! I was looking up a couple of names mentioned on Fakeologist with Shack and you. Very interesting "jobs" these fellows have!"

    Yes Joan, Mr Rosenbaum's "Camera Planet" project plus his new position stink to high heaven, as does Mr Feinberg, but shhhsh, don't tell J. Fetzer etc., cos he and his cronies all "know" [without ever actually checking] that all of the Camera Planet imagery is real, because it all "hangs together" [or whatever ] :-) .

    Regards obf.

    1. In one of the most remarkable phenomena in nature, a slow neutron can be captured by a uranium-235 nucleus, rendering it unstable toward nuclear fission. A fast neutron will not be captured, so neutrons must be slowed down by moderation to increase their capture probability in fission reactors. A single fission event can yield over 200 million times the energy of the neutron which triggered it!

    2. There wasn't any moderator in Little Boy that was reported to have demolished Hiroshima. A moderator is required in reactors to slow down neutrons 99.9%.

      No moderator, and no Ground Zero in any of the historical photos or films of the event. I suggest we locate that before we look into this missing moderator problem.

      I have previously claimed that the reported Hiroshima nuking was the by far most famous event in the history of Nuclear Bomb reports, but it is even more than that. The reported tragedy in Hiroshima may have been the top news story of the 20th century!

      Also notice the severe censorship in Japan after the reported nuke drops - much worse than N Korea today? That is an excellent environment for getting the out the story you like if you can shut down and control the area yourself. Japan is still occupied.

      Germany as also brainwashed with silly stories like human skin lamps, shrunken heads and soap made of prisoners. So we know that some of the big stories were simply rubbish.

    3. Some of the big stories contain rubbish, were not as claimed -- but even Holocaust deniers do not actually deny a lot of dead (most don't anyway): they reduce the numbers (which have also been drastically, if not quite as much, reduced officially) and claim starvation with disease for most deaths.

      Clamp-down on info from Japan at end of WWII could also be so that the intense horrors of atomic death did not get out as well, as fast. But even if, let us say, the atomic bombs were not ready, not dropped, there are millions of people who work on those problems for bombs now, or have, over the past 60 years, which is not a containable conspiracy, and we should, of all people, know that contained but large conspiracies are possible -- but not in that amount and across that many sectors at the same time.

    4. Clare, it is the gas chamber story that is disputed, and it is not uncommon to claim non victims there.

      Re: Clamp-down on info from Japan at end of WWII could also be so that the intense horrors of atomic death did not get out as well, as fast.

      Well, if pigs sprout wings, can they fly? No Ground Zero in Hiroshima, but we should still continue to talk about the radiation? There are no EMP damages there either:

      "Where is the electromagnetic pulse of the bomb at Hiroshima? The streetcars were electric. The EMP should have fried each motor. Those windings on those electric motors should have fused to their casings and the fast racing EMP would have travelled back up the streetcar electricity grid overhead back to the powerstation generator and fried that too."

      Well, exactly when was this first nuke blast done then? "Later" isn't good enough.

      Lots of people can work on a project without having a clue on what's really going on. If some or a few people really had a clue, they would ship some experts from Oak Ridge that would baffle them with BS. If that wouldn't work, they would invite them to Oak Ridge to see their TopSecret stuff, after they had sign the non disclosure agreement with threats of severe punishment if they released any info from the BS TopSecret stamped documents. In the Manhattan operation, only the very controlled people and gurus at Oak Ridge had the official knowledge on how the stuff should work, etc, not the millions employed.

      This Fucks was enrolled it this project, and understood that is was BS, he told the Soviets this and was jailed for many years, etc.

      Nothing new that lots of people can keep a secret. We have about 1000 Hollywood movies released each year, but only very seldom are there leaks on how the movies ends. One way or another, they manage to keep most of their secrets, without being able to stamp their stuff TopSecret and the threat of severe punishment. Why haven't some of the people who knew Paul "before he was killed" come forward?

    5. Not all things can be known about PID, sadly. He died. Period. At that point not much is known for sure; hypotheses can be made about not coming forward -- this is largely a case of personal loyalty, "family secret" stuff in extended "family business" ... once started, others would have more reason to keep loyalty than in a pure business. Threats and money and moving on with a life would also be part of it. Most who really knew, however, would be professionals ... lawyers, police, some at the studio, and Frieda Kelly. They kept their mouths shut. Mal Evans seemingly did NOT and ended up dead. Heather Mills discovered something -- and no, simple "money" or "she's unstable" do not fit the actual reactions she had, which were to protect Paul (an odd thing to say, when she was in a divorce proceeding where his lawyers were awful), and talk of death threats and "he knew", and "a box of evidence ... if you pop me off it will come out".

      Do we hear from the best friends of the original Paul as a kid at all? Not much.

      John yes.

      More than that I CANNOT answer about the general people, but it does not mean he did not die.

      Now, of course, the hypotheses about the people here are not intended to be proof for a death any more than they are proof against a death.
      Simply, it is not impossible in the least. Many less lucrative and positive (for a legacy to continue) secrets are kept in close family and friends forever, such as rape.

    6. As to the issues of nukes and gas chambers:

      actually I know the arguments on both sides of each issue.

      What I was addressing is that the idea of no nuclear bombs at all is highly unlikely, given so many persons in fields directly contributing work which would substantiate the science for or against nuke bombs.

      And that the holocaust deniers generally do not deny many but not 2-6 million deaths overall. The numbers dead over the war and in the putative illness/starvation and immediate aftermath killings under Stalin would guarantee enough deaths that many families surviving would have experienced a loss of many persons "to the camps" in some way), thus being a Holocaust to them.

      So I was pointing out that there was a Holocaust to the Jews -- and it involved cruelty of enslavement and some experimentation and shot-on-the-spot stuff as well -- even if the "Holocaust [storyline] deniers" are right.

    7. Clare, yes, as I said, one way or another, it is not evidence (or some similar expression), that something couldn't have happened because SOMEONE would have whistled. There are ways to keep secrets secret, even if many people are involved one way or another.

      Ones upon a time, everybody knew that the earth was flat. That it could be round as an orange was regarded as highly unlikely. Then, one guy came about, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, figured out this illusion, and his idea spread like bushfire. These days we only have this Don Fox who like to discuss this topic it seems. So just because some thing are assumed by everyone as highly unlikely, doesn't in it self prove that it is so, etc. How about some empirical evidence instead of just listening to what "everybody knows"?

      Short on holohox (cannot get involved in another huge subject here now): The story is so bad as if it should have been created by children - like a fairytale made by children. That is how I will describe it. For more, read the PDF: The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, by Samuel Crowell.

    8. Little Boy was a crude primitive weapon by today's standards. Only 1.38% of the uranium actually fissioned:

      Keep in mind that an explosive nuclear chain reaction occurs when a sufficient quantity of nuclear fuel, such as uranium or plutonium, is brought together to form a critical mass. This is the minimum amount of fissionable material needed to start a chain reaction. The chain reaction starts when neutrons strike the heavy uranium or plutonium nucleus which splits releasing a tremendous amount of energy along with two or more neutrons which, in turn split more nuclei, and so on. In this gun-type device, the critical mass is achieved when a uranium projectile which is sub-critical is fired through a gun barrel at a uranium target which is also sub-critical. The resulting uranium mass comprised of both projectile and target becomes critical and the chain reaction begins.

      Dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, it was the first nuclear weapon used in a war. Following are some approximate statistics for Little Boy.

      •Weight: 9,700 lbs
      •Length: 10 ft.; Diameter: 28 in.
      •Fuel: Highly enriched uranium; "Oralloy"
      •Uranium Fuel: approx. 140 lbs; target - 85 lbs and projectile - 55 lbs
      •Target case, barrel, uranium projectile, and other main parts ferried to Tinian Island via USS Indianapolis
      •Uranium target component ferried to Tinian via C-54 aircraft of the 509th Composite Group
      •Efficiency of weapon: poor
      •Approx. 1.38% of the uranium fuel actually fissioned
      •Explosive force: 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent
      •Use: Dropped on Japanese city of Hiroshima; August 6, 1945
      •Delivery: B-29 Enola Gay piloted by Col. Paul Tibbets

  23. Joan Edwards said : "What is the probability of so many photographs being taken just at the right moment? Seems to me this is prima facie evidence of something."

    No no , no Joan, you don't understand.

    All those people are real photographers and they all crowded together and took the same photos, in almost the same moment of time, from almost the exact same location- nothing fishy about it at all- trust me! :-)

    For example:

    "9/11 Scams: The Faked "Award Winning" Amy Sancetta WTC2 "Tilt" Photo + Clones":

    These guys are all just really good photographers with incredibly fast reflexes who all happen to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, nothing else to it , God's truth :-)

    Regards, obf

    1. If a massive nucleus like uranium-235 breaks apart (fissions), then there will be a net yield of energy because the sum of the masses of the fragments will be less than the mass of the uranium nucleus. If the mass of the fragments is equal to or greater than that of iron at the peak of the binding energy curve, then the nuclear particles will be more tightly bound than they were in the uranium nucleus, and that decrease in mass comes off in the form of energy according to the Einstein equation. For elements lighter than iron, fusion will yield energy.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Don, Einstein was a fraud, like Judy Wood.

      Short video:

      Links, and links: (Broken link? Use Google)

    4. Judy is unstable and reaches out in a lashing way, but she is not a fraud. She is co-opted in her friends but is not a fraud. The work is a lot of complex thinking on (current) unprovable weapons postulates. It also is not open to (like the 100% fakery people) any correction, but it has its merits nevertheless in many things she pointed out very well, as does Shack.

