Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Don Fox

9/11 / JFK


  1. Aristotle said: “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”.

    Have been looking for this crater in Hiroshima for som years now. Must be there somewhere. The smoke plume rose to over 60,000 feet, and must have consisted of something else than hot air.

    No crater - Hiroshima 360 degrees:

    More photos here:

    The Castle Bravo crater was REPORTED to be 1 mile across:

    However, there wasn't any crater in Hiroshima according to the published photos - it simply doesn’t exist! Nor can we see any traces of any epicenter in any of the published photos. How come?

    When studying the photos, I also noticed that all the bridges were still standing. Bank of Japan building right below the REPORTED explosion was still intact. No damage to the riverfront or streets near the riverfront. Streets clearly discernable in aerial photos. Expect rubble should be evenly distributed from the epicenter, but most streets looks clean. Some brick chimneys still standing even if the house were gone, and so on.

    Hiroshima photos are consistent with firebombing. Most houses wooden buildings or sheds, and should burn well if napalm bombed. Have a look at photos from Tokyo or Yokohama - quite similar damages.

    So where is the crater in Hiroshima? Have we been fooled by some fake REPORTS again?

    1. So, are you saying that Hiroshima wasn't a nuclear weapon but was in fact a firebombing? I would need to see more evidence before I would entertain that viewpoint. The aerial burst means there wouldn't be a crater. The vast number of radiation injuries and radiation deaths stretching over a decade after the event are strong proof of a nuclear explosion. I would be happy to look at any solid evidence that might support your viewpoint. I don't consider the photos of Hiroshima to be evidence however because how do we know what a city that has been subjected to a 15 kiloton aerial nuclear blast looks like?

    2. Re: how do we know what a city that has been subjected to a 15 kiloton aerial nuclear blast looks like?

      At least we should expect to see a hole in the ground of some type. The REPORTED smoke plume must have been made up of some substance, and that substance must have come from the ground.

      1 huge explosion must have spread the rubble outwards from the epicenter.

      Studying all published and available photos, I have not been able to confirm these expected observations. And that is not OK.

      If, as some people claim, Hiroshima was firebombed too, there cannot be any crater there, or any discernable epicenter, and we should not expect to find any real evidence for that either.

      Study the buildings there. Do you think they would burn?

      Can we in one way or another rule out firebombing? And could there be a basis for that the REPORTS on that the city was nuked are faked and made up?

      Here Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves and Robert Oppenheimer is REPORTED standing in the Trinity bomb crater. Doesn't looks so very deep (and not as some very credible mega explosion either):

      So what is the earliest evidence we have for any nuclear explosions, and where is it? Again, where is it? We should demand something more than just some fakeable REPORTS.

    3. Those shown in the Groves photo probably know that the only remaining radioactive material would be in the ground, for which reason they're wearing special coverings on their shoes. No lingering radioactive dust, which certainly would be deadly, would remain in the air after so long a time. I'm not an expert; but from what I know of which particles have short or long half-lives, I think the ones with long half-lives have to be ingested or absorbed into the skin. Jim should ask Lauren Moret or Chris Busby the next time one of them is on. Of course, they might be shills; but nobody has yet questioned their basic knowledge of radioactivity.

      The nuclear industry is enormous--almost as big as the petrochemical industry. Trying to say the one is based on a non-existent reaction would be as much a leap as trying to say that hydrocarbon reactions were all a hoax. Too many people have worked in nuclear to doubt it exists.

      Is the chain-reaction phenomenon what you're doubting exists? Then you'd have to doubt that any form of nuclear power exists, because it too is based on the same phenomenon. And modern geology and archeology depend on it, too.

      Believe me, I've considered the same thesis. Fun to imagine, but one requiring a gigantic overturning of the mountains of counter-evidence. It has the same sort of appeal as the Moon-hoax thesis--only, for that, the proponents of the thesis have a lot of attractive evidence, whereas the opponents apparently can provide only bluster, dubious counter-evidence, and even wild distractions that involve UFOs, time-travel, or a secret space program based on anti-gravity.

    4. Actually, I should correct myself to say that modern geology and archeology depend on the scientific understanding of the decay of elements into their isotopes through measurable radioactive processes, not on the chain-reaction phenomenon.

    5. Thanks Atlanta Bill,

      Re: Is the chain-reaction phenomenon what you're doubting exists?

      I have no problem with the idea tat this dense metal can heat up. Lava is hot and heated mostly due to deuterium decaying inside the planet. Nuclear power plants are imitating this process, so hard to disputed that.

      A completely different question is if some dense and extremely exotic metal suddenly will EXPLODE BIG TIME! And my question above was "what is the earliest evidence we have for any nuclear explosions?" Or where was it demonstrated for the first time? So that we can know that this exploding metal invention is real!

      I gave a link to a photo of the crater of this first REPORTED Trinity test. And as you can see, it wasn't very deep or large. Is this suppose to prove that an nuclear bomb exploded there? Without making a crater? Didn't even remove the dirt at the place, as you can see here:

      I suspect you are a very decent man, Atlanta Bill, and it would be interesting to hear what you could find of evidence for an enormous explosion in Hiroshima, according to published films and photos:

      I have been looking for the crater and epicenter there for many years now, so I don't expect you will find anything either. You will find that the photos support plain old firebombing, and not any enormous nuclear blast. But please report back anyway.

      Hiroshima was the first public demonstration of this U-fission bomb, we are told. <3 quarts of this dense and incredible exotic metal exploded and destroyed the city, they told us. But it is not credible at all. Why did they lie to us then? And what was the first real demonstration of this new claimed invention?

    6. Craters are caused by underground explosions or detonations very close to the surface. If you want to see a crater caused by a nuke check out the Storax Sedan blast.

      The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was detonated at about 2,000 feet. It was a 16 kt blast.

      Only a total moron would deny Hiroshima was nuked.

    7. Don,

      The reported smoke plume in Hiroshima rose to 60,000 feet. It must have been made up of substance from the ground, and we are talking about at least several thousands tons. Some traces of this expected missing material should be found in some of the published photos or videos of the event, but no one has succeeded yet.

      There should also be a epicenter to be spotted somewhere. Any explosion will blast material out from that epicenter.

      Somehow, no rubble in the streets after the REPORTED mega blast in Hiroshima. Rubble should be evenly distributed away from the epicenter, even across the streets. But not so, according to any published photos or films of the event.

      Well, this is very consistent with firebombing. Buildings burned straight down and didn't have to disturb or mess up the streets. No crater? Consistent with firebombing. No epicenter? Consistent with firebombing. And so on... consistent with firebombing, etc.

      This is very unfortunate, because Hiroshima should be the first global demonstration of the new monster weapon, you know, so people could see that it was real, and so on. Much better evidence for that they fooled us again.

      Aviating yours, if any. Please keep it real.

    8. Everyone is now dumber for having read your post.

  2. Aristotle also said:-

    " The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the
    living from the dead."

    Is there no end to this
    fucking insane bullshit?

  3. I've just listened tot he first hour about 911, obf, Dwayne Deets, I'll comment on the other half later.

    Great hour guys, a very good rebuttal of both Deets an obf. I am fully with Don on his reading of Sept Clues as a gatekeeper operation, I've only just become familiar with those guys and their work, but it is obvious to me right away, they are obfuscators in the vein of Judy Wood.

    About the faking of the videos, it's not something I am all that interested in, despite having a background in CGI and video, simply because don't think the videos are that important, they are just a small part of a very large and complex operation and I fail to see the significance of whether they are partly fake (as I contend) or completely fake.

    About Deets and the Pentagon, firstly, kudos to Jim Fetzer for giving Dwayne the chance to state his argument, however, I am in full agreement that he is barking up the wrong tree and that no Boeing hit the Pentagon. What I did find very interesting is Don's info about the evidence of a micro nuke being used. I think this is an important point and one that should be researched further, it would explain quite a few of the inconsistencies in the story.

    1. Ian,

      Of course, one has to remember that an aerial nuclear explosion such as
      that above Hiroshima do cause firestorms on the ground. The evidence for this having happened at Hiroshima is perfectly obvious.

    2. Bob,

      The firestorm erupted after that big bang. Somehow there must be some traces in some of the published photos of 1 huge explosion somewhere. The firestorm could not eliminate every trace of the bang. The streets should be as filled with debris as everywhere else. And what about the streets near the waterfront? Shouldn't have been so much water left in the river for a while, and waves should have done some damage to the waterfront somewhere, but I cannot see or find any in the published or available photos. A firestorm would not have filled the crater again I think. ...and so on...

    3. The has a wide variety of photos of large and small parts of an A-3 Skywarrior being lifted out of the crashsite at the pentagon. This photo collection is much of one utilized by Major General ret'd. Albert stubblebine in his FINAL assessment that an A-3 is the jet that hit the pentagon. Confusing this issue , times, and false testimony by Pentagon witnesses is the fact that many parts, including the turbine hub and many pieces of carbon fiber fuselage and wing parts of a Global Hawk cruise missile were found. The A-3 impacted up to an hour later. It fired a missile from a wing launch rack which created a hole to allow penetration by the A-3 on impact. The smoke of this wing missile is visible in the video short provided by the Pentagon. The A-3 shows up one frame later. Lies by military witnesses at the pentagon and radar recorders of jets impacting the World Trade Center cloud the issue.

  4. "How do we know what a city subjected to 15 kiloton bomb looks like [(after the explosion)]?"


    Good question and wasn't that why Hiroshima was "spared" the bombing
    by the usual methods? So a clearer picture of the effects and what the city would look like after the bomb
    had been dropped could be analyzed?
    As you wrote, the Hiroshima bomb exploded above the city but there was a crater nevertheless but not the kind of crater you would have expected to see if it had exploded on impact with the ground.

    1. Bob,

      There should be a crater in Hiroshima after the REPORTED nuclear bombing there because that gigantic smoke plume that rose to 60,000 feet must have been made up of substance from the ground and could not just be hot air.

      Were are the traces on the ground, according to published photos, for all that material that REPORTEDLY went up in he sky?

      Much, much easier to defend some conventional firebombing, btw. We have all the prima facie evidence we need for that.

      The Japanese Army, that was basically intact, needed an excuse for getting out of the war without losing face. The REPORTED new monster weapon was such an excuse because the Army could never have been expected to have foreseen anything similar to that REPORTED event.

    2. RE: the kind of crater you would have expected to see if it had exploded on impact with the ground.

      Is it one of these craters you have in mind? Better photo of Oppenheimer & Groves in the Trinity test crater:

      How deep and wide is it would you say?