    5. The photographers were probably a mixed sort for the end takedown; many saw it at that point locally and would have to be appeased with real photography overall, but some photographers would be connected to "intel" in the broad sense, or not be on the scene close enough with the right equipment. There are indications some choppers were military, not news, too.

    6. Would be extremely interesting if you could point out any authentic photos of the crucial moments 911, Clare.

      At least they know how to spin their stuff. Here, 1 video is cropped and released as 2 additional photos with another label:

      Many, many more examples here:

    7. Oh Clare, Judy Wood is 100% a fraud! She is a paid shill for the ADL!

      Her entire schtick is designed to lead the gullible in the wrong direction away from nuclear weapons.

      Add to that her gang of supporters that are used as attack dogs against anyone who speaks out against her and it couldn't be more obvious that she is a fraud rather than a serious researcher.

      In total, Judy Wood has done a lot of harm to the 9/11 truth movement, caused a lot of wasted time and effort by diverting people down wrong alleys and even worse, has caused myriad unpleasant battles between real researchers and her paid cronies.

      Honestly Clare, I see absolutely no basis whatsoever for claiming that Jud Wood is not a fraud.

    8. I agree with the previous speaker! (except that ADL part - I suspect some other of their departments or branches)

    9. Surely you must have run into Judy and Andrew at an ADL staff meeting at one time or other.

  24. Joan Edwards said: "Dr. Fetzer can be very intimidating and unreasonable when he hears something he doesn't agree with. As a host, he should let guests speak their thoughts without being interrupted and attacked as happened with OBF several times. It's just common courtesy. Dr. Fetzer can be very intimidating and unreasonable when he hears something he doesn't agree with. As a host, he should let guests speak their thoughts without being interrupted and attacked as happened with OBF several times. It's just common courtesy. He can just say he doesn't agree with their point of view."

    "He can just say he doesn't agree with their point of view."

    Never going to happen- which is exactly why Shack will probably never guest on his show- he's already heard the way I've been constantly talked down to, interrupted, and at Veterans Today actually called names by Fetzer. He does not need to experience that firsthand, presumably.

    This person [Fetzer] has a severe "personality disorder" in my opinion.

    Regards, obf.

    1. The fission of U-235 in reactors is triggered by the absorption of a low energy neutron, often termed a "slow neutron" or a "thermal neutron". Other fissionable isotopes which can be induced to fission by slow neutrons are plutonium-239, uranium-233, and thorium-232.

    2. You are now discussing reactors or the spire or both, Don?

    3. I'm just posting random nuclear physics blurbs. These guys don't believe in nuclear weapons so we have to try to educate them before we can have a useful discussion.

  25. Sadly, the comments section has now ceased to be an area for discussion about the content of the shows but rather a battleground.

    This is probably what OBF and Shack and the others in their lunatic fringe actually wanted - to disrupt and distract.

    1. No, they wanted to disrupt what they thought was (and partly is) inaccurate here and they thought might be (and is not) an agent operation,

      but it was not as mere wreckers; it was as believers that they have the truth, the whole truth, about the footage.

      They have truth, and it is uncomfortable, odd-sounding even in the more limited aspects where they are right; but it is a bit more limited than they think.

    2. Come on Clare, that's what they want you to think. You've fallen into their trap completely.

      Shack was parachuted into the 9/11 truth movement to disrupt things, smear and discredit the true researchers.

      Shack's a second generation agent. His father Eyvind did the same to Danilo Dolci's anti-Mafia crusade.

      You need to grasp that time spent debating Shack's work is time wasted, time that could be used to do real research.

  26. Fetzer claims the plane crash footage has enough continuity/similarities to one another to not be questioned.

    But if Shack's research brings doubt to the authenticity of the footage, then obf is right to question it.


    1. That is not what Dr Fetzer's view is at all and he has written several articles about the fakery of the video footage and whether there were actual lanes involved or not.

      Shack's research is not to be taken seriously, neither is Shack himself.

      OBF attacks Fetzer repeatedly without making much sense at all, it's clear that he's a crackpot.

    2. Aral:

      Jim's position is changing on some of the footage.

      Shack's work brings doubt accurately in many places, not all, to the authenticity of the footage.

      PID -- very D. D more than a doornail. They lied. Sorry. No joke. Really really dead. And was bloody. Egg-smashed. Wonky eyed. D, very D. Inconvenient. Unusual step taken after. But not impossible AND actually done.


      Shack's research is to be taken seriously -- not his final analysis logic, which is extreme (not that some conclusions that sound extreme are wrong, but some are).

      OBF is not a crackpot -- not in the pure sense you mean it; he is an extremist at times.

    3. Re: Shack's research is not to be taken seriously, neither is Shack himself.

      Ian, you need to add a "because" there to have an argument.

      An argument is one or more observations, deduction, conclusion.

    4. I've explained at least 3 times in the other thread why Shack's work is a farce.

      I'm not going to do so again because it's wasted time and effort. All discussion of Shack's work is wasted time and effort. Shack's work is designed to distract from the more important, valuable research, therefore I won't fall into the trap of wasting time and effort on it.

      Furthermore, I won't debate with people who are caught up in outlandish and ludicrous theories about Hiroshima and nuclear weapons being a hoax.

      If we have learnt anything from the last week or two, it is that Shack et al would love nothing more than to disrupt and derail us by introducing spurious theories and attacking those who refuse to fall for their petty games.

    5. Re: I've explained at least 3 times in the other thread why Shack's work is a farce

      I'll apologize then.

      Re: I won't debate with people who are caught up in outlandish and ludicrous theories about Hiroshima and nuclear weapons being a hoax.

      Why don't you smash them in the head by pointing out the famous Ground Zero in Hiroshima instead? Shouldn't be hard to find in some of the historical films or photos of the event I will presume. Everybody knows that the city was nuked, so Ground Zero got to be there somewhere!

      Honestly, I find it rather suspicious that no one can point out Ground Zero there. Almost as if I can suspect that the city was firebombed instead, and Pentagon et al sold us a fake nuke bombing report.

    6. Of course there was no obvious Ground Zero, the damn bomb exploded at 600metres from the ground!

    7. Thanks Ian,

      Do you know where this expression "Ground Zero" came from then? Heard it many times and had the impression that it had something to do with that reported nuke bombing in Hiroshima.

      Also, without this located "Ground Zero" in Hiroshima, where did that substance in this gigantic smoke plume that rose to 60000 feet come from then? Must have been something more that just hot air.

      So after a city is nuked, it looks just like it has been firebombed? How about the city was plain old firebombed in the first place, and they simply reported that it had been demolished by a new monster weapon instead? Everyone would believe it anyway - I promise.

      Hiroshima strike photo - the smoke plume:

      And with a black sky after sunrise. Very credible - isn't it? That was what they reported in 1945. Long time since we have been shown this silliness.

    8. I looked for info about this supposed nuke hoax at Hiroshima and what i found made me laugh because quite simply, it's laughable, ludicrous and pathetic.

      Take this long essay on the subject by Anders Bjorkman:

      It's rubbish, not a single piece of evidence, just a lot of one-sided vitriol. He claims atomic bombs don't work.

      What a load of crap, I just can't believe that anyone is fooled by this rubbish.

    9. Thanks Ian,

      You shouldn'y jump right into that hard core stuff. You brain will be overloaded. That something that happens to everyone exposed to this for the first time.

      You have to look for sound bits that might look credible, and pick up a little bit here and there, and build your own case.

      Here is how he got into this:

      "I worked spring 1972 - autumn 1976 and lived at Yokohama on the Bluff with a great view of Tokyo Bay to the south and Mount Fuji to the west. Two of my colleagues were children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. They never experienced any atomic bombings. Just conventional B-29 napalm carpet terror bombings!"

      Do you find what he is witnessing here conceivable? How would you have reacted if two survivors told you this?

      He will probably respond to your emails - keep it short and simple maybe:

      Anyway, maybe you could read alexis1111
      posts here?

      He jumps in at page 10. This was the guy who started atom bomb revisionism in 2005. He writes much better than me, and is much more talented. He is also very jewaware.

      In general, a problem we all have is that if we are only one step ahead of the crowd, we will be regarded as brilliant. If we are two steps ahead of the crowd, we will be perceived as kooks.

    10. If nuclear bombs don't exist then why did tritium levels in the atmosphere skyrocket during the 1950s and 60 when all of the above ground nuclear testing was going on? Why did the tritium levels plummet after above ground testing stopped?


    11. Re: tritium levels in the atmosphere skyrocket

      a) even more fake reports? b) they sprayed some stuff from planes? c) some other reason?

      If we find chicken shit somewhere, doesn't prove that a chicken lives there. Could simply be planted or distributed for some other reasons.

      Why no seismograms from any of the major reported nuke bombings? No seismograms from Hiroshima or Nagasaki. No seismograms for Castle Bravo or the Tsar bomb. Teller said that he was watching the seismograph live when Castle Bravo blast went off, and "then he knew it had worked". Impossible to locate any seismograms anywhere for something he claimed he had witnessed live.

      Claim: no seismograms anywhere for any of the reported mega explosions. Why not?.

    12. Don, nukes are as real as the War on Terror. They had to upgrade that old scare to continue their project Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

      Both were launched supported by millions and millions news reports. People will believe whatever you want if you can support a Big Lie™ by millions of reports without any opposition whatsoever - even an alien invasion.

      They had total control of the operation area in Hiroshima and on lower Manhattan - so no one could really check before the evidence was reported gone. People with access was some very controlled individuals.

      Deception isn't necessary illegal, so no crimes were necessary committed in these operations. Politicians can also waste as much money as they can get away with - legally.

    13. El Buggo,

      Do you even know what tritium is?

  27. The impossible "tilt" still image of the WTC2 was captured by no less than three photographers from the same vantage point at the same moment of the nine second collapse.


    - Thomas Nilsson (of the Norwegian populist tabloid "VG")
    - Gulnara Samoilova (photo-retoucher for the Associated Press)
    - Amy Sancetta (veteran photographer for the Associated Press)

    We are asked to believe that all three of them captured the below three still photos of the WTC2. In addition to these images' remarkably similar viewing angles we can see that, by observing the smoke patterns, all three are clearly meant to have been snapped at the exact same split second in time. Imagine that! (Moreover, one may legitimately wonder why the blue Millenium Hotel is entirely missing in image 1 and 2):
    So can it get sillier than this?
    Yes, it can - as demonstrated by our Cluesforum member & master archivist Equinox - who has now compiled the below parade [of eight images]

  28. There is no such thing as “the” scientific method. Referencing “the” scientific method is an appeal to authority unless otherwise clarified. There are multiple methods within and between various sciences. It’s vernacular sense of experimentation using random assignment to control and treatment conditions does not seem to be what OBF has in mind. All scientific conclusions are uncertain. Why? Because knowledge of the empirical world (as opposed to mathematics) is fallible, and inductive. Modern science in a way is based on a deductive logical fallacy called affirming the consequent: If my experiment makes the correct prediction, and my prediction is true, then my theory is correct. The conclusion doesn’t logically follow with absolute certainty because other theories/hypotheses may also explain the data. Popper argued that you could only falsify and thus exclude some hypotheses, but no hypothesis could ever by completely verified. All hypotheses are tentative. All scientific knowledge is based on assumptions.
    OBF argues that all evidence has to be validated before it counts as evidence, whereas Fetzer argues that he is willing to doubt the video footage only if there are good reasons for doing so. Fetzer is making a technical point about the philosophy of science, which does not constitute a substantive disagreement with OBF. Fetzer says that what we normally presume to be evidence used to evaluate theories should only be doubted provided there are good reasons, and OBF is saying there are good reasons- at least for the videos. One could summarize the disagreement at the meta-theoretical level as this: innocent until proven guilty (Fetzer), or fake until proven authentic (OBF). Remember, however, that casting doubt upon evidence for a particular hypothesis does not in itself confer more certainty upon alternative hypotheses. And as stated repeatedly, the nuke hypothesis doesn’t depend on the video footage.
    OBF argues that all evidence has to be validated. Validation is more difficult, in my opinion, than falsification. I don’t think OBF needs this argument, because, I presume, OBF does think there ARE good reasons for doubting the authenticity of the videos. OBF and Fetzer both agree that the some of the footage was inauthentic/fabricated. Fetzer has concluded that the planes crashing into the Towers could not be real because, among other reasons, the plane would not have disappeared into the building and would have instead been crushed outside the towers. OBF seems to agree. The real disagreement seems to hinge upon whether or not the video footage depicting the destruction of the Towers is authentic. There are three possibilities:
    1) The footage of the “collapse” was authentic, depicting the collapse of the Towers as they actually occurred.
    2) The footage was entirely fabricated, and the footage does not represent how the Towers actually fell.
    3) Some combination of #1 and #2, in which real footage was tampered with either in order to cover up anomalous images inconsistent with the images they wanted to portray or in order to deliberately plant inconsistent images (perhaps in order to confuse later researchers?)
    Fetzer has tended to doubt #2. Here is one question that I have not yet heard answered: Why would people deliberately fabricate footage in a way that is inconsistent with their own official story? This question isn’t a decisive argument. If there is incontrovertible evidence of complete fabrication then we would have to reject the footage (although I am unsure of what would count as evidence ruling out #3 completely, i.e. what would count as a test of total versus partial fabrication). Without evidence of their intent, this is speculative.

  29. The claim that the destruction footage is entirely fabricated is rendered less probable and/or less relevant by the recognition that: a) it contradicts the official story (why would they undermine their own cover story?) , b) that WTC7 seems to have been destroyed in a completely different manner, c) evidence that the footage of the destruction of the towers was fake casts doubt upon all competing hypotheses and thus cannot be used as evidence to adjudicate them, and d) the footage as shown, according to Fetzer, not only falsifies the official story (fire caused by crashed planes brought down the towers), but the ostensible ‘faked’ video footage is exactly what would have had to have happened anyway (assuming they did disappear and turned into dust). Why produce a fake video that merely reproduces what actually happened?
    The hypothesis that the destruction footage was faked (in addition to the other faked footage) should be evaluated on its own merits. Your conclusion regarding this is analytically distinct from the issue of how the towers were destroyed. Casting doubt upon the veracity of the former is irrelevant to the latter.
    Evidence of video fakery is not evidence that uniquely supports any hypothesis regarding how the towers were destroyed. In light of the evidence available to me now, it seems that the hypothesis that the buildings were nuked (or somehow exploded and turned into dust that covered New York) is more probable to me than the alternative of controlled demolition offered by Shack, which stipulates that the dust, the USGS samples, the buildings were evacuated and emptied beforehand, and everything else which contradicts the official coverup, are themselves part of a coverup. This theory is not impossible, maybe not even implausible, but less probable because it makes more assumptions for which I don't have compelling evidence to warrant at the moment. AtlantaBill has made a compelling case for the Khalezov' thesis, but I am not in a position to evaluate it right now.
    Finally, I am interested in studying further the technology of digital image production. One thing missing from much of video analysis are clear comparisons between images purpoted to be fake, and clear representations of what we should have seen- good counterfactuals. (I think Ace Baker’s PsyOpera is good in this respect- why Simon Shack is hostile towards him is perplexing to me since their positions, to the outside observer at least, are nearly indistinguishable.) It would be interesting to do a blind test to see if the techniques used to identify video fakery (as used by Fetzer, for example, or people in Clues Forum) can accurately distinguish faked from authentic footage. My (untested) intuition is that there is often not a clear sense or realistic expectation of what we should have seen, and thus, the same techniques applied to real footage would falsely identify them as fake. This is just a null hypothesis of mine, which I will attempt to disprove. But is anyone aware of this type of work being done- explicitly testing these techniques to see if they can accurately distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘faked’ footage (about which both parties agree is real or fake) ?? It would be an interesting research area.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. RE: Why would people deliberately fabricate footage in a way that is inconsistent with their own official story?
      a) The simply screwed up or wasn't able to.
      b) Their first secret is to spread conflicting reports to confuse people so that they don't know where they should go, and lay the groundwork for their secret number two that is to spin the story into even more confusing levels. That way the opposition cannot unite behind a common story and will be pulverized into tiny groups that will not become a threat to the operation management. Works very well, every time, all the time.
      c) They wanted something really spectacular that they could air a million times and keep telling that lie over and over again, until the people actually perpetuate the lie themselves.
      d) Lower risk for the operation. If something went wrong, they would still know what would be aired.

      RE: Why produce a fake video that merely reproduces what actually happened?

      This is a false statement. They faked the live news reports because something else happened that day that they wouldn't show us. Like if they demolished WTC the conventional way, that is bottom up. Also had to fake the rubble pile for the same reason.

      RE: (I think Ace Baker’s PsyOpera is good in this respect- why Simon Shack is hostile towards him is perplexing to me since their positions, to the outside observer at least, are nearly indistinguishable.)

      Ace Baker claims that maybe Kai Simonsen in Chopper5 added the plane crash video to the real footage before he uploaded it to the satellite. That way, the media didn't know that the plane crash footage was faked and was totally innocent in this operation - they didn't know.

      He claims that all the other footage 911 was authentic and captured by video cameras.

      The official victim part of the story is basically true.

      John Friend recently pushed him well on these crucial questions:

      Ace baker is protecting medias involvement in this operation, and the victim part, that is part of the basis for the War on Terror, etc. He is also one of the first Nuclear Demolition Analysts.

      RE: It would be interesting to do a blind test to see if the techniques used to identify video fakery (as used by Fetzer, for example, or people in Clues Forum) can accurately distinguish faked from authentic footage.

      We should know how a video camera should work. People shouldn’t suddenly become transparent. That is possible in software. Very hard to tell what is real and what is Photoshopped these days. Here is one test by Autodesk. Really hard to tell for anyone: Fake or Foto? - The Challenge:

      Here is probably a real amateur video of WTC:
      Compare the color balance there to the colors captured by real broadcast cameras 911:

      Shouldn't be hard to tell for anyone that is open to this idea and who has no important job, and can see things as his eyes show them to him.

    3. The "deliberate conflicting reports" idea does not fit with the awkwardness at exactly the NATURAL moments for such inconveniences to an all-fake theory.

      As such, they have the better, "simpler" (Occam, properly used), natural, prima facie reason to be real in part, as in, problems in live broadcasting of the material, not pre-taped, and in some cases natural layers or natural photography as some things also look to be in part, and they dovetail with other lines of reasoning, which (prima facie, as in, simple or natural, but not untested where possible), also have the case for being legitimate, such as illnesses and novel kind of destruction required here and, upon consideration (even with possibility of control, the unlikeliness of pure control over everything) the USGS samples.

    4. 1. As to Ace, he has blind spots. Always has, and it is clear not only in the video stuff he talks of, so he is not likely an agent, though he could have been funded through those who are.

      2. I hope you are not saying you try to hold that most victims are real. They cannot be. However, some likely were collateral damage. Possibly not, shall we say, but it is likely. Many from WTC 7. Maybe no-one in the gashes in the towers, but there is some likelihood a few people were trapped there.

    5. Clare, really hard to understand or grasp you second paragraph there. Could be because it is only one sentence, so I have to guess you points here.

      I think it would have been a nightmare for the operation management if they on the spot had to insert some fake stuff in the real "live" news reports. They had to write the script in real time so to speak. Why take any chances at all? It was for sure really important that they didn't messed up this launch of the operation.