  5. you both are regurgitating all the 'facts' fed you, ah jim and don...geiger counter ban, israeli vans, laughing israeli videographers etc.. you are stuck in a narrative
    it appears, but all is never as it appears, is it? don't you think it bad criminal policy to allow the identifier 'ground zero' be attached immediately to the destroyed area? or the dictionary definitions for 'ground zero' be altered away from the nuclear connotation post 9/11, as detailed by demitri khalezov? you are being led
    by the noses (Not!-you know exactly where you're going!-but it's all good!) it is no surprise to me that simon's work is getting so much attention lately. enough with the fear and anger stages-full steam into relief/realisation from now on in!)
    ah jim is not a great actor, i fear, but you're alright mate.
    simon has it right except for the bigger reasons behind the whole operation. we should all be coming to a greater understanding pretty soon now, in my view.

    11/22/13 was 4455 days after 9/11/01 which saw the 50th anniversary of JFK's ritual 'death'. 50 is the number of the 'total man', a number of Jubilation, Ascension, Illumination. (J=10 F=6 K=11 - reverse and invert it and you get 11-9-01 and since JFK is Irish, this reads in the European dating system September 11 2001!).

    12/25/13 is 33 days after 11/22/13 and 4488 days after 9/11/01.
    This December 25th sees the turning of the page. It was always written that way.

    (9/11 was a ritual featuring no real deaths and fabricated Video and witnesses. In reality the twin pillars were collapses/the Almighty dollar crashed revealing in the gap left, the Monolith (the Millennium hotel!) as it shone through!)

    btw, did you see what was written on the red bus featured at the latest 'roof falling in at the apollo theatre in london' only too obvious hoax (which connects other hoaxes such as 9/11, 7/7, kenyan mall shootings)?
    -joyful and triumphant.....the royal exchange!

    soon we can be all we were meant to be! kings and queens, one and all!

    best wishes to you all.

    Peter Sheehan.

    1. Sheehan, you fool. The illuminati math game took your ability to think straight. Don't talk that no one was injured or killed on 9-11-2001. It reflects badly on your parents.

  6. @ Don Fox: thank you so much for your excellent presentation of the intro/overview to to J. Fetzer, I cannot fault you for that,[ only for your personal opinion of it].

    Otherwise, good work :-) .

    Far more importantly, your presentation to J.Fetzer in this show fully confirms/illustrates what Simon Shack has been claiming for around 5 years- that Fetzer is STILL entirely unfamiliar with his[Simon Shacks] 911 research!

    He obviously has never even looked inside the frickin'
    site! [Maybe the front page?]

    For if he _had_ looked inside the site, he would not STILL be looking for/expecting a discussion/exposition on tower collapse imagery fakery by the media in Mr Shack's movie "September Clues".

    To repeat what I said yesterday in the Ian Greenhalgh interview thread, to J. Fetzer :

    "You have been repeatedly advised in these threads, by Simon Shack, myself, and others , that there is virtually NOTHING in the movie /documentary September Clues that directly addresses the issue of the faked tower collapse imagery.

    In fact, my understanding is that Simon released September Clues [2007-8] BEFORE he had himself even reached the definitive conclusion that all of the tower collapse imagery had been faked.

    That definitive conclusion was only reached AFTER the release of September Clues, via further research.

    All of that research [tower collapse imagery fakery and other] is archived on line at Simon Shacks website"
    SEPTEMBERCLUES.INFO, _NOT_ in the move "September Clues!

    Got that, Mr Fetzer?

    WARNING! That research is not an easy 1 hour, or even 2 hour browse/review- it takes time and mental effort to seriously consider- there will be no handy, overnight, instant revelations, which is what most people [icluding yourself] appear to demand."

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree wrote: " He obviously has never even looked inside the frickin' site! [Maybe the front page?] " - That would disqualify Fetzer as a '9/11 Researcher' to a mere blogger. That's not how he perceives himself with his regular publications (...) in Veterans Today. - If true Fetzer reacts to September Clues as the general public reacts to 9/11 in general. " Why waste time on it ?: I --know-- the facts and made up my mind."

    2. Well, I am having franklyspeaking back this Monday and I spent 1:32:44 watching at least part of "September Clues", which, however, did not include evidence that the footage of the Twin Towers was faked, so there must be more.

    3. I think a large part of the obf/shack argument about the faking of the footage is the claim about the CNN 'live' footage showing the destruction taking 18 seconds.

      Therefore, it would probably be a good idea to see if there is seismic data that can give us a timing for the destruction which we can cross-check with the timings depicted in the various videos.

  7. Oh dear, apart from Bob Tolson, I think all the posters here are agents of obfuscation. It looks like Don was sadly correct and the same pattern experienced with the Judy Wood supporters/attack dogs is being repeated with obf/Shack supporters.

    This talk of Hiroshima, where did that come from? It's just an attempt to lead us away from meaningful discussion I think.

    1. Ian,

      I think the Hiroshima cowboy is trying to make a name for himself.
      What will he think of next?
      Normandy D Day Landings? Fake?
      Hey!! World War II? Never happened?
      Assassination of Julius Caesar? Total myth? You got to laugh? Don't you?
      Have a giraffe!! It's Christmas!! Hey!!
      Christmas.....I wonder....?
      Nah....Forget it!!

    2. Nice point Bob.

      I am a student of ww2 and have actually researched the topic of Hiroshima. There are simply too may facts that stand upto scrutiny to consider firebombing rather than a nuclear bomb. The Japanese sources regarding the effects witnessed n te ground and in the aftermath, particularly in the burns, cancers etc is compelling.

      If the raising to the Hiroshima subject was an attempt to make some link/comparison to 911 and the nuclear event there, then it's pretty fallacious imho as there are too many dissimilarities. The Hiroshima device was many kilotons and a totally different type of bomb, it exploded in mid-air, the structures in Hiroshima were largely paper and wood, there just isn't enough commonality between the two events to be able to draw any meaningful comparisons.

      BTW, Christmas is really the old pagan mid-winter solstice dressed up in Christian swaddling ;)

    3. We are talking about nuclear demolitions 911, and Hiroshima is by far the most famous example in the history of nuclear bomb REPORTS.

      Aristotle also advised: “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”. That is the strategy for how we can detect the many Big Lies™ we have been exposed to.

      I have asked some really simple question on this Hiroshima story, like where is the crater, and the epicenter, after the REPORTED blast, according to any published and historical photos of the REPORTED event.

      If the published photos aren't consistent with the story we have been told, we have to look for other explanations. And it would be rather sensational if the balance of evidence suggest that Hiroshima was also firebombed and Pentagon et al sold us fake REPORTS on nuclear bombings.

      If this is the case, when was the first real nuclear bomb then? And what is the evidence for that one? And where is it? How do we really know that nukes are real in the first place? Shouldn't be so hard to answer a simple question like this.

      Just because TV told us something, and we learned it in school, and "everybody knows", doesn't really prove that the event actually happened.

      This nuclear bomb story is just like something a Science Fiction writher could have come up with. We don't have so much evidence for that they are real, except for the many REPORTS.

      So if Hiroshima nuclear bombing was faked, we should also question if nuclear demolitions 911 could be so very compelling.

      Nuclear bomb revisionism started in the Liberty Forum in 2004. Cant give you a link because your brains will be even more overloaded.

    4. Ian,

      Paul and Lewis are legit as well. But yeah other than that it it's mostly disinfo. Pretty much what I expected.

      Did El Buggo even listen to the show? We didn't cover Hiroshima at all.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. Don,

      Yes, I have listened to the show. I have too many comments to that what was said to present them all here. I will provide some later.

      We are talking about nuclear demolitions 911 here, and I find the history on nuclear bombs reports rather relevant. There is a problem in the beginning of these reports that I have tried to get some of the many nuclear demolitions expert here to answer, but I am still not convinced. You can jump in and clear this up ones and for all so that we can continue?

    7. Hi Don

      Thanks for the tips, Paul and Lewis hadn't posted when I made my comment.

      The link to Hiroshima is tenuous to say the least, and I can sense that it is nothing more than an attempt to lead us off down an irrelevant alley away from the meaningful so I'm not going to bother getting into it. All I'll say is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that Hiroshima was nuked and it's not worth debating.

    8. Ian,

      If you believe in nuclear demolitions 911, I understand very well that you simply do not want to discuss the basis for this very controversial and disputed claim.

      Hiroshima is really important in any discussions on nuclear bombings. Hiroshima is by far the most famous story on nukes. Would be very useful to study the effect of this reported mega explosion to compare it with the potential nuclear demolitions 911.

      I have asked some really simple questions on the reported Hiroshima nuclear bombing, like "where is the crater?" and "where is the epicenter?" I have provided some links to some historical photos of Hiroshima for the relevant period, but every nuclear demolition expert here have failed to answer my simple and extremely basic questions on the by far most famous nuclear explosion in the history on nuclear bomb reports.

      Bob, above, even seems to believe that the firestorm hid all traces of the blast, or that nuclear bombing should look identical to fire bombings. And of course, no explanation or demonstration of where all the material in the gigantic smoke plume must have come from. Talking about several thousand tons of material up in the sky at least.

      "No, cannot show you the crater or epicenter in Hiroshima, but we know that the WTC tower were nuked". And this we are supposed to believe? It is not even the slightest credible.

      We also have the Bank of Japan building, with a flat roof, that was still standing intact after the reported monster blast right above. In fact, the building is still standing there today:

      Imagine that, a flat roof, built to keep rainwater out, will protect us from a nuclear bomb blast right above our heads!

      According to reports we have, the ground should maybe turned into glass!

      The evidence for a nuclear bomb in Hiroshima is consistent with firebombing, but not with a nuclear mega blast. The wooden houses burned (of course). Bank of Japan building did not caught fire and survived the firebombing and is still at the same spot today.

      What was the first real nuclear bomb then? That is credible and that we can prove?

      Honestly, I think you are speechless, but you will not admit that!

    9. The only thing I'm speechless at is the level of distraction and obfuscation going on here. Hiroshima is so far from relevant to 9-11 it's not even funny.

    10. Ian,

      We know how the history on dynamite begun, and we know that stuff is real.

      Nuclear bombs, on the other hand, is harder to find and check for us self, you know, so we need to begin with the beginning and follow the development to see if nuclear demolitions 911 could be possible. We need something more than someone throwing out a word like "mini-nukes".

      Haven't gotten past 1945 yet. Still holes in the story from those days. Like the missing crater and the no trace of an epicenter from that reported mega blast in Hiroshima. Sounds like an other fairytale to me.