      Both me and SS and others have ones upon a time speculated on this, that the live "news" reports were both real and faked, but we have discarded that idea after finding so much fakery in there that is hard to believe that any of if could have been real. At least we are not able to locate those parts. My guess is that you haven't completed this process yet, and haven't been able to adopt this idea yet. Expect it will come to you sooner or later, because most other people also have been stuck in this partly Hollywood and partly real stage too.

      If no commercial planes crashed 911, and they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, there shouldn't be any victims at all, and no one became involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statutes of limitations. Would be the clever thing to do for the operation management. Then they also would get total control on the crucial reported victims part of the story. All other potential crimes that day have now expired.

  30. My final post- I promise. Before you can criticize a position, you must be able to repeat that argument back to the person who actually holds that position, in a way in which the defender of that position finds fair and unobjectionable. In other words, you have to first agree on what it is you are debating and must clearly articulate the differences in position so that they are mutually intelligible. If not, we get people talking past one another. The first step to finding out why people believe what they believe or do what they do is just to ask them: so, for example, OBF, why do you think that the video footage of the Towers is completely fake as opposed to partially faked or only the plane being faked?
    Communication requires some modicum of trust- the presumption that you aren't being intentionally deceived. Communicate with the presumption that it is possible to change the other's mind (and vice-versa!) or else ignore them. I would make the case that the damage of making false positives (assuming people are agents who are not) far outweighs the damage of false negatives (not assuming people are agents who are), and that because of this, the presumption of innocence is akin to a ‘dominant strategy’ in game theory- it is your best option regardless of what other people do.
    What constitutes an 'agent' in the first place? It seems that people are accused of being 'agents' simply because what they believe appears bizarre or else they seem to be dogmatic and unwilling to change their minds in light of the evidence presented. Well, then, doesn't this reflect most of your experiences with most people in the world? And I wonder, how psychologically plausible is scientific objectivity? I for one, have always found minority positions in science to be more persuasive (e.g. Duesberg on AIDS, or most of what passes for pop-physics) It is almost certainly more common for researchers to attempt to prove what they already think they know than to be a total tabula rasa- and everybody knows it. My point here is just that being weird or dogmatic seems to be indistinguishable from the hypothesis that people are 'agents'- perhaps they are agents of a particular theory or ideology. 'Agent', by the way, has a double meaning- it also means having agency in the sense of power and autonomy. I personally find a lot of what most people believe to be absolutely absurd and incomprehensible—like religious beliefs. I don’t presume that these people are agents of the government (although granted, it is an unfair comparison). I get along with them simply because we tacitly agree to not talk about those things. The fact that we are discussing 911 at all reveals that everyone here is much more similar to one another (in this respect) than we are to the rest of the population. Remember that we probably all seem 'crazy' to most people, even most 911 skeptics. Accusing one another of being government spies certainly does not improve the image of conspiracy researchers in the eyes of the public! On the other hand, it is probably the case that the public isn't paying attention.

    1. Hard to identify these agent. Spent the last year on that question - who are the agents? We can be quite sure that the 911 operation management didn't retire that day, and among other things, they are spending their time on controlling the opposition.

      We have the typically signs for what the shills or agent should protect, and that is the commercial plane crashes (with foreign hijackers) and the victims part of the story. That is the basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with. Also really, really important for these agents is to protect or hide medias involvement in this operation. That is a point 100 times more important than this 911 operation and WoT, because the international jew mafia controlled media is their Weapon of Mass Deception that they engage or depend on in all these operations.

      However, even if it is characteristic for the shills and agents to protect these parts of the story, it isn't specific for that gang, and therefore it is rather hard to point them out.

      Ultra hard core Fakologists don't believe anyone was killed or anyone got hurt in this operation, so that no one is involved in any conspiracy to murder. Then the shills all have legal occupations. Not illegal at all to misinform people. Lots of people do that all day long anyway. Just watch some CSPAN for other examples.

    2. You are right Deleuzeans,

      there is too much use of the idea of "agent" among conspiracy researchers; there are some and they are usually true wrecking balls or doofuses who formally stand up to say all is wrong with science work which conflicts with the official story or a limited hangout (such as Groden and Thompson and McAdams for JFK's death, or Steve Jones for 9/11).

      Others are usually researchers who are honest but get deluded in how to keep a balance on a position over time, and end up fanatical for some limited hangout (Ace Baker, OBF/Shack in different ways). In fact, there is more faking than Baker suggests and less than OBF/Shack can admit, having forgotten that some things naturally -- so-called prima facie, if no other direct evidence comes forward to discredit their angle or content, etc. -- have a claim to authenticity, at least in part).

    3. Trying looking in the mirror El Buggo. You will find an agent right there!

    4. Clare, when you wrote this you describe OBF down to a tee:

      there is too much use of the idea of "agent" among conspiracy researchers; there are some and they are usually true wrecking balls or doofuses who formally stand up to say all is wrong with science work which conflicts with the official story or a limited hangout"

      Why you continue to give him any credi or benefit of the doubt is beyond me, he's a sick mind who does this for entertainment (his words) and the way he's attacked you as well as others should tell you all you need to know. Yet you still give him the attention he craves.

      Come on Clare, wake up and realise what sort of people you're dealing with here!

    5. Nurse, come quickly! Don is relapsing and 'projecting' worse than ever!

  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

  32. Deleuzeans said: "One could summarize the disagreement at the meta-theoretical level as this: innocent until proven guilty (Fetzer), or fake until proven authentic (OBF)."

    Yes and no.

    That is, you are _incorrect_, as to my position, but correct as to Fetzers.

    As I say elsewhere in this thread, the investigating scientist, as far as I am aware, when confronted with _possible_ evidence [e.g. alleged "live" video footage or photos] is, ["should" be], entirely neutral and undecided, and should have zero opinion as to its authenticity or otherwise.

    He/she simply does not know, and cannot know, [and is honest enough to admit that :-)] , until the possible evidence[videos/photos] is investigated and "put under the microscope"/ examined closely in various ways.

    All this was gone through in my second interview with Fetzer, using the analogy of a see-saw, or balance scales [I forget which].

    At the time, Fetzer appeared to agree with me, [i.e. the required neutral position of the investigating scientist as to the authenticity or not of possible evidence, prior to its investigation], but now he consistently reveals the same pre-bias that you also have been led to conclude that he holds.

    Regards, obf

    1. Of course Jim agrees with neutrality about the materials at hand, but to assume authenticity (prima facie) yet test the stuff (which he did not do carefully at first and is now conceptually grasping some of the faking layering and so on).

      In keeping in MIND the prima facie authenticity argument, one keeps balance while testing.

      It is the radical doubt position you hold which throws your ultimate conclusions off.

      If all the footage were fake, all indications would go your way, with the ability to throw out the prima facie case.

      However, this is not what happens with the evidence.

      For 9/11, the evidence you muster includes SOME inconveniences at moments where REAL (prima facie) would have suggested they be.

      And SOME natural photography type of pictures (which would be predicted prima facie, as well).

      There are also convergences with other items which can be shown to have a good case to be authentic, such as USGS when considering that there was a novel method used here and people's sicknesses and witness statements dovetail (only radical doubt would ignore those), for nuclear effects.

      In going to radical doubt, the subtleties of WHY USGS could well not have been utterly controlled in their work, and understanding the uniqueness of how these towers had to be taken out, and going to a rather untenable (though none of us is firsthand knowledgeable) position about nuclear weapons.

      In THROWING OUT the prima facie position as you go, you forget to COMPARE your position for pure fakery with its opposite.

      THAT is what prima facie means here.

      And though Jim himself did not fully appreciate elements of your position, you do not understand his point, and your conclusions are further off than his, for the most important aspects of the day, therefore, which were NOT just that media faked, but that nuclear events of some kind have to have happened at this takedown ... whether as byproducts of unknown weaponry (Wood's thesis/theory/proof in the tentative sense, from the evidence, though she does not accept the normal term for it, which is theory) or whether as nukes of some mini kind (Don/Prager/Fetzer/Ward), or some other kind (Khalezov).

  33. There is a Clues Forum consensus that the 103 minutes of multi-network TV "live" coverage was a pre-produced CGI-augmented SIMULATION, with varying edits prepared for each network so as to enhance the illusion of authenticity. Intense and detailed study of the officially alleged sources of each separate camera angle, shot composition and shot sequence was done in the early days of the forum and is still archived there. The multiple contradictions thus discovered (geographical, meteorological, architectural, spatial, etc.) are both startling and very suggestive of massive, media-complicit fakery.

    Back in the day I contributed a bit to this critical analysis with my own contributions regarding the highly improbable recurrence of various shots (officially credited to a specific news organisation) turning up only seconds or minutes later, but not always with their official-source's logo/banner supplemented by an ADDITIONAL identifying graphic (the industry-standard, "courtesy" practise for "borrowed" footage). In several instances the re-appearing footage soon turns up on other networks with ONLY the graphic of the "borrower" (an industry "no-no") or completely DEVOID of ANY logo/banner at all (very suspicious).

    While of course each TV-news operation had, back in 2001, the capability of monitoring/recording their competition's publicly transmitted news coverage (either from cable-TV or off-air receiving equipment) -- it is highly unlikely that each TV-news operation ALSO had closed-circuit, instant access to their competition's remote-camera feeds at a point BEFORE each organisation's unique logo/banner would be "keyed-in," prior to transmission to the viewing audience.

    Yes, as long and hard as those nerdy, talented, cubicle-dwellers toiled (at their military-grade CGI workstations) to fabricate this world-changing, war-enabling 103-minute "disaster movie" -- it turns out that their multiple versions, custom-edited for each of the complicit national networks, were far from perfect. For not only did the cyber-mavens make quite an interesting variety of tell-tale, compositing and rendering mistakes in their shocking, pseudo imagery. At least some members of the fabricating team (and indeed, they may have been working abroad, perhaps in the UK or on the Continent) were just not familiar enough with the workings (and wiring) of TV news in a market as highly competitive as NYC in the USA.

    1. Of course a lot is pre-planning and guesswork -- but some is better explained as also AD HOC on parts or all natural. Explaining ad hoc as ad hoc has the simpler naturalness of logic given the way coverups need to run, for human reasons (outright full-on fakeness is not likely to fly with most who want to participate, since they would feel it would not work right to represent some reality there) and for tech reasons: in spite of glitches and problems solved ad hoc, those would be easier to ignore (as most people do!) than to leave out real footage in case of real changes in the events of the day.

      Also, some images are quite natural looking, not an absolute proof but better, simpler explanation in the sense of ordinary,

      and some have more detail later rather than less in inconvenient places such as the spire.

      The spire fits the general weirdness of the leftovers AND is quite natural to something becoming dustier ... if we normally saw such a thing; in other words, the parts turn as one would expect and the dust blows off in realistic wind pattern. This is consistent in all imagery, and more detail in later photos, not less, as one would expect from an error covered up, and again, fits with the general leavings of the day, afterward: dust and weird steel, some decomposing.

    2. There is also a consensus in the Clueless Forum that the Earth is flat.

  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

  35. Andy Tyne said : "Yes, as long and hard as those nerdy, talented, cubicle-dwellers toiled (at their military-grade CGI workstations) to fabricate this world-changing, war-enabling 103-minute "disaster movie" -- it turns out that their multiple versions, custom-edited for each of the complicit national networks, were far from perfect. For not only did the cyber-mavens make quite an interesting variety of tell-tale, compositing and rendering mistakes in their shocking, pseudo imagery"

    Yes they were far from perfect. But so what? They still fooled most of us at the time- so obviously they were good enough to "get the job done" - so you could say that they [ the mini-movies that represent the entire total 102 [103?] mins. of pre-fabricated CGI imagery] in fact worked _perfectly_.

    And still mostly do, because while[ mostly because of S.Shack's painstaking research], a few of us have come to recognize the massive TV fraud that was perpetrated that day, [a military psy-op], most, including, I would "guesstimate" , more than 95% of the "911 truth movement" [including Fetzer and his sycophants], remain either deliberately or otherwise ignorant of the fraud, and completely blind to the obvious [after the fact] discrepancies in the 911 movie sequence that you yourself mention , as well as many others you do not refer to here.

    Regards, obf

    1. No, there are discrepancies but some are discrepancies which prove reality BETTER if one is assuming reality is an option.

      Of course, if one stops assuming reality is always the better option unless something is provably all-fake or very close thereto, then one becomes radically skeptical (in the pseudo-science method sense, where it means overdone, in formal or informal science -- Dawkins does this, by the way, become radically skeptical to the point that he gets much wrong).

    2. So, yes, lots of people are unaware of the fake aspect; but the radical fakery advocates -- who might, hypothetically speaking, have been right -- actually do go too far.

      It is sad, really, since the work is otherwise so great. I like your work, by the way, OBF, on Hall's analysis. I have not worked through both hard enough to determine which is better for sure, but your points are very strong in it about the hit impact points, as far as I can tell right now.

  36. Andy Tyme wrote:
    There is a Clues Forum consensus that the 103 minutes of multi-network TV "live" coverage was a pre-produced CGI-augmented SIMULATION, with varying edits prepared for each network so as to enhance the illusion of authenticity.
    Gee, Andy, when did this come about? I ask because I have come to believe the very same thing independently in the past days.

    I like the word "simulation" instead of "fake."

    Does the Forum think the gashes and the smoke were real or was the livescene at the WTC totally different?

    How did they work it with the people who worked or lived near the WTC? Did they evacuate the area with some kind of excuse like a drill or exercise?

    Absent are scenes of the WTC being evacuated of the thousands of employees as well as scenes of onlookers. Were actors employed to act as witnesses to the "collapses"?

    I have always thought the news anchors were much to comfortable and composed with the idea the nation was "under attack." It is still amuses me the way so many influential people like Jerome Hauer were on hand and available to appear on television with commentary.

    These days, I don't think anyone has to witness anything anymore. In a big city, no one knows what is going on unless they see it on television. In fact some people who fled the scene said they didn't know what happened on 9/11 until they got home and turned on their TV sets.

  37. clare, you hold the same position you held years ago-a half arsed, one foot either side, half here half there precariously unsteady stance. you are not genuine clairence and neither are your semi-sidekicks here. (and paul, who you so vehemently insist died, simply stepped aside according to script (a la jfk)).
    you, like fetzer, are here to keep us teetering/bordering on the edge of the fear/relief stage of informed reaction to the 9/11 fakery extravaganza. well, you can shove it, lady, where the sun don't shine. as I, for one, see clair through you (and the other purple minions posting here). some have long moved beyond this bullshit and through to realisation, and perhaps shouldn't really be here, casting pearls before the (feigning) swine. you are ace baker, part deux imo. - DON'T DO IT CLAIRANCE! DON'T! CLAIR! NOOOOOO! ....Claire?
    but you do a have purpose to fulfil, a niche to occupy, an audience to sway, so continue getting to it, I guess.
    i'll just scroll on by.

    don fox. .. even in spite of the earth travelling around the sun at near 60,000 miles per hour and around itself at near 1,000 miles per hour, I experienced a summer's day recently whereby all was perfectly calm. perhaps the atmosphere was glued to the solid earth. you can imagine my relief everytime! there's me stupidly expecting horrendous winds at every hands turn. d'oh!
    toodle pip!

    1. Nonsense, pshea.

      I am pointing out they do SOME GOOD WORK indeed, but go too far.

      It is what the material actually represents: naturalness to some images and lines of inference other than videos ...

      but serious problems in the images of the hit and the general events of the day, showing a general media connivance at least piped in, and some announcers at least, too (BBC is a good example most people know of).

      And with 8 of the same head on different bodies, and similar crap, there were many victim fakes, at least, as well, to give full 3,000 of Pearl Harbor.

    2. As to Paul -- or JFK -- the lines of inference are varied and grisly and no, they were not just whisked off to the Cayman Islands, by any natural argument.

      If one posits radical doubt, however, then no matter what normal type of coverup and real stuff one could argue from, you will doubt it to the extreme, and at that point, it is not arguable with you, even if you were right.

    3. pshea said "even in spite of the earth travelling around the sun at near 60,000 miles per hour and around itself at near 1,000 miles per hour, I experienced a summer's day recently whereby all was perfectly calm."

      It's obvious Peter that you are indeed a Flat Earth guy. If you really believe that Flat Earth BS then you have no clue how gravity works. If that is indeed the case then you have no business commenting on complex events like 9/11.

      My suspicion is that all of this Flat Earth business is a ruse and you are nothing more than a disinfo op. Either way all you accomplish is clogging up the thread - which is probably why you are here.

  38. As several researchers (most notably and exhaustively the brilliant leftist pragmatist Webster Tarpley) have documented, there was a startlingly large number of interlocking "terror drills" all scheduled by the US military for the morning of 9/11, thus supporting the fakery theorists' subsequent suspicion that the prepared CGI animations the networks were "obliged" to show (as if they were televising "live" imagery) were initially contracted for creation as ostensible "drill-support" material.
    However, the fictional scenario of the towers being struck by hijacked passenger jets (whose explosions supposedly ingited structure-collapsing, top-down fires) was actually intended by the plotters to be a public-outraging cause-for-war. Therefore this deviously propagandistic narrative needed to be illustrated (for public consumption) by some really spectacular special effects -- to achieve maximum psychological impact. The utterly fantastic, laws-of-physics-defying downing of the towers, initially fed to a gullible populace via low-res TV pictures (and only much later supported by higher-res "amateur" shots) likely had only partial similarity to the actual demolitions, begun by basement-level detonations, nuke or not, but ultimately concealed by the very "smoke curtain" which was so poorly simulated (with all those tell-tale cloning patterns and absent chopper-vortexes) in the bogus imagery.
    And it was this CGI-manufactured, "alternate reality" of the towers' utterly bizarre, seemingly explosive, top-down collapse that the well-paid, superbly credentialed NIST analysts were unavoidably OBLIGATED to "explain" via some really tortuous bending of the principles of Newton, mechanical engineering, fire science and chemistry.
    (Why, it was "magic bullet time" all over again...)
    But at least the NIST scenario DID correlate with the essential, oh-so-strategic lies about near-the-top plane crashes, resultant massive fires, and destructive collapses that began up high rather than down low.


  39. (continuing...)