      Hiroshima is as irrelevant to 911 as mini-nukes are for demolitions. If you want to promote mini-nukes demolitions, Hiroshima nuclear bomb reports can be very relevant for that concept.

      Replace "dynamite" with "mini-nukes" and we don't have to talk about the missing and non-existing crater in Hiroshima, etc.

    11. El Buggo,

      Nuclear bomb technology has progressed quite a bit since 1945. The old atom bombs used uranium-235 and plutonium-239 to achieve a fission explosion. Atom bombs released a lot of radioactivity. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in the 15 kiloton range. The bombs used at the WTC and Pentagon were in the .01 kiloton range.

      Here is a brief summary of the weapons used on 9/11:

      They appeared to be fission triggered fusion bombs. What this means is that the bomb has enough uranium-235 to start a critical reaction. Typically this is achieved by ramming one chunk of uranium into another which forms a critical mass. About 30 KG is all the U-235 that is needed to achieve critical mass. This explosion creates enough heat to kick off a more powerful fusion reaction of deuterium and tritium(D-T). D-T fusion will briefly create temperatures of 200 million °F. Neutron bombs use a chromium or nickel case unlike standard hydrogen bombs which have a depleted uranium(U-238) case. Neutron bombs are designed to allow neutrons to escape and bombard targets with neutron radiation. This reduces the blast effects of the bomb.

      The heat and blast effects of the fusion explosion are fearsome but limited in scope due to the small size and nature of the neutron bomb. A hydrogen bomb explosion will release a lot of tritium which will convert almost completely into tritiated water. There was a substantial amount of tritium in the water samples taken from the basement of WTC 6. This confirms that fusion took place at Ground Zero. The USGS dust samples confirm that nuclear fission took place.

      For a full break down of nukes at the WTC see Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11

    12. Thanks Don,

      Interesting to see the framework for what it should take to make neutron demolitions believable. Unfortunately, much harder to make it knowable of course. I will have to use my imagination to be able to fit the process together. Looks like this concept has more in common with this scene from Independence Day (1996) than dynamite: ^ Pretty big leap there from Hiroshima to this fancy 2001 version.

      Is it in some way possible to get this neutron destruction process demonstrated or verified? At least some indications? Or do we have to rely on what we are told and our imagination? This could be another version of The Emperors New Cloths, you know. I believe it is safe to label this neutron destruction process as "undemonstrated".

      So to start up this neutron generation process, a conventional U-fission mechanism is needed. As you may have noticed, there are still material holes in the Hiroshima story. And that should be the event that publicly demonstrated this invention. At least we were told that a new fission bomb destroyed the city, and everyone believed it. So after all the news reports, no one doubted it. The whole story came from the same controlled source, you know.

      Unfortunately, I am unable to confirm that this neutron bomb exists, or if they possibly may work. We have to rely on reports, and reports and reports, from the same controlled source; the Top Secret nuclear bomb business, and the "we-will-never-lie-to-you-guys" crowd.

      I suspect the magic trick word here is "critical mass". Something "magical" is happening to metal then, it is not just heating up, but will EXPLODE, we are told. Well, there isn't a crater in Hiroshima, nor any traces of any epicenter in any of the historical photos or films of the event. Also a problem with the design was that there wasn't any moderator for the neutrons. The very technical reader will understand what that can imply.

      I don't find nuclear neutron demolitions believable at all. Science Fiction is the most precise label I have for that concept.

      However, the demolition process isn't one of the crucial points in this operation - it is quite peripheral to the story and major points. So I could almost accept the notion "WTC was brought down with dynamite or mini-nukes". Unfortunately, the public at large may perceive us all as kooks if we promote this idea, and label us tinfoil hatters or something.

      We can also waste much time or many years on discussing this not crucial point at all, how the buildings were brought down. Distractions are not what we really need.

      To sum up the crucial points 911: Media was deeply involved in this operation - they ran it. No commercial plane crashes 911, i e, no foreign hijackers. I will later present the arguments for why no one died and no one got hurt in the 911 media operation. Planes and the victims are the basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with, not how the towers were brought down - doesn't matter at all for the WoT.

      (I reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks.)

    13. Here are more links to studies about nukes:

      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”

      “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino

      “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”

      “2 + 2 = Israel Nuked the WTC on 9/11”

      "Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs” with Don Fox

      “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”

      I do not see how the above-ground nukes that were used in Japan bear relevance to the mini or micro nukes used in New York.

    14. Thanks Jim,

      Lots of stuff to read there. I could be occupied for a whole year!

      The problem with this nuclear neutron demolition process is that is also based on a U-fission mechanism. According to several million reports (that came from the same controlled source), Hiroshima was destroyed by this new invention, they claimed. As you too may have noticed, there are material holes in that story. Like the historical films and photos of he event aren't consistent with what they told us, but very consistent with a conventional firebombing raid, like in Tokyo and Yokohama.

      After that "public demonstration" of the new (claimed) invention, and several million news reports later (from the same controlled source), everybody believed it. Everybody simply knew that Nuclear Fission Bombs were real, because everybody believed it! Who can doubt something that everybody knows? Only lunatics do that! The power of "everybody knows" is HUGE! Let me quote the relevant part from The Emperor's New Cloths here:

      Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool.

      A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

      "The Emperor is naked," he said.

      "Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

      "The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"

      The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.


      I especially like these parts; "Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool." and "A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him".

      So what would the point be, to demonstrate one more time something that "everybody knew" anyway? Except for Hiroshima (and the very similar Nagasaki), what demonstrations do we have of these mega fission bombs? What we have is some silly Disney animation movies, with obviously fake audio tracks, and lots and lots of REPORTS (from the same controlled source) and so on. How about a real nuclear war? No. Nothing. We do not even have seismograms of any of these REPORTED mega explosions.

      Around 1966 they moved the REPORTED tests up in the atmosphere, so that no one could see or film anything. And no one needed to see anything, because at that time "everybody knew" anyway. They didn’t event have to crate the usual Disney animations anymore. Later they put their REPORTED tests underground. Not possible for anyone to see anything there of course. And then they even stopped that. Now they only need to simulate their test on computers they claim. UN is also working on removing all these reported weapons all together, so soon they will be gone, before any of us (except for these very controlled and maybe not so very credible people or actors) have seen anything at all. "Everybody knew" after that Hiroshima demonstration anyway.


    15. >cont:

      Best strategy for launching a new Big Lie operation, according to Larken Rose: "If you can tell a lie to everybody, all at ones, and keep telling them that lie over and over again, until they actually perpetuate the lie themselves, then you are in business." Fits this Hiroshima story perfectly.

      And didn’t Aristotle teach us this? “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”.

      Anyway, this is no big deal. Just get the Hiroshima story straight, like pointing out the crater or the epicenter in any of the historical photos or films from that time, and also maybe explain why even the flat roof of the Bank of Japan building, right below the reported blast, could protect against this allegedly monster weapon, and why those flimsy brick chimneys were still standing, and the missing damage to the riverfront and the missing rubble in the streets. Should be a piece of cake for any real nuclear demolition expert I will assume, and we can continue. After all, "everybody knows".

      Nuclear revisionism begun in the Liberty Forum in 2004 - I will not provide a link because your brains may be even more overloaded. For more on this paradigm shift, check out the Fakologist, and or Anders Bjorkman stuff. You need to start with the Hiroshima footage though.

      (I reserve the rights to extend and revise my remarks.)

  8. I wouldn't be surprised if these two fruit cakes pshea and onebornfree were, in fact, the same demented and deranged clown with a computer and access to the internet.

    1. I agree Paul, wouldn't surprise me if multiple IDs are being employed, it also strikes me that El Buggo writes in a similar style to obf and may also be the same person, hence the attempt to lead the discussion off into a pointless dead-end in Hiroshima.

    2. Yeah. El Buggo may be the French writing jorge.
      "El" is a Spanish word for "the" and jorge is a Spanish name.

      El Buggo = jorge?

  9. Just listened to the second our, also excellent. Don's linking of LBJ to Israel was very valuable, I've also read the latest PDF edition of Michael Collins Piper and agree that LBJ was deeply tied into Zionism. I think Jim should have Michael back on the show, I like Michael's work and style of presenting his info a lot.

    I had a chuckle at Don's final comment that the comments section will be 'blowing up' he was right ;)

    1. I'm glad you liked the show. Believe it or not I put a lot of work into these shows and the VT articles.

      Jim mentioned that he wants to get Piper back on and I hope he does. Piper is definitely ahead of his time in JFK research.

    2. I can tell you put a lot of work in because you bring up new info and points I haven't previously come across.

      Piper I think, really made some groundbreaking discoveries and moved the understanding of the wider picture forward a great deal because he came at it from a totally different angle than everyone else.

      Just goes to show what a good investigative journalist can do, and starkly illustrate how rare a beast they have become today, sadly.

  10. it is infested here with fakers, ian being the latest addition to this half-hearted 'some fakery but mini-nukes did it' brigade. they are here to push the nuke lies and affirm the reality of that hoax of hoaxes, nuclear weapons.

    1. I see what your game is, instead of presenting your own, rational viewpoint backed by scientific evidence, you simply attack others. You're just one of the disinfo agents that we have to put up with, how tiresome.

    2. I agree, Ian.

      Was it Aristotle who said?

      " Free speech is not free, it's precious and I always draw the line at cheap, cut price bullshit.
      You can shove that crap."

  11. Let me take a crack at explaining what I think really happened on 9/11 and why the video tapes are not evidence but fakes instead.

    I think first we should consider how the towers and the rest of the seven buildings were destroyed. The mistake everyone is making is using the archived video footage as evidence.

    The destruction of the WTC had to be some kind of controlled demolition. It is possible and likely that the towers had a built-in demolition system. It is possible they used nuclear explosives. (See William Lewis III for details and link to "Nuclear Demolition." Also, Don Fox had some interesting things to say on this podcast on positioning of mini nukes)

    If you agree the WTC was set up for a controlled demolition on 9/11 and that it probably took years and months of careful planning and timing, then you have to agree the building was prepped for a successful demolition, removing everything from the buildings such as furniture, file cabinets, bathroom fixtures, etc.

    Since the building was mostly metal (consider the hundreds of peripheral pre-fab steel columns, the steel floor pans and the 47 thick core columns), one couldn't use conventional explosives. They had to save the bathtub by pulverizing the steel--hence the mini nukes.

    Much could have been dismantled over the years and salvaged or dismantled. The use of chutes is common. When a tenant leaves, for example, they pull up all the carpeting, wiring, etc. and clear the space completely.