    Nevertheless, I do part company with the September Clues crew in regard to the botched (for propaganda purposes) delayed-destruction of WTC 7. While Shack and Co. still maintain that the Solomon Bros. building's TV-depicted collapse was ALSO executed quite in sync with the perp's master plan of trickery, I propose that WTC 7's late-afternoon demolition, purportedly revealed in "live" TV coverage and subsequent "amateur" footage (and Simon and Co. do make a compelling case for those images to be fabricated too) was the sorry end result of the perps' desperate, panicked, behind-the-scenes, imprecise (a la BBC and CNN screw-ups) RESCHEDULING of events that were initially intended to transpire MUCH EARLIER, probably concurrent with the twin towers' actual (bottom-up and off-camera) destruction some nine hours before -- but also totally hidden from genuine public view until the giant "smoke curtain" had dissipated. And that's why no CGI footage (or Photoshopped stills) of a plane striking WTC 7 were even fabricated.
    I'm theorising that what the TV audience was initially intented to view, shortly after they saw the spectacular (and false) simulations of the twin towers' top-down destruction, was an EXPLOSION-FREE, massive-structural collapse of WTC7 which would subsequently be "officially explained" as the result of "collateral damage".
    But something went seriously wrong. The explosives planted in WTC7 (whether nukes or not) were not detonated on schedule, causing the perp supervisors of that morning's "terror circus" to halt further playback of their prepared videos and order the news networks instead to switch to the "presidential response" speech from hapless Dubya.
    Yet after much agonising consideration of the even-tougher-to-ignore alternatives and much scrambling to prepare for a possible second try, it was deemed absolutely necessary to bring down the Solomon building and all the "inconvenient" evidence it contained -- so the perps "pulled it" -- concealng their noisy controlled demolition behind the much quieter "structural collapse" CGI video they had originally planned to run, nine hours earlier.

  40. @ Andy Tyne:

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in that 103 min sequence we we told was live, all of the plane images and impacts/fireballs/smoke + background & foreground scenery, sky etc. were fake CGI imagery, also the collapses of WTC1 and 2 as depicted "live" were also fake pre-fabricated CGI constructions ........... and yet the collapse of WTC7 we were shown was genuine live imagery, yes?

    'Seems a little tenuous,[ by my "logic"], but even if you are correct, so what?

    What difference would that make, big picture wise if everything else we were shown that morning was fake imagery, but WTC7 was not fake imagery, in your opinion, Andy?

    Regards, obf.

  41. No, OBF, you do not understand correctly. A while ago I did think that the WTC7 collapse was shown live, but after discussing this with Simon he convinced me to take another look at the WTC7 "live coverage" -- and I now admit that it's suspiciously defective too.

    The plausible motive for this additional "live TV" deception, I suspect, was (again) to avoid public perceptions of a GENUINE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, with all its attendant loud explosions and fiery squibs. However, the ineffectual CGI the perps employed (and played back at the WRONG TIME!) still looked so "problematic" that NIST decided to just IGNORE WTC7 for as long a possible -- and eventually resort to BS-ing their way out of a bad situation.

    By the way, OBF, the name is Tyme (archaic for the passing hours) not Tyne (like the Northumberland river).

    1. I don't think there's any case for WTC7 being faked footage, for the simple reason that it looks exactly like a conventional controlled demolition.

      Just look at wht Dutch demolition expert Danny Jawenko said when he was showed the footage, he stated that it was clearly a controlled demolition, no doubt in his mind at all. He was absolutely shocked that it had occurred on the same day as the destruction of the twin towers because it was so clearly a controlled demolition and therefore blew a massive hole in the official story.

      The sad fact that Jawenko was silenced in a highly suspicious car crash that took his life just adds more weight to his words.

    2. Ian, Frakly Speaking recently link to a video where we could see the penthouse collapsed or went down, for so to rise again.

      Which of these WTC7 collapse videos have authentic audio track? They are all different, and sometimes really silly.

      Here smoke is sucked into(!) WTC7: – GIF: - In other collapse videos the wall is still perfectly clean, etc.

      Here is SS's WTC7 STUDY:

      You got to admit that this Independence Day neutron beam demolition also looks quite real:

    3. Shack-level BS again, not worth consideration.

    4. Neutrons don't exist.

  42. Yes, Ian, but the suspicious video we were actually shown of the WTC7 collapse itself was "silenced," i.e. devoid of the extremely loud explosions and fiery squibs normally concomitant with a true controlled demolition (which I don't doubt it was -- off camera) so it could eventually be officially "spun" as a "collateral damage-caused structural failure". Check out Simon's deconstruction of the TV coverage for yourself:

  43. Fiery squibs? Go look at some controlled demolition videos, there are no fiery aspects, just puffs of smoke and dust. Sound is a tricky thing, again, if you look at controlled demolition videos, the sounds can often be very muffled, we're not talking about large explosions, rather, lots of small ones, they are usually very small charges that are employed and they are shaped charges where the blast is directed into the structure they are intended to destroy, so often they don't generate a lot of sound that can be heard at distance. Also, WTC7 was surrounded by other tall buildings, and the area was evacuated so all the footage is taken from a distance, so what we would have heard is tricky to ascertain. I've witnessed a building demolition and at the distance I was stood, about 300m with no intervening structures, it sounded like a bunch of firecrackers, not loud at all.

    Of course, they could have removed or reduced in levels the audio of the recordings, but i don't think there is a case to be made that the footage of the destruction of WTC7 is faked. If you were going to make a fake version, then why make it look exacty like a controlled demolition? NIST released 3D animations purporting to show their version of the collapse and they are clearly nothing like what is seen in the video recordings. If thy had faked the videos, they would have made the destruction look like the twisting, buckling collapse seen in the NIS animation rather than the straight down at free fall rate collapse seen in the videos.

    Shack's work must be discarded from consideration as it is designed to mislead. Simon 'Shack' Hytten is a disinfo agent who is out to damage, discredit and disrupt the 9/11 truth movement.

  44. Here is a collection of 9/11 photos that, in my view, would have been impossible to fake. Check 'em out. Enjoy!

    1. Nice find Jim.

      This one is striking and looks exactly like the nuclear demolition test shots I've seen from the 1960s.

    2. If ALL you knew about 9/11 was that they had a bunch of dump trucks full of dirt on the scene within hours of the destruction of the WTC buildings you would have to be highly suspicious they were cleaning up a radiological disaster. Removing contaminated soil is one of the first things they do to clean up radioactive waste:

      Remediation techniques should be evaluated for effectiveness at meeting the 10 mrem/year dose limit, at keeping radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable, and at minimizing the creation of radioactive waste. If site remediation is needed to achieve the 10 mrem/year dose limit, it will be necessary to prepare a work plan that is acceptable to DEC and other knowledgeable agencies (such as NYS Department of Health).

      Acceptable remediation procedures could include the following options.

      Removal of contaminated soil for disposal at a licensed facility.
      Isolation of contamination such as covering the contamination with clean soil. This technique may be acceptable for short-lived isotopes assuming that restrictions to land use are used until the radionuclides no longer pose a threat.
      Other remediation techniques, if applicable, considered and approved on a case-by-case basis.

      Those pictures of the dump trucks on the scene tell you what really happened at Ground Zero.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. James Fetzer said : "Here is a collection of 9/11 photos that, in my view, would have been impossible to fake. "

    That's right, they're all genuine photos- all taken by real people from real locations, because:

    [1] as already discussed, you automatically pre-assume them to be, and therefore you have absolutely no intention of ever seriously questioning the authenticity of even one of them in the first place.

    [2] in the unlikely event that you put aside your "innocent until proven guilty" "they must all be real, therefore they are" pre-bias and actually act like an investigative scientist instead, you'd still have virtually no idea of what to look for to try to determine authenticity, so it would be a complete waste of your time in any case :-( .

    And so it goes, in the la la land of "scientific" 911 investigations - "enjoy"!

    Regards, obf.

    1. Yep. I sure trust a guy who thinks the Earth is flat to analyze 9/11 photos. If a Flat Earth guy says the photos are fake by God they must be fake! No possible way a guy who thinks the Earth is flat could be wrong about 9/11!

  47. OBF said:
    Yes they were far from perfect. But so what? They still fooled most of us at the time- so obviously they were good enough to "get the job done" - so you could say that they [ the mini-movies that represent the entire total 102 [103?] mins. of pre-fabricated CGI imagery] in fact worked _perfectly_.
    That means anyone looking at the north tower during those 103 minutes did not see the cartoon plane gash in the side of the building nor did they see the fires and smoke pouring from the top of the buildings if they went outside to look at the scene. How did they work it with onlookers and what about all those 3,000 victims and all that furniture? Am I correct in theorizing they had to strip the building of everything including people in order to do a successful demolition? (People might "say something" when there was no evidence of a plane hitting the tower, but then to whom would they be saying this?)

    Who were all those people on the message boards who claimed to work for the Port Authority and said they evacuated the WTC but somehow, they could never find any video footage of that event? Who were all of those who swore they saw plane hits and where are they now?

  48. Don Fox said:

    Yep. I sure trust a guy who thinks the Earth is flat to analyze 9/11 photos. If a Flat Earth guy says the photos are fake by God they must be fake! No possible way a guy who thinks the Earth is flat could be wrong about 9/11!

    I don't think a professor of logic appreciates your overuse of the "poisoning of the well" fallacy, Don. Have you a real argument to make?

    Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

    1. Joan,

      The Clueless Forum actively pushes this Flat Earth crap. Don't you think Simon Shack, OBF etc. have been on an airplane before? Of course they have. No way those guys actually believe the Earth is flat. If they're lying about the shape of the Earth what else are they lying about? I don't trust anything they say about anything.

  49. Don Fox said : "Yep. I sure trust a guy who thinks the Earth is flat to analyze 9/11 photos. "

    You don't need to trust me, or anyone else. Mostly, all you have to go is strip your mind of its own pre-prejudices, open your eyes, and actually take the time look closely at the imagery.

    For example , see Figs 1,2,3 and 4 here:

    [The Sancetta photo is one of the one's in the Facebook page linked to by J. Fetzer ]

    Regards , obf.

  50. Don Fox wrote:

    "The Clueless Forum actively pushes this Flat Earth crap."

    No we don't, Foxy boy - and that makes you the clueless one, or more likely, a flat-out liar Lying is ugly and wrong, Donnie you silly brat - didn't they teach you so at school? I once asked you if you were 12 years old. This now seems to have been a generous estimate. Run to granma now and get yourself a sound round of spanking.