    As to the people in the building--these are the most mobile of all. All one would have to do would be have a drill and evacuate the buildings eliminating the possibility of splattering of human body parts all over NY. I know the government has fixated on the 3,000 figure, but do we really believe them at this point?

    Perhaps there were several drills going on which kept people out of the buildings in the first place. Maybe they thought they were participating in a drill. Drills are very detailed and planned out giving each person an assigned identity, such as "mother with three children" and they would need the antidote to a bio-warfare attack. (This actually happened i my city involving thousands of volunteers, and not a peep in the press.)

    So, that's the set up. These buildings with their built-in demolishing material hooked up and ready to be exploded are ready to go. Do you really think, after years of planning this moment, they would during live taping then hit these buildings with planes, explode the walls out in plane shaped outlines in a real fireball, create a real fire in the top floors with real smoke coming out of the buildings? Do you think they would do all this for the sake of witness testimony? I don't think so. They can buy all the eyewitness testimony they want from actors and co-conspirators.

    Therefore, the first hours of televised 9/11 coverage was a movie with special effects and even errors such as the path of the planes and the "nose-in-out" gaffe. They had us going there for awhile.

    The problem now is to see if we can find any real photographic evidence. There must be some. I tend to believe that truckloads of dirt were brought to the site and that there was a lot of washing of the streets also that rusting was a major problem to adjacent structures discovered at the site by Judy Wood. The toasted cars must be real? There is a lot of work to do and redo.

    Some have said a military type smoke screen kept people from the scene. There were probably FEMA and FBI agents keeping people from the scene. The video clips we saw were made days after 9/11. There are very few of crowds especially the evacuation of the WTC. I could go on, but this is enough for now.

  12. Joan Edwards said : "
    Therefore, the first hours of televised 9/11 coverage was a movie with special effects and even errors such as the path of the planes and the "nose-in-out" gaffe. They had us going there for awhile.

    The problem now is to see if we can find any real photographic evidence. There must be some. "

    No, no , no, Joan! You need to "get with the program" here !

    Don't you see? The network imagery must all be real because J.Fetzer says the media footage has a"prima facie" reason for its coverage to be believed, without actual in-depth investigation into that footage ever occurring, and because trained suck-ups like Greenlagh [who doesn't "see any reason to fake it"-therefor there cannot be any], and Don "da Jews dun 911 all by demselves wid nookes" Fox nod their heads in "wise", resigned agreement .

    You ,[and I] on the other hand, are shills/disinfo agents, trolls etc. yadda ,yadda ,yadda ad infinitum!

    Got all that ?

    Regards obf.

    1. How can anyone take seriously a cretin like you who insists and persists in spelling the word
      "therefore" as "therefor"?
      Is this some kind of sexual fetish with you or what?

  13. Joan,

    Too many good points there to list them all.

    However, it is not credible with both nuclear demolitions and real video of the collapses on "live" news. If you believe in nuclear demolitions 911, you must also add cartoonish fake CGI animations on "live" news, and that THE MEDIA was also DEEPLY involved in this operation. (What is this gang or tribe who control the media called btw?)

    Let me quote Frank Lee Speekin's excellent explanation for this:

    "Now since you believe, as you do, that demolition of the WTC Twin Towers were caused by nukes, ask yourself this question: HOW ON EARTH did they make the collapse look like a fire-induced collapse?

    What possible techniques could have been used to accomplish this? Above all, HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT THE TECHNIQUES WOULD WORK?

    It must have been the most terrifying day of the perp's life, because if the nuclear fireball should burst through the side of the building, revealing the plot, it would be "Game Over".

    There really is no way that they could have known how it would look, so they took no chances whatsoever, and made all of the relevant video of the collapse CGI."

    But if you simply replace "nukes" with "dynamite", your post would be close to perfect.

  14. El Buggo,

    I agree with your introduction of the nuclear fakeology to this conversation. It seems central to Don Fox's view of the destruction. The fact that they were able to lie about 9/11 and get away with it makes one question what other big lie was pulled on the world successfully: the Moon Landing, JFK, and the whole nuclear weapon concept come to mind. All contain the central components of the 9/11 deception: bad imagery and repetitive or psychic driving of memes.

    Without nukes and victims, 9/11 was a simple demolition of 9 buildings to move a population into giving up more than half of their tax spending to a military wing of a global cabal, who's origins go back to Babylon (but that's another show).

    As for the authenticity of Pshea or OBF, I'll vouch for them anytime. Real investigators who do not believe in mythology that is often promoted here.

  15. Why do you feel the need to vouch
    for pshea and obf?
    Are you implying that they need
    to be vouched for?
    Are you questioning their
    authenticity? Why?
    On what grounds?

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Claiming nuclear weapons are some kind of hoax is a farcical, indefensible viewpoint.

      I think what we're seeing here is a concerted effort at misdirection and Ima Fakeologist is just another of the shills, hence the need to 'vouch' for pshea and obf.

      Buggo, Ima, obf, pshea, they might all be the same person, they all sing from the same hymn sheet and write in very similar styles.

    2. You're right. It is blatantly obvious that a gang of nuts is orchestrating this attack on Don Fox.

  17. It would seem that this Ima Fakeologist is yet another troll/shill who is hell bent on further disruption of the debate on Don Fox's excellent podcast. Don seems to have pulled a few chains in his very educational and insightful exchange with Jim Fetzer.
    How else can this obvious onslaught
    of bilge, bile and twaddle from pshea, OBF, El Buggo and now from Ima Fakeologist against Don be explained?

    Whatever raw nerves you've hit, Don -
    keep hitting them.

    1. Exactly Don, I'm in full agreement. It's blatant and pathetic.

    2. There is some unwritten rule somewhere that says you're not supposed to call govt shills out. You're supposed to debate them on the merits of their arguments blah blah blah. (I think the shills wrote that rule.)

      But when someone makes claims like "nobody died on 9/11" and "all the victims were simulated" they are obviously a shill and should be denounced as such. Post after post after post of complete BS.. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Some of us would like to have a legitimate discussion of what really happened on 9/11.

      I'm glad you guys are seeing through the OBP, Simon Shill and the rest of them.

      I've got nothing to hide. I'm IT guy and I work 40 hours a week. My vehicle has 135,000 miles on it. Judy Wood and Christopher Bollyn know where I work. They've done full background checks on me. If there was any dirt on me you'd know about it rest assured.

      The 9/11 scam is so full of holes that eventually even the brainwashed public is going to figure it out. If I can do anything to speed up the process of exposing the fraud of 9/11 I'm happy to do it. And judging by the comments from the real people posting here I think we're making some progress for a change. It's taken awhile but we're starting to figure out what really happened.

    3. Well said Don.

      Personally, one I've identified a shill/disinfo agent, I just ignore them, i consider it a waste of precious time and energy to even engage them. Just look at all the energy and effort obf puts into his ceaseless trolling posts here and elsewhere, if only that energy were channeled into something good, true and worthwhile...

      I don't even bother reading obf's posts now, it's a waste of my time, and I encourage everyone else to ignore him too, attention is the oxygen these people need to keep going, deprive them of it and they will eventually wither away.

    4. Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh,

      Both of you are making a mistake about Simon Shack and OBF. I will review the points carefully tomorrow in a radio show. Simon Shack and OBF are trying to make an inference based on all available evidence. There is a case that they take their inference too far to be warranted, and I'll discuss that tomorrow. I have no impression that they are shills, if they were, they'd be more polite! We'll discuss this tomorrow. See you there.

    5. Frankly,

      OBP has been attacking me since August. I'm sick of it. He's totally full of shit. After being attacked at least 9,875 times by ADL shills Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Pete Santilli etc. I can tell an ADL shill when I see one. OBP and Simon Shill fit that description to a T.

      Once again for everyone out there: how do you spot a 9/11 shill? A good first clue is someone who posts under a phony name and denies nukes. That's OBP. He makes a bunch of other ridiculous statements as well such as "all the victims were simulated."

      I look forward to hearing your show. I thought your first show was pretty good. And welcome to the Fetzer 9/11 slug fest!!

  18. Just for the record, I am not committed to the nuked buildings theory. From my research, nukes are the only thing that works on modern steel framed buildings such as the WTC and the Sears Tower.

    This article explains how the building code in New York was changed to include plans for demolition of the new taller buildings. Controlled Demolitions, Inc. has a patent on new demolition techniques. Read it for yourselves.

    This really shouldn't change the fact that regardless of what explosives were used, it wasn't shown on TV because a controlled demolition would have to had totally empty buildings--no people and no furniture or fixtures--to be successful.

    Part 2. Modern history. Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers.

    So, how come that this old atomic demolition concept, despite of being known to be too costly and despite of having a too low performance index compare to a conventional controlled demolition by implosion was eventually revived and even implemented in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition scheme?

    It happens because of a new generation of buildings has come into existence at the end of 60s - namely steel-framed buildings

  19. The first pictures broadcast by the networks were fake--a false news story lasting about two hours (see timeline below) complete with video of planes hits, faked cookie cutter gashes, fake fireballs and billowing smoke.

    They were broadcast in real time--"live"--with anchors commenting on pre-taped scenes. Local stations were knocked off the air and only the five networks were broadcasting: ABC, NBC, CBS. CNN, and FOX.

    The feed came from several news choppers in the air so the scenes were the same on all the networks. Sometimes they varied the tint of the pictures going to each network to make them look unique, but the cameras were always miles away from the towers, zooming in when they sensed a plane was coming making the resolution terrible for these multi-million dollar cameras..

    Some of the pictures of the collapsing towers were so close up that one would have thought the photographer would have been buried in debris. The notable thing about these films is there are no people in them. I'm no expert in CGI, but I think you can program any image to come down like a controlled demolition. What I saw in one looked like dominos being knocked over.

    We know since there were no planes, the images of hits, fireballs, etc. had to have been faked. But the destruction of the towers? Why fake these?. Why not tape the ideal collapse and hide the real one from view? To get conspiracy theories going, did they purposely make it look like controlled demolitions as opposed to a pancake collapse as the OCT said?

    Troubling are all the stills of the aftermath showing practically no debris. I bought Eric Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions" when it first came out and see now there are no credits on the many glossy large photos I once thought were so impressive.. Upon close examination, you can see how easily these could have been falsified by retouching tricks.

  20. Hey, are the posters here familiar with the movie "Wag the Dog"? I ask because I've never heard anyone mention it and how come so many of you are Brits?

  21. Television viewing schedule for 9/11.

    September 11 Television Archive : Free Movies : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

    8:48 a.m.
    First news reports that American Airlines Flight 11 has crashed into One World Trade Center (north tower).

    9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into Two World Trade Center (south tower).

    9:17 a.m. FAA closes NYC area airports.

    9:21 a.m. NYC Port Authority closes all bridges and tunnels in NYC.

    9:24 a.m. President Bush calls crashes "an apparent attack on our country".

    9:32 a.m. New York Stock Exchange closed.

    9:40 a.m. FAA orders all commercial flights grounded.

    9:43 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. (Note: other sources cite the crash at 9:37 and 9:45)

    9:45 a.m. White House evacuated.

    9:59 a.m. Two World Trade Center (south tower) collapses. (note: other souces cite the collapse at 10:03, 10:05, & 10:06)

    10:00 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. (note: the crash happened slightly after 10 am, perhaps as late as 10:10 according to other sources)

    10:10 a.m. Portion of the Pentagon collapses.

    10:13 a.m. United Nations building evacuates.

    10:22 a.m. State and Justice Departments, and World Bank, evacuated in Washington DC.

    10:24 a.m. FAA reroutes inbound transatlantic flights to land in Canada.

    10:28 a.m. One World Trade Center (north tower) collapses.

    10:45 a.m. All federal office buildings in Washington DC evacuated.

    10:48 a.m. Police confirm Pennsylvania plane crash.

    10:53 a.m. New York's primary elections postponed.

    10:54 a.m. Israel evacuates diplomatic missions.

    10:57 a.m. NY Gov. Pataki announces closure of all state government offices.

    11:02 a.m. Mayor Giuliani urges New Yorkers to stay at home and orders an evacuation of the area south of Canal Street

    12:04 p.m. Los Angeles International Airport evacuated.

    12:15 p.m. San Francisco International Airport evacuated.

    12:15 p.m.
    US closes some Canada and Mexico border crossings.

    1:02 p.m. NY Mayor Giuliani evacuates Manhattan south of Canal Street.

    1:04 p.m. President Bush says: "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." (note: other sources cite this at 12:36)

    1:27 p.m. Washington DC declares state of emergency in the city.

    2:30 p.m. FAA announces suspension of US commercial air traffic until noon EST Wednesday 9/12/01.

    4:00 p.m. CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor reports there are indications that Osama bin Laden is involved in attacks.

    4:10 p.m. Seven World Trade Center reported to be on fire.

    4:25 p.m. American Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, and New York Stock Exchange announce they will be closed Wednesday, 9/12.

    4:45 p.m. City of New York announces that 200 firefighters and 78 police officers are missing.(Note: according to other sources, at 7:45 pm the New York Police department announced that at least 78 police officers were missing and that as many as half (200) of the first firefighters at the scene had been killed.)

    5:20 p.m. Seven World Trade Center building collapses.

    5:30 p.m. Explosions reported in Kabul, Afghanistan. (note: other sources cite this for 6 pm)

    6:40 p.m. Press conference by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon.

    6:45 p.m. President Bush arrives at the White House. (note: other sources say he arrived at 6:54)

    8:30 p.m. President Bush addresses the nation.

    Search warrants obtained for homes and post office boxes in Florida.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. Joan Edwards said :" The feed came from several news choppers in the air so the scenes were the same on all the networks. Sometimes they varied the tint of the pictures going to each network to make them look unique, but the cameras were always miles away from the towers, zooming in when they sensed a plane was coming making the resolution terrible for these multi-million dollar cameras.."

    Sorry Joan- the "chopper feeds" in the TV archives are all nothing more than bad fakes too :-)

    See Simon Shack's post dated December 11th, 2013, 3:52 pm in this thread for just one example of why:

    Joan Edwards said : "We know since there were no planes, the images of hits, fireballs, etc. had to have been faked. But the destruction of the towers? Why fake these? Why not tape the ideal collapse and hide the real one from view? ".

    Yes, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that the tower collapses shown"live" on the networks were all also faked too.

    For one example here is my presentation of Simon Shacks analysis of the WTC1 collapse as shown "live" on CNN: "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage" :

    As to the camera resolution issue you mentioned, there is no appreciable difference between the alleged "live" chopper feed quality and the alleged "live" ground feed quality from the networks . See: "Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples." :

    Regards, obf.

  24. Don Welson said: " It is blatantly obvious that a gang of nuts is orchestrating this attack on Don Fox."

    More like: "a gang of nuts " is defending him :-) .

    Regards, obf.

  25. Joan Edwards said: "Hey, are the posters here familiar with the movie "Wag the Dog"? "

    But you don't understand dear Joan, that's just a Hollywood movie -they wouldn't really dare to do that type of thing in real life to start a war, that's just _too_ cynical of you :-)

    Joan Edwards said: "how come so many of you are Brits?"

    British WANKERS, to be more precise :-)

    Regards, obf

  26. I'm sorry to hear that about Joan Mellon--about her sabotaging the New York event. It's even more bothering that she doesn't get into Permindex, as much as she concentrates on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination. I don't buy many books because of a lack of money and so haven't bought hers.

    The JFK letter to David ben Gurion was reported in The Jerusalem Post, dateline 03/29/2010 (I think I mentioned it here).

    Joan Mellon makes some good points when she asks (1) why it would be that the case for LBJ's alleged central role would come up now after so many years and (2) whenever an investigator pushes LBJ in a central role, they characteristically downplay or leave out the role of the CIA. I think you'll find that Fletcher Prouty disagreed with you and Don, Jim, that the CIA didn't/doesn't set policy. See this article:

    Since you mentioned Permindex, you might want to listen to a 2006 audio archive of Ralph Schoenman as interviewed by Lenny Bloom on Sherman Skolnick's show "Cloak and Dagger" in which he goes into the Clay Shaw trial, Permindex (Permanent Industrial Expositions), and the Paese Sera article which Jim Garrison wasn't allowed to introduce into evidence at the trial--evidence that Ralph gave him in his capacity as Director of the Who Killed Kennedy Committee in London. In the first 27 minutes of the interview, Ralph gets into the role of the Mossad in Iraq before going on to talk about Permindex. You might want to ask Mark Lane (since he's now supporting the Oswald Innocence Project) whether he wrote Rush to Judgment in Ralph Schoenman's flat in London, as Ralph claims in the broadcast. There's some very detailed information by Ralph linking the CIA/NATO attempts under Operation Gladio to subvert democratic governments in Italy and Greece with the JFK assassination--in the audio archive beginning after about minute 35:00 (of the 52-minute program). Why "everything links back to Dallas". Here's the link:

  27. I can't recall whether it was Jim or Kevin Barrett who told me that Ralph and Mya Shone tried to have the Dynamic Duo excluded from a 9/11 forum in New York. Ralph and Mya have had some odd ideas about the 9/11 Truth community, but you'll find in the 2006 program I linked to that Ralph gave a central role to the Mossad and Zionism in the Western terrorist operations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Ralph's anti-Zionist work centers around Palestine, but he certainly wouldn't have had any objection to connecting the Mossad to the assassination of JFK. Ralph's exposés of how the Israeli authorities commonly treat Palestinians is often blood-curdling--as you can hear in the Taking Aim programs at If he'd consent to coming on the show (through Mark Lane's prodding or mine), I think he'd make a great guest for The Real Deal.

    One last thing. I was on with Ab Irato last night during his regular Saturday broadcast at I don't think it's productive to call his crowd "shills". They seem to be pretty reasonable aside from their fixation on the notion that just about everything (including nuclear weapons) is faked. I think it's a logical problem with them, and I don't have a good remedy to offer them. If I could show them how their position is internally inconsistent, I think I could dissuade them from it--it's certainly a question of their undervaluing objective reality and underestimating the difficulties involved in faking it to the degree they imagine it's possible.

    1. Interesting points Bill.

      Israel and the Zionist founders of that state have been involved in terrorism for a long time. There were Zionist terrorist groups in Eastern Europe prior to ww2, Zionist terrorist groups existed in Tsarist Russia, they played a role in provoking the1905 uprising and were responsible for the assassinations of several high-ranking ministers and aristocrats.

      Zionist terrorism by groups such as The Stern Gang, Hagganah and Irgun was carried out on a large scale in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s,most notably the King David Hotel bombing. Therefore it can be reasonably argued that Israel was founded by terrorists and furthermore, it can be argued that the IDF is a terrorist organisation as it was formed from the Stern Gang, Irgun and Hagganah and it's commanders were all men who had been terrorists.

      Once Israel had been founded, the terrorism continued. Ben Gurion found himself with a fertile land that needed to be farmed but the immigrant Jews weren't prepared to do that work, they were not used to manual labour and knew nothing of agriculture, they were city dwellers from Eastern Europe. Therefore, Ben Gurion had to look elsewhere for a workforce to farm the land stolen from the Palestinians. There were half a million Sephardic Jews living peacefully in Iraq, they were arabs who followed the Hebrew faith, not at all related to the European Ashkenazi immigrants now liing in Israel. Ben Gurion decided the Iraqi Sephardis would make a good workforce for the farm lands of Israel, so he ordered a terrorist campaign against them which could be blamed on the Iraqis and used to cause the Sephardis to flee to Israel. Sephardis were shot down in the street, hand grenades were thrown into crowds on street corners, Sepherdic businesses were bombed. Soon the Sehardis fled to Israel where they were put to work as agricultural labour and Ben Gurion had got the workforce he needed.

      After that, we have the Lavon Affair, a similar campaign as that which has been waged in Iraq was planned for Egypt, but it was foiled by Egyptian police and intelligence services.

      Then there's the USS liberty, the Beirut marine base bombing and many other acts of terrorism, all ordered and directed from Tel Aviv.

      Israel is a terrorist state, founded by terrorists and has shown a continual and consistent use of terrorism to achieve it's goals.

    2. Ian, I'd agree with all your points except two.

      First, the Russian Czar called all his political enemies "terrorists". There was no armed uprising, as such, in 1905 Russia that I'm aware of--a few massed demonstrations, some peasant riots, a wave of industrial strikes, and assassinations of a few government officials. There was a long-standing official policy of spontaneous and bloody attacks by the Czar's military against the Jews of the Pale (the borderland area of the former Polish-Lithuanian Empire to which Jews were restricted by law)--the so-called "pogroms", and there is abundant evidence that these took place. I'd have sided with any group opposing the despotic rule of Nicholas II, who bloodily suppressed even the non-violent aspects of the 1905 Revolution. I don't think anyone had to "provoke" it because Nicholas II was doing a very good job at that himself.