    Is this place moderated at all, Dr Fetzer? Or can any clowns such as "Don Fox" just keep spamming it endlessly with copy-pasted Wikipedia articles, assorted lies and vapid drivel? I presume that Don's role - with his uber-childish antics - is to make readers simply turn away from this place in disgust.

    Simon Shack

    1. Hey Simon, don't sink to Don's abysmal level of unreasoning ad hominem attacks! The poor dude is, obviously, behaving in a childish, churlish manner, but you really ought to give him the very "benefit of the doubt" that he foolishly refuses to give you.

      There ARE some plausible reasons to suspect that nukes were used at the WTC... but only IF we can trust the mainstream-news stories and federal-agency data that support this theory (since we certainly CAN'T trust the fabricated videos).

      So how about doing some more digging?

      Is the widely reported, first-responder cancer epidemic verifiable? Did Giuliani really, instantly dragoon a veritable army of dump trucks to perform post-nuke style cleanup operations? Is the nuke-implicative seismic and dust-sample data free of forgery? Did the NYC City Council really ban geiger counters?

      And honest researchers who want to continue investigating the socially VERBOTEN topic of 9/11 fraud, particularly in regard to the "thousands" of alleged victims, had better hurry, however, because of a little-reported provision in the "shutdown-avoiding" budget bill that slid through Congress before the Holiday Recess. The provision calls for the US government to study how to RESTRICT citizen access to that ol' Achilles Heel of Vic-Sim fraud -- THE SOCIAL SECURITY DEATH INDEX!!!

    2. Yes the lowest form of internet troll is a guy who proclaims the Earth to be a sphere!!

      Simon is upset because he and ADL buddies can't censor the discussion here like they do on the Clueless Forum.

      Simon, OBF and the crew are merely internet bullies. They don't like it when someone stands up to them.

      FYI: This is a show thread that I APPEARED ON!! If you don't like the show and the discussion feel free to not listen to the show and read posts in the show thread.


  51. I remain confused...about why it matters whether the video is all fake, mostly fake, somewhat fake, partially fake, or not fake at all.

    Why exactly is this significant? One day, the buildings known as the twin towers (WTC 1 & 2) went from solid standing structures, to microscopic dust, in about 10 seconds a piece.

    Is anything I just stated false? Unless I'm missing something, No.

    So, who the fuck cares about the video? We can ascertain all that is truly needed to know from the before an after. What can turn a 500k ton building (or two of them) into dust in 10 seconds?
    Not jet fuel.
    Not gravity.
    Not C4.

    So....why is the video evidence important again?

    1. Here's why the video evidence is important, PM.

      Consider these five competing scenarios:

      1. Real hijackers on real planes did just what the official story says they did, and the totally innocent US government and mainstream media were not complicit in any way.

      2. The official story is accurate, the media is innocent, but a corrupt faction within the government either facilitated the hijackers' plans or covertly directed them.

      3. The official story is seriously flawed, even though the media is innocent, because not only did a faction within the government have partial responsibility for the hijackers' evil deeds, but this faction also told several secondary lies about 9/11 which the media naively reported.

      4. The official story is mostly false, even though the media is innocent, because 9/11 was not an Al Qaeda plot at all, but rather a successful war-scam engineered by a corrupt faction within the government, whose spokesmen spun a huge web of lies which the media naively reported.

      5. The official story is mostly false, with its massive trickery and lies devised and spread by a complicit PARTNERSHIP between corrupt factions in BOTH the government AND the mainstream media.

      The network-transmitted, fake "live" video coverage of 9/11 is what "seals the deal" in confirming scenario # 5 as the best explanation.

    2. Well said PM, I've made the same point myself.

      The work of Simon 'Shack' Hytten is designed to be misleading, it is intended as a distraction from the important issues. The goal of this person and his cronies is to distract, disrupt and mislead. That is why they remain obsessed with 'fakery' and the videos, that way they never have to touch on anything important that might lead to uncovering any information useful in solving the crime.

      Their key goal is to distract people away from the fact that nuclear weapons were used and the perpetrators were Zionists and Israelis. Hence you will see a lot of ludicrous guff from them about nuclear weapons being a hoax. The reason they promote their disgusting 'no victims' rhetoric is because they want to make it seem like the crime committed was merely the demolition of the WTC rather than the mass murder with WMDs that actually occurred.

      Shack and his cronies are agents of disinfo working to a hidden agenda in order to aid the perpetrators of the 9/11 crime in covering up the actual events and the actually murders, which makes them utter scum deserving of as much scorn and derision as rational, normal people can pour on them.

    3. PM does an excellent job summing the whole situation up: "What can turn a 500k ton building (or two of them) into dust in 10 seconds?"

      THAT is the $64,000 question.

      You have to come up with a mechanism that can accomplish turning these behemoths into dust. The destruction of the Twin Towers took an enormous amount of energy. Only thermonuclear bombs can account for this. Then when you take in to account the clean up effort - hauling tons of dirt in and out and the elevated temperatures for 6 months after 9/11 it's a no brainer.

      Ian is right on the money calling these guys a disinfo crew. But despite all of their efforts at obfuscation the nuclear truth of 9/11 WILL come out. It's just a matter of time....

    4. I'm not all that bothered by September Clues evaluation of video evidence...and I don't see the need to label them as intentional disinformation.
      I think it is just as likely that they think they're on to much so, that they refuse to believe anything else after going so far down the particular rabbit hole.
      In fact, there are handful of points they've made that I've yet to see refuted convincingly. doesn't much matter. That is my point. The buildings HAD TO HAVE BEEN destroyed in some incredibly powerful and unconventional means....which all by itself destroys the entire official story, exposes the cover up, and creates a short list of suspects. The End.

      If we had no video at all, it wouldn't matter.

    5. Andy,

      That was interesting....1-4 are completely impossible, and what I don't understand is how #5 and that little blurb underneath it get lumped together as one? #5 is certainly the truth...and I don't see how video fakery has anything to do with it. Perhaps you need to revise those scenarios.

    6. PM, you are correct, the video footage is of minor importance.

      Shack et al focus solely on the videos because they are deliberately trying to mislead people and throw up a cloud of disinfo.

    7. Really odd, Ian, that you simply cannot grasp the significance of a totally controlled media complex.

      I bet you even cannot understand that the gang who control the media also have total control on the election process, and will always get their puppet in the White House, etc.

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  52. Joan Edwards said: "I don't think a professor of logic appreciates your overuse of the "poisoning of the well" fallacy, Don. Have you a real argument to make?"

    You are overestimating Fetzer, Joan , giving him way too much credit.

    He is almost as guilty as Fox in use of ad hominem- at least with me.

    Fetzer has been name-calling me since 09/13. This can be clearly seen in the two comment threads for the 2 articles dedicated to Fox and friends "research" findings concerning alleged mini-nukes, he presented back then:



    In both of these threads you will observe both Fetzer and Fox name-calling my [at that time still] perfectly polite observations.

    Because of Fetzer's name calling both in those threads and later here [in previous threads], I decided to publish at my blogsite an article _not_ name-calling in return, but instead attacking his methodology [or rather, his lack thereof] :

    "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

    Since that time I have used the occasional ad hominem myself purely for amusement in return for the game that Fetzer and Fox themselves initiated back in 09/13, and even called Fetzer a "disturbed individual" if I recall correctly.

    After all, "what's good for the goose [i.e.myself], is good for the gander" [Fetzer. Fox, Greenhalgh], as far as I am concerned. :-)

    Regards, obf.

  53. OBF said:

    Joan Edwards said: "I don't think a professor of logic appreciates your overuse of the "poisoning of the well" fallacy, Don. Have you a real argument to make?"

    You are overestimating Fetzer, Joan , giving him way too much credit.

    He is almost as guilty as Fox in use of ad hominem- at least with me.
    I know, OBF. I was just trying to be ironic. We all know what happened here.

    Have you noticed these people who just seemed to be accepting of the official government conspiracy theory are now showing themselves to be disinfo agents. This means we are getting close to the truth.

  54. For those of you who worship at the altar of "the of collapse footage being authentic," is it the work of Divine Providence that on 9/11 the two massive pillars imploded in 9 and 11 seconds respectively?!

    And to those of you who subscribe to 9/11 being a pure CGI event brought
    to us through the magick of Tell-lie-vision, are the mathematical odds of
    such an unfoldment mentioned above enough? Is not this feat better attributed
    to those with supreme video editing skills - instead of to those with
    sophisticated nuclear weaponry?!

  55. indeed joeyz. fox, fetzer and johnny-cum-lately cgi expert greenhalf are a joke at this stage. let them compare the footage released in the early days following 9/11 to that released later (as late as 2011/2012) and account for the drastic differences in definition and quality, if all is above board and genuine.
    in truth you need look no further than software upgrades and computer generating of images advancements, as simonshack/cluesforum has repeatedly shown.
    but all is well. 9/11 marked a turning point which facilitated the raising of consciousness of us all. fear, anger and relief/realisation are the three stages along the 9/11 truth path and the folks above are tasked with appealing to those teetering on the anger/realisation border. some of us have seen through the fog, is all, hence the friction. truth stands on it's own.
    you can blow all the nukes/mini-nukes/matchbox nukes/micron nukes fantasies straight out your ass, as far as this truth is concerned.
    pfffttt pfffttt phizzllle puuuffff!