      Second, there are many aspects to the USS Liberty incident. The Israeli attack on the ship can't be called a terrorist attack by the usual criteria: (1) it was an attack by a full national military and (2) it took place on a ship that was in a war zone collecting intelligence on engaged forces and, arguably, a legitimate target. But the IDF didn't sink it, although they had every capability of doing so. The Israeli leadership never really trusted Johnson, who was an oil man and part of a cabal known to side with the Arab oil states against the State of Israel when it was thought to be in their interests. To be sure, the Zionist Nazis' main use of the IDF has been to conduct a policy of terrorism against the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors; but there are ambiguous aspects to the Liberty Incident that we may never be fully able to unravel. It's the kind of ambiguity that fits well with the ambiguous status of the State of Israel as a predatory religious state that claims to exist as a last refuge for the Jews but at the same time sponsors (purportedly) Islamic terrorist groups with historical links to the Third Reich and one of whose avowed purposes is to exterminate every Jew it can lay it's hands on.

      While I don't buy a lot of the claims made in this take on the Liberty Incident (along with a RealPlayer(c) audio link, which is also available in two MP3s: part 1 and part 2), I think it brings up some points that aren't often considered:
      Dave Emory on The Liberty Incident.

  28. obf, and it is also your position that photos such as those found on Judy's web site,, are also fake, right? And that all the photos of the destruction of the Twin Towers by photographers like Bill Biggart are also fake, right?

    And just to make a logical point that perhaps I should have made early on, empirical reasoning is based on the presumption that a certain body of evidence is authentic. So it is always conditional in the sense that it could be characterized as having the form, "If the body of evidence e is authentic, then the likelihood of h1, h2, and so on is l1, l2, and so forth.

    If that assumption should prove to be false, then of course those likelihoods would have to be reassessed on the basis of the new body of evidence, including that certain evidence previously presumed to be authentic turns out not to be and the consequences that follow from discovering that to be the case.

    So if the footage of Flight 175 turns out to be CGI, video compositing or the use of a sophisticated hologram, that has to be taken into account. And if it should turn out that the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers was faked or otherwise flawed, that too would have to be taken into account.

    The situation for me is that, while I am convinced that the footage of Flight 175 cannot be authentic (because it includes impossible physics), that by itself does not resolve how it was done, which remains a live issue. And where I am yet to be convinced that the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers is not authentic, as obf and SS both believe. But of course if it were fake, that would affect our reasoning about 9/11.

  29. Nice of you to take the time to explain rational reasoning Jim, sadly I doubt it will have much effect.

    I can't think of any reason to fake the footage of the towers exploding, there is no doubt at all that the towers exploded, or that a huge cloud of dust was blown out over Manhattan, what is in doubt is the events that led to the destruction, i.e. the planes and their supposed impact with the towers. I think we can say with a very high degree of certitude now that there were no planes or impacts. We can also say with a less high but still significant degree of certitude that some kind of nuclear devices were used to destroy the towers, there is far too much solid scientific data to discount this, we have solid evidence of fission and fusion having taken place.

    Unless someone can present a well thought-out rational argument backed by solid evidence, I am not prepared to consider the possibility of the footage of the destruction of the towers being faked. I have seen zero, nada, zilch in that footage that looks faked, it is rather difficult to realistically model in 3D things such as clouds of dust and a structure turning into dust and debris, in 2001 the software was not yet advanced enough to model such particle effects realistically enough to fool anyone with even a passing familiarity with CGI. It is several degrees of magnitude more difficult to model a flow of dust particles than it is to model a simple form such as a airplane.

    1. Ian,

      You cannot both believe in mini-nukes and that the collapse footage was real, as Frank Lee Speekin has explained. I find that inconsistent CNN "live" WTC2 collapse video that lasted 18(!) seconds very suspicious.

      2 simple examples on what we can be looking for to determine that the footage is faked or CGI:

      Frame from a video: WTC corner is 90 degrees. Should be 45+45 degrees:

      Explain how a video camera possibly could have captured something like that, please.

      Here is a frame from 2010 Dimitri Khalezov WTC video. The 39 beams on the façade run diagonally - should be 59 beams:

    2. Thanks, Jim and Ian. That's the sort of rational antidote I had in mind for the proponents of the "everything was faked" thesis.

      Buggo, those are links to good examples of evidence that at least some of the video footage was faked. Dimitri Khalezov has to be faulted for using the 39-beams-for-59 frame as evidence if that was what he was doing, but it doesn't necessarily condemn him as a disinformationist. It should be noted that Shack's Sauret frame with the correct 59 beams otherwise shows basically the same thing and doesn't detract necessarily from the point Khalezov was making--although it would have been helpful if Shack had given a link to where Khalezov used it. Often, in fact, Khalezov uses the video frames as evidence that digital manipulation had been involved.

      With the exampled frame to which you linked, Khalezov was pointing out that the North Tower shook (as if there were in an earthquake) just before the tower collapsed. I've attempted to set the position to minute 1:21:37 of a YouTube(c) video in which he used it. Immediately following that, Khalezov gave a concise description of his thesis using animation. The purpose of using the video of the North Tower collapse was to show the plausibility of an underground nuke's sending detritus up the center of the tower to a height of about 350 meters, to exactly the position where the "plane" was shown to have "hit"--hollowing out the building's core and leaving the top section above the "hit" intact as it comes down.

      For me, Khalezov's thesis has enormous explanatory power. It's quite economical--much easier than all the work that would have to be done to fake all the WTC occupants, empty the towers of all furniture, move tons of TNT or C-4 onto the floors, fake (literally) all the photos and videos of the event, and head off any leaks from the thousands of observers, building-maintenance people, and emergency workers (many of them with hospital records of their treatment for cancer). It explains Judy Wood's "toasted" cars, the seismic evidence, the reported radioactive elements (but in small quantities because most of the radioactivity was left below ground level), the dump trucks filling the site with new dirt, the molten debris in the basements, the inadequate height of the rubble left after the collapse, the strange sink holes in the floor of the basements, the absence of damage to the "bathtub" walls (hard to explain if it were a controlled demolition but easy to explain by the fact that the underground nuke was effectively a shaped charge), and the hundreds of police and rescue workers suffering from cancer.

      Khalezov's counter-evidence to the mini-nuke thesis can be heard here --basically it's that there wouldn't have been a clean downward collapse. Here's a List site for some of the evidence supporting Khalezov's thesis.

    3. Thanks Atlanta Bill,

      Well, I gave that link to the frame from that video just to illustrate what a fake or CGI video could look like.

      Still interesting to know where Dimitri Khalezov got that video with 39 beams from. It has never been seen before or since. It is like he had access to videos that no one else have had. Very suspicious. And he screwed up big time.

      Nuclear Demolition Analyst Dimitri Khalezov is also basing his ideas upon this magic phenomena that is occurring after "critical mass" is achieved. Something magic is supposed to happen to some exotic metals then. It is EXPLODING, BIG TIME, they have told us. However, we haven't been able to confirm that this happened in their first global public demonstration of this, namely the REPORTED Hiroshima nuclear demolition. Published photos and films from the event are not consistent with the reports, but very consistent with conventional firebombing, like in Tokyo and Yokohama.

      Someone should ask Nuclear Demolition Analyst Dimitri Khalezov about where the crater or epicenter in Hiroshima is, in any of the published photos or films from that time. Also ask him if this "critical mass" idea is just a magic trick word, or if he can point out to us some public demonstrations of this marvelous exploding metal effect somewhere. As I see it, this is still "undemonstrated", and we cannot know this is something that is real.

      So if we find holes in his process, we don't have to consider so much of what that is based upon these holes, and we can safely discard it.

      Btw, scriptwriters are also really good at creating reports. That is some of what they do all day long.

  30. Jim Fetzer said: "obf, and it is also your position that photos such as those found on Judy's web site,, are also fake, right? And that all the photos of the destruction of the Twin Towers by photographers like Bill Biggart are also fake, right?"

    Crazy as it may seem to you Jim , the Biggart photos appear to be 100% fakes.

    Crazier still [perhaps] is the notion that Biggart never even existed, but is a fictional creation of one Chip East . Please see " The 9/11 Phonytographers" :

    Jim Fetzer said: "And just to make a logical point that perhaps I should have made early on, empirical reasoning is based on the presumption that a certain body of evidence is authentic."

    Yes, exactly, and all I have consistently tried to point out here and elsewhere is that these types of assumptions are not part of the scientific methodology- where phenomena such as videos and photos must be fully tested prior to them ever being used as firm evidence of anything.

    As far as I can see, for a scientist, the starting assumption that any/all of the 911 videos/photos are genuine and that therefore they do not need to be ever seriously checked/tested before being held up as irrefutable evidence [of whatever], is a gross methodological error.

    Jim Fetzer said: "The situation for me is that, while I am convinced that the footage of Flight 175 cannot be authentic (because it includes impossible physics), that by itself does not resolve how it was done, which remains a live issue."

    Would you admit that concluding that the plane image itself is a fake due to lack of per frame motion blur, does not by itself logically justify the conclusion that the rest of the imagery included in those sequences [eg Hezarkhani and Fairbanks etc.], is genuine , as you appeared to infer in a previous show[I.Greenhalgh]?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Your line of argument is pedantic and pointless.

      Further, I think Don Fox is right and you're pursuing this for nefarious purposes - to mislead people and direct them away from the important issues into dead ends.

      In short sir, you are nothing but a agent of disinformation.

      You're not fooling anyone at all.

    2. Ian,

      I think that you are making an error about obf being there for nefarious purposes. Let's work out right and wrong.

    3. Maybe I'm wrong, it happens. He may have good intentions, but if so, he has a very strange way of going about things, strokes me as a troll more than anything else.

    4. I'm not a photographic expert. I can only say that Simon Shack's "clues" evidence has impressed me in the past; and, while a host of detractors have tried to discredit his work, I haven't seen any of them succeed to my satisfaction. OBF's link to the Clues Forum focused in on evidence that some of the photographers were imposters, virtual persons, or friends of disinformationists, which is a fair use of the ad hominem argument--although I must say that I couldn't begin to imagine how some of the clearer exampled photos could be faked with digital methods.

      To paraphrase Jim, we have to weigh all the evidence. I'm willing to accept that a great deal, maybe most, of the photographic evidence was manipulated or completely faked. But that doesn't lead me to accept the implausible conclusion that all the towers were brought down using standard controlled demolition. I'd like to see the "fakeologists" explain why they think that standard controlled demolition (which has a wide acceptance, I'm afraid) is such a satisfying explanation for the vast array of not only presumptive evidence that potentially could be explained away by digital manipulation, but also of the rock-solid evidence that can't.

      In connection with the fakery they've found, the "clues" people have tried to provide links to particular theorists, as OBF has done here. If I weren't so lazy, I'd try my hand at constructing some charts that detail which evidence is used by which theorist to bolster a particular thesis as to what brought about the demise of the towers. Absent such a chart, I'd suggest to the "fakeologists" that it's too time-consuming to dwell on digital manipulation without showing how it serves as counter-evidence to particular points made in support of the various points of view. The same goes for presumptively faked data--these should have to undergo an equal degree of scrutiny as the videos and photographs.

  31. Atlanta Bill said: "One last thing. I was on with Ab Irato last night during his regular Saturday broadcast at I don't think it's productive to call his crowd "shills". They seem to be pretty reasonable aside from their fixation on the notion that just about everything (including nuclear weapons) is faked."

    The Abirato [Ima Fakeologist] show at: is an excellent show with an excellent host.

    It has a small but growing audience, mostly comprised of persons who have seen through the 9/11 scam [mostly via the research of Simon Shack] , the moon landing scam, 7/7, Sandy Hook, Boston, etc, all of which "events" involved the heavy use of faked [i.e prefabricated] imagery broadcast as live real time imagery.

    As such, it is perfectly natural for anyone who has been exposed to, and then seen through the fabrication of those events and others, to question EVERYTHING, including the existence of nuclear weaponry, and history in general.

    It seems to me that that questioning by the average listener/caller is therefore perfectly healthy and "normal" even.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. So Ab Irato cum Ima Fakeologist is a personal friend? That would explain his offer to vouch for you. What are friends for if not to offer to vouch for you? Is Ima Fakeologist also pshea's friend?

  32. can we ask yet how many people you believe died on 9/11 jim? this is a project you have invested a vast amount of time in and surely you have this basic point down? same question to you ian. for the record, I believe there were zero, nill, zilch, nada, fuck-all deaths. also can you link to any site/writings which prove the existence of mini-nukes in this the real (as opposed to the science fiction) world. these are the only things that can reconcile jim's brain with the otherwise physically impossible collapses we witnessed on our t.v. screens, after all.

  33. ian green-halF is another Not to be trusted!

    1. Ian continues to make cogent points while you keep spewing your usual nonsense. Any rational reader will find Ian to be far more trust worthy than you are Peter.

  34. Ian Greenhalgh said "Your line of argument is pedantic and pointless.Further, I think Don Fox is right and you're pursuing this for nefarious purposes - to mislead people and direct them away from the important issues into dead ends.In short sir, you are nothing but a agent of disinformation.You're not fooling anyone at all."

    But didn't you previously tell me :

    "Maybe you missed my earlier comment about ignoring you from now on because you're obviously not worth engaging?" ?

    So why don't you ignore me and F*** off and have a wank over some [fake] photos/videos and other "evidence" of mini-nukes at the WTC and Pentagon, with Agent Fox and the rest of the clowns here, Hmmm?


    1. And there we have it - the difference between a researcher and a troll - easy to goad these faker shills into resorting to tawdry insults.

      You don't have any valid evidence or any worthwhile contribution, so all you can do is attack others.

      Your game is so transparent and obvious.

    2. Onebornfree wrote:-

      "...f*#! off and have a wank over
      some [fake] photos/videos...."??

      Are you speaking from your own personal behavior and experience? This blog is really not the place for you to share your sordid personal sexual predilections and preferences. I am pretty certain that Professor Fetzer did not have this in mind when he created his blog. The words "too much information" spring to mind on reading your filthy comment to Ian Greenhalgh. Would you kindly take your salacious posts elsewhere and stop posting your perverted muck on Professor Fetzer's blog?

  35. I think the assumptions that were made regarding Onebornfree have been confirmed in no uncertain terms.

    Onebornfree is, indeed, a W****R.

    I would also add that Onebornfree is, himself, a British
    W****R since the word is of British origin and I would suggest
    not many Americans would know
    what it means. The word "w***" does exist in American English but
    does not have the same meaning as its British counterpart. I have even heard the word "w***" used on prime time American TV.
    Therefore, we can say with certainty that Onebornfree IS a British W****R.

    pshea is, of course, an Irish W****R .......and no mistake.

  36. The Nuke Hoax:

    .........meanwhile, back at the ranch, has an excellent 26 page discussion thread called "The Nuke Hoax" :

    Regards, obf.

    1. Do you deny that you, in your own words, are a "British W****R"?

    2. Are you prepared to comment on the "Onebornfree-is-really-a-British-W****R" Hoax?

    3. Don't agree with the idea that nukes are a hoax, OBF. Too much good history there, connections with nuclear power, and even natural nuclear reactors in the Earth itself, in Oklo, Gabon, Africa.

    4. You are talking about two different concepts here.

      I have no problems with the idea that this metal can warm up, but some moderator is needed.

      Another question is whether this metal suddenly will explode big time (with or without a moderator). I suspect the magicians trick lies in the magic term "critical mass".

      Do you know of any big public demonstration of this U-fission bomb process that you can tell us about? And that is credible? Could be useful for potential nuke-deniers I guess.

      I'm aware of the Oclo reactor, btw.

  37. The Nuke Hoax... oh my, I bet that's 26 pages of hot air and supposition without any supporting evidence.

    Does anyone rational really believe nuclear weapons are a hoax?

    1. Ignore this shill.

      It's just a trick from El Buggo
      to get you to trawl thru his albums of
      "nuclear -weapons-are-a- hoax" dirty porn photos and postcards with him.
      Don't let this meathead El Buggo
      suck you down into his own personal and delusional rabbit hole.

    2. The Nuke Hoax??

      It's right up there with Clare Kuehn's Paul-Is-Dead (PID) hoax.
      A load of crap.

  38. Go ahead and throw out my comments for being too confrontational. You are being gamed here Jim Fetzer. But not by me. The debate has hit the gutter.

    1. Lewis, please know I'm not throwing out anyone's comments--and we may be in agreement in this instance. I am trying to take these guys (ofb and SS) seriously, but they are not making their case. What Ian and Don are saying is right: we have to correlate the video record with the dust and water evidence to sort it out. The parallel with the Z-film is medical, ballistic, witness and other photo evidence.

    2. Well said Jim.

      Any cogent argument has to include ALL the available evidence.

    3. Im not blaming you Dr. Fetzer. I have company in the shadows and the hacking peanut gallery. I have no personal communication through email.

  39. it should be clear to all with discernment who is who and what is what here. nuclear weapons and weaponry are the very central sore point it seems, and those of us who have not been privy to absolute first hand confirmation of their existence (putting aside the obviously faked video efforts put out in past (and present) propagandistic times (which jim quite possibly may be prima facie-lly taken in by) require better non theoretical evidence by far to prove to ourselves that the very, very tiny, when smashed together very quickly can annihilate the very, very large!...are you calling me an irish wanker bob tuscon? please feel free to type so straight-out, without the need for the flaccid asterix's-we are nothing if not upstanding men here, after all... i will admit, if pushed (or pulled), to having a wank more than a time or two in past-times, and surely no-one can deny my irishness, what with a surname like Sheehan! but what of it?

    how you doin'?

  40. this site is for the feigned hearted, with the exception of a fine few.

    pheeeewee indeed!

    1. pshea,

      I am surprised an old turkey like you hasn't done the turkey trot and gone into hiding somewhere.
      It is Christmas after all. Shouldn't you be lying flat on your back on a butcher's block
      in Ennis somewhere or hanging upside down in somebody's freezer? Still, always look
      on the bright side - you're in for a good fucking stuffing later!!
      You'll enjoy that.
      Btw, your gobbledygook in here has been fucking priceless.

      Nollaig shona!!

      You fucking langer.

  41. Jim Fetzer said:

    "And where I am yet to be convinced that the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers is not authentic, as obf and SS both believe. But of course if it were fake, that would affect our reasoning about 9/11."

    Dr. Fetzer, do you have a theory on how the towers were demolished? (Never mind what explosives were used.)
    If you believe the WTC towers were demolished by some type of controlled demolition, then the images would show the collapse from the bottom to the top not the other way around--from top to bottom.

    Look at this set of demolitions and you'll see one thing they have in common--all are demolished from the bottom up, not from the top down as we see in all the 9/11 videos.

    10 EXPLOSIVE Controlled Demolition Videos | SMOSH

    1. Hi Joan

      The destruction of the towers wasn't a conventional controlled demolition, therefore we can't draw any parallels with any other demolition. WTC7 however, that was a controlled demolition, go to youtube and search for Danny Jawenko and you will find the video of Dutch demolition expert Jawenko (RIP) explaining how WTC7 was clearly a conventional controlled demolition. Jawenko's death in suspicious circumstances only adds weight to the validity of his view on the matter.

      On the top to bottom or vice-versa point, because the twin towers was not a conventional controlled demolition, then there is no reason to surmise that the destruction should have been bottom to top. Perhaps the most cogent theory I am aware of is that a micro-nuke was placed every 10 floors, in order to take out a cube of 10 floors. Detonate them from top to bottom and you would most likely get a demolition like what occurred in the twin towers on 911. 110 floors, a nuke every 10 floors, detonate them top first at 1 second spacings and you have destroyed the tower in 11 seconds, which appears to be how long it took.

      I believe a possible the reason for not starting the demolition sequence from the bottom was to avoid having the destruction from being spread over a wider area. Blow out the bottom 10 floors first and you have 100 floors, several hundred thousand tonnes of steel and concrete just hanging in mid-air and it would probably topple over, taking out a large area of surrounding buildings.

      Also, you have to consider what it would have looked like if they had exploded the nukes from the bottom up, it would have looked very different and impossible to sell to the public as a pancaking collapse. Therefore, top down to bottom fits as the best sequence.

  42. Joan Edwards said: "If you believe the WTC towers were demolished by some type of controlled demolition, then the images would show the collapse from the bottom to the top not the other way around--from top to bottom.Look at this set of demolitions and you'll see one thing they have in common--all are demolished from the bottom up, not from the top down as we see in all the 9/11 videos."

    Exactly, Joan.

    For even if mini-nukes _had_ really been used, the bottom of the towers , which structurally had to be 8x stronger than the top, to support everything above, _had_ to be taken out first- which is why regular demos of tall buildings almost invariably commence at ground level- to take out the far stronger lower levels first, so that the upper levels can then be collapsed straight down [with the help of other, timed charges] to occupy the now empty space below.

    Only in Hollywood CGI are buildings destroyed top down - for example, this tower destruction scene from the 1996 movie "Independence Day":

    ....starting at the 3:15 mark.

    Note to disbelievers of faked "live" network 911 tower collapse sequences: that movie sequence is 100% CGI animation, and was produced in 1996, 5 years PRIOR to the events of 911!

    regards, obf.