    1. Very classy and enlightening post Peter. Just what we've come to expect from you!

  56. Flat out lies propagated by Sept Clues:

    1. Nobody died on 9/11
    2. All of the videos of the collapse of the Towers are fake
    3. The buildings were evacuated before they were demolished
    4. The WTC building's destruction was hidden from view by smoke machines
    5. The Towers were really destroyed from the bottom up using only conventional charges
    6. Nuclear weapons don't exist
    7. Satellites don't exist
    8. The Earth is flat

  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

  58. Joeyz said: "...are the mathematical odds of such an unfoldment mentioned above enough? Is not this feat better attributed to those with supreme video editing skills - instead of to those with sophisticated nuclear weaponry?! "

    You'd think, but you'd be wrong :-) .

    The perps are so confident of the abilities of their favorite mass hypnotism/deception device [TV], and rightly so; they knew/know they could insert obvious lies as inside jokes- blatant lies such collapse times of 9 and 11 secs for WTC 1 and 2, told with an "authoritative" straight face [ie via the NIST], and that most are so hypnotized by the TV imagery that they [ including Fetzer/Fox] actually continue to believe this particular obvious huge inside joke/ lie , and many ,many more besides .

    The "in our faces" advertisement of those alleged 9 and 11 sec.collapse times to me demonstrates the perps total confidence in what they do [and will continue to do] - very, very few people have had the independence of mind to ever even question such obvious inside jokes/lies.

    The perps are very confidant, and rightly so, in my [jaded] opinion.

    Regards, obf

    1. It is so sketchy though, OBF. At any point in time a piece of evidence could surface (or maybe already has) that contradicts any of SC's research...and I’m afraid that no one will address it scientifically (if at all) because you can't allow anything to contradict SC at this stage of the game. That's what sucks about real science. No matter how solid a theory might be, no matter how much 99% of the evidence holds together, if that 1% comes out and contradicts it have to throw it out and start all over.
      And the impression I get from the SC crowd is that no one is willing to throw any of it out this stage. Almost as if you had someone in the know tell you that you Have it Right...and that you can unscientifically reject any controversy without due concern, because "either way...i'm still right." With the famous inference being, "that must be fake too".

      And I know your rebuttal will be that the jimfetzer/donfox crowd is the "unscientific" crowd, because they take government-provided evidence at face value. Evidence provided by the very culprits that committed the crime.

      Yea...both seem crazy when you really think about it.

      If I had to abjectly, conceptually approach both possibilities (sans-evidence), I would lean away from total video I just don't think it was needed.
      As you say, the perps knew they would get away with video fakery (and I understand exactly what you mean be this). I would say, the real perps didn't need video fakery... they could have carried out this illusion with polar opposite mechanisms, and still pulled it off. The public and media were never going to take them to task over it, or permit any discussion of it other than the official gibberish.

  59. Particularly to Mr. Don Fox.

    As OBF has detailed above I would very much appreciate a link from your good-self that demonstrates SC forum members overwhelming belief in FE theory.
    I suspect that you might be referring to a thread that I myself kicked off a couple of years ago...‘The cold of space and our Universe that isn’t’ that explores the possibility of ‘Geocentricism’ over the standard, ‘Heliocentric‘ model of the solar system....

    I do not recall a single reference over the accumulated pages of replies that refers to a flat Earth in any other tone apart from ridicule.
    If you cannot provide a convincing link, then please elaborate on your assertions of ‘mass CF member delusions of flatness’.

    Concerning ‘nukes’ and ‘satellites’...question everything, why is it not at least interesting to do so? A metal that violently explodes?...Solar panels, alloys that can survive minimum 500 degrees C to max 2,500 degrees C (dependent upon solar cycle) for decades, just in LEO????...simple questions Don, simple questions.

    1. I have audio clips of Simon Shack. They will be featured in a blog post that is coming in the very near future. Stay tuned my friend....

  60. [A spell-checked, re-edited re-post of my hastily written previous comment, now deleted. If anyone at feels I have misrepresented the "official" position there on any of a number of issues addressed below, my apologies, and please let me know] :

    For those out there who can actually read/comprehend [ie _not_ Don Fox :-) ]:

    Flat out lies propagated by Don Fox [Jim Fetzer too?]:

    1] that regurgitating USG agency [USGS, DOE] " research findings"/ propaganda verbatim counts as genuine "scientific research".

    2] that backing up such "research" propaganda with never authenticated 911 imagery "proves" that the USG propaganda is legit.

    3] That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that nobody died on 911- when all these persons actually claim is that , since the victim lists/photos are all very obviously fake, that it [no real victims] is a distinct [but not yet proven, maybe unprovable] possibility.

    4] That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that the WTC building's destruction was hidden from view by smoke machines, when all they actually do is make the [unproven at this time] proposal that since the "live" imagery was all fake CGI, that that, [ie use of military smoke machines to obscure the real demos] might well have been the true modus operandi used for carrying out the demolitions.

    5] That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that the Towers were really destroyed from the bottom up using only conventional charges- when all they propose is that since the "live" tower collapse imagery was all faked, then it is impossible to know for certain exactly how the towers were demolished, but that standard, bottom up conventional demolition methodology seems most likely, but unproven [maybe unprovable] - no differently than alleged "exotic" demolition methodology theories such as nukes, DEWS etc. must remain unproven [and most likely unprovable].

    6]That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that Nuclear weapons don't exist, when all they actually claim is that the historical imagery that "proves" their existence is highly suspect, if not outright fraudulent [just as with the alleged moon landings],and therefor [they conclude], there is the distinct possibility that nuclear weaponry does not in fact exist.

    7] That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that satellites don't exist, when all they have done is try to raise serious questions about the scientific theories most commonly used to explain how satellites work [ it is fraught with errors/ contradictions] - therefor there is the possibility that satellites/satellite technology does not exist.

    8] That site owners [Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi] claim that the earth is flat, when all they do is propose that since the standard scientific explanation of how the galaxy/universe is structured [Copernican in origin if I remember correctly], is fraught with inconsistencies and flat out impossible contradictions, that alternative theories of the true nature of the universe must also be reviewed/kept in mind as possible "grand theory" explanations - including the "flat earth" theory.

    Regards, obf.

  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

  62. If anyone doubts Israeli involvement in 9/11 be sure to read Keith Maart's paper on the Dancing Israeli's.

  63. don can clearly be led to water and be made to drink. he is surely one horse of a man. a dog with a mallet up it's arse can conclude that the jews/Israelis were at the very centre of 9/11. and there's your problem right there. i'll take the liberty of adding one last animal to this mix - scapegoats. (and whatever you do, don't mention the Jesuits!!! - God forbid!!).

    clever as clare comes across, her conclusions are wrong in every case she comments upon. one has to wonder, eh?

    1. I never said Israel had to be not involved, Don. Are you suggesting I did?

      I said September Clues and LetsRollForums offer excellent proofs of media complicity (doctoring, faking, pre-planning) but not pre-manufacturing of all footage, and offer excellent examples (one head on up to 8 bodies) of vicsims.

      And vicsims would not be worth creating for 50 or 100 names.

  64. what are your views on the Jesuits (and the Italian patrician families) and their past and present role in world affairs, jim, don, ian and clare? this should be interesting.

    1. For the most part I stick to JFK and 9/11 in my research. In JFK you'll see names like Giancana and Marcello. They were both front men for Meyer Lansky (Jew).

    2. How powerful are the Jesuits? Why not take a look at the US Supreme Court, just for one, and find out. Because the Jesuits rule the US Judiciary and are the supreme Judges of the land! The powerhouse Jesuit Georgetown University are the true rulers of the US Government.

      You say that Jesuits don't 'come up very often'. You couldn't be more wrong. They come up frequently. They are always there, in the shadows and the background. The reason you "think" they don't is because 99.9% of the alternative media including yourself ignore them, and do so deliberately! They simply don't talk about them. And on that rare occasion that they are pushed to, it is simply to dismiss and ridicule the idea. The power of Rome and the Jesuits is something that is being steadfastly protected!

      Something you may have trouble understanding is that the Jews are DELIBRATELY placed at the front of many of these organisations. They are put right on a plinth for all to see! It's a classic case of misdirection (something you'd know quite a lot about). These powerful Jews are being used as "frontmen" for the even more powerful forces behind them. All of the organisations and sectors you named have Jesuits operating amongst them, but rarely do they place themselves at the front as Chairman! They prefer to be BEHIND the curtain, using the Jews as proxy and patsy!

      Hell, why do think they ALLOWED Larry Silverstein to buy up the WTC Complex!? The first time in its history that it is ever sold, and it is sold openly to a Jew just before its destruction! What you are seeing is sleight of hand! It is a magicians trick, nothing more!

    3. Who benefited from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The Vatican? It's rather apparent those wars were fought to maintain Israeli hegemony over the Middle East. Israel can't allow another country to challenge it's dominance.

  65. Thanks pshea & OBF - I think OBF described my position better than
    I could (about 10 replies back)

    This must see short clip basically "lets the preverbal cat out of the bag (of Tostitios )" It "reveals the method" on how the 9/11 footage was most likely "produced. "Watch it a few times... heck buy the movie. It's the BOMB!

    1. OOPS! That's "proverbial" cat out of the bag"

  66. so the fox has no opinion on the Jesuits and patrician families and their past and current roles in world affairs. well noted dear don.
    how about you jim, clare and ian? any comments?

    and no problem joeyz. it is no slip up that wag the dog was released before 9/11 nor the details of operation northwoods were released/declassified in early 2001. the 9/11 hoax was meant to be seen through and realised eventually ('round about now?), following our journey through the other necessary stages of informed reaction (fear and anger), imo.

    and thanks for that most excellent CF thread gau8 (scud). it is one of the most thought provoking I have ever read anywhere and has influenced my thinking heavily since you penned it. nothing is at all as it has been made seem.

    finally, the P.I.D. conspiracy theory should be renamed the P.W.R.L.O. (Paul Was Replaced but Lived On) conspiracy reality.
    spank you very much, clairence.