    1. I pointed out on the show that there were mini-nukes detonated far below the ground to take out the foundations of the Towers BEFORE they started "collapsing." The below ground mini-nukes were responsible for the high temperatures that persisted at GROUND ZERO for 6 months after 9/11. How do fake images explain that away?

      How does image fakery explain all of the people that were blown to bits? How do you explain all of the first responders who have cancer and teeth falling out etc? How do you explain tritiated water in the basement of WTC6? How do you explain the fission products in the USGS dust samples?

      You can't handle ANY of the points I raised here. In all the months of your posting all of this bullshit you have haven't addressed any of these things once. Of course you're not here to further the debate. Your only purpose is to cover the asses of the perps who nuked NYC and the Pentagon on 9/11 by obfuscation - "everything was faked."

      It was a semi-clever ruse but it's been exposed so you can tell your bosses the jig is up and they can send in the next clown to try to muddy the waters.

  43. Jim Fetzer said : " I spent 1:32:44 watching at least part of "September Clues", which, however, did not include evidence that the footage of the Twin Towers was faked, so there must be more."

    As I have already stated in this very thread [and elsewhere]:

    "You have been repeatedly advised in these threads, by Simon Shack, myself, and others , that there is virtually NOTHING in the movie /documentary September Clues that directly addresses the issue of the faked tower collapse imagery.

    In fact, my understanding is that Simon released September Clues [2007-8] BEFORE he had himself even reached the definitive conclusion that all of the tower collapse imagery had been faked.

    That definitive conclusion was only reached AFTER the release of September Clues, via further research.

    All of that research [tower collapse imagery fakery and other] is archived on line at Simon Shacks website"
    SEPTEMBERCLUES.INFO, _NOT_ in the move "September Clues!

    Got that, Mr Fetzer?

    WARNING! That research is not an easy 1 hour, or even 2 hour browse/review- it takes time and mental effort to seriously consider- there will be no handy, overnight, instant revelations, which is what most people [icluding yourself] appear to demand."

    Regards, onebornfree

    PS: did you see my earlier,December 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM reply to your December 22, 2013 at 5:51 AM post/questions you directed at me, yet Jim?

  44. Nilo de Rook said: "That would disqualify Fetzer as a '9/11 Researcher' to a mere blogger. That's not how he perceives himself with his regular publications (...) in Veterans Today. - If true Fetzer reacts to September Clues as the general public reacts to 9/11 in general. " Why waste time on it ?: I --know-- the facts and made up my mind."

    Exactly, Nilo.

    In his Agent Fox interview, we are subjected to [entertained?] by the spectacle of him [and Fox] deriding/ dismissing the bulk of Shack's research claims/ conclusions, despite the fact that he [Fetzer] is obviously entirely unfamiliar with the bulk of that research [ which is all archived at his website], outside of his viewing of Mr Shack's introductory "teaser" movie "September Clues" .

    Consequently, for the second time, elsewhere in this very thread, I have reiterated to Mr Fetzer the fact that NONE of the networks "live" tower collapse imagery was analyzed in Shack's movie"September Clues" , its only available at the website itself [ ] , which makes this partial repetition of the same fact in this very message the 3rd such repetition in this particular thread .

    And so it goes :-) .

    Regards obf.

    1. After making a completely ridiculous claim such as "no one died on 9/11" all of Simon Shill's research/conclusions can dismissed. That's a gatekeeper statement. Not a statement that an honest researcher would ever make.

      You guys are complete frauds and I'm going to do everything I can to expose you.

    2. I agree with you Don. I've been looking at some of Simon Shack's 'image analysis' and it's laughable, he doesn't do more than scratch the surface, just looks at images and videos and points out things that don't look right to him then elaborates outlandish theories round them. It's unscientific nonsense.

      One example is the ludicrous claim that Bill Biggart never existed. A proper researcher would never make such a claim without thoroughly checking it out first. Instead, Shack and his cronies just decide they think it's a suspicious story and then claim Biggart never existed. No serious attempt at all to prove that theory.

      Even if obf, shack and their cronies aren't gatekeepers/disinfo agents then they are still a negative, detrimental force which distracts from serious, reasoned research. It is crackpots like them that makes it more difficult for the public to listen to the serious researchers as it becomes like trying to pick out one sane voice among a chorus of mad caterwauling.

  45. Frankly Speaking said: "Don't agree with the idea that nukes are a hoax, OBF."

    That's OK. I didn't say you should [at this point :-) ].

    Simon's site is mostly about image fakery, past and present, so just take the time to take an honest, unbiased look at the historical record- that is, the imagery that supposedly represents "proof" of the existence of nuclear weapons, and see if it makes any sense to you in retrospect.

    regards, obf.

    1. No image analysis is required to prove the case for nukes at GROUND ZERO as I've pointed out to you time and time again. The dust and water samples prove my case.

      Simon Shill and Onebornpaid claiming all of the images from 9/11 are fake doesn't affect the dust and water sample evidence one iota. Yet here you are posting away and denying nukes.

      Why don't you go look up what tritium is and then explain to me why it was found in the basement of WTC6 at 55 times background levels if nukes were not used. Thanks.

  46. Don Fox said "I pointed out on the show that there were mini-nukes detonated far below the ground to take out the foundations of the Towers BEFORE they started "collapsing."....."

    Agent Fox [:-) ], forget , for the moment , video fakery, and mine and Simon Shack's and others personal opinions on about what imagery we might believe was/was not faked on 911.

    The point I have repeatedly made in these threads and at Veterans Today is very simple:

    regardless of what imagery I or anyone else might think was/was not faked on 911, [it's completely irrelevant to my point], the fact of the matter is that nearly every 911 researcher [including yourself] but especially including ALL of the alleged "scientists", have handily pre-assumed the authenticity of all 911 videos and photographs that appear to validate/support their own particular hypothesis, whatever it might be.

    There has hardly even been the PRETENSE of an attempt to authenticate ANY of the visual imagery used to support/"prove" any particular hypothesis by any of these so-called "scientific 911 researchers".

    This lack of virtually any attempt at imagery authentication is totally unscientific , methodologically, totally unprofessional, and totally dishonest in my personal opinion, as is Jim Fetzer's public support of any such "scientific research" that relies mostly on unauthenticated imagery.

    Regarding the issue of tower destruction via nuclear weapons of some description, if I accept , for the sake of argument, that these weapons actually do exist [and I'm certainly not convinced at this time one way or the other] , if you , or anyone else, is going to site specific videos and photos of as definitive "proof" of destruction via nuclear weaponry, [which, I admit, _is_ a possibility _if_ they exist], then YOU ARE METHODOLOGICALLY REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THOSE PHOTOS/VIDEOS TO THOROUGH TESTING TO [AT LEAST TRY TO] PROVE THEM TO BE AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE, FIRST!

    If you are unwilling to subject videos and photos to such testing, then I submit that you are most likely an agent whose only goal is to distract people endlessly with the hobgoblin of nuclear destruction [at the Pentagon too, fer chrissakes!], in order that the public does not "twig" the otherwise "in your face" fact that the MSM is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the military/industrial complex, and that it broadcast 100% pre-fabricated computer generated imagery [CGI] for 102 minutes, on the morning of 911.


    1. I don't give a shit one way or the other about yours and Simon Shill's phony image analysis. I'm waiting for your rebuttal of the DOE water samples and USGS dust samples. Again you keep spewing your no-nuke bullshit but you can't refute the evidence that I base my claims on.

    2. Looking at images and videos is, in and of itself, of only marginal validity. You must cross-check with other data. For instance, if you want to make a case for the timing of the destruction of the towers based on video footage then you must also look for supporting evidence from sources such as seismic data. Without such confirmation from multiple sources, image analysis is of little merit.

      Also, you can't ignore any of the data from valid sources, whether it be the USGS dust samples, Dr Cahill's air sample analysis or Dr Chris Busby's work. In order to do valid research, you must consider all the available data, cross check it and find points where data from different sources intersects. The more data sources you look at, the more valid your research.

      Looking at pictures and videos just doesn't cut it, surely we were past that point in 911 research several years ago?

  47. Regarding Jeff Hill who made the excellent phone calls on 9/11 who Dr. Fetzer mentioned has gone over the the dark side. Dark forces may have gotten to him. I asked him once what he did for a living and he said he made pizzas for a living. So all they had to do is offer him money, girls, etc. and it wouldn't take too much to turn this guy. Also they could not have a guy like this making phone calls on their other operations. So easiest thing to do is buy him.

  48. For the record:

    I have little doubt that 9/11 images and videos were altered. However this does not mean that nobody died and the buildings weren't nuked. We have hard evidence in the DOE water samples that show elevated levels of tritium and the USGS dust samples that have U-235 fission products that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a nuclear event. There are also multiple witnesses to the extremely high temperatures at Ground Zero for several months after 9/11.

    Human remains (mostly bits of flesh and bone) were found all over Lower Manhattan. People were in the buildings when they got nuked. For a so-called research group like September Clues to come out and say that all the victims were simulated is disgusting. If I were Larry Silverstein I'd sure want the 9/11 research community to think all of the victims were simulated.

    If they don't back off of that position then I'm forced to conclude they are nothing more than a gatekeeper operation.

    1. I'm 100% in agreement with you Don, I think you summed it up nicely.

      The following simple fact blows a huge hole in the no victims theorem:

      Ken Feinberg ran a victims compensation fund of $7 billion. 97% of victims’ families took the money and waived their right to demand a real investigation into 9-11. Why bother with a compensation fund if there were no real victims?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Ersun Warncke from reports, "I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file.

    4. It is patently obvious that OBF's posts in here have one purpose and one purpose only and that is "get Fetzer" or failing that "get Fox". The same applies to those two other ditzes pshit and All Sluggo.

    5. "Why bother with a compensation fund if there were no real victims?"

      It would be an interesting research project to figure out who act ually received the money

      I would bet there is another scandal to be revealed.

    6. The scandal to be reveal re the victim's families is that arch-Zionists Kenneth Feinberg and Alvin K. Hellerstein used the compensation funds and courts to bribe 98% of them to sign away any rights they had to sue the airlines, the Israeli-owned ITC airport security and anyone else over the deaths of their loved ones.

      Feinberg's actions were crucial to removing more than 98 percent of the families from the litigation process. Kenneth Feinberg and Alvin Hellerstein have waged a war of attrition against the 9-11 relatives. Of the thousands of families that could have used the courts to find justice and legal discovery for what happened on 9-11, Feinberg was successful in removing 98 percent. Of the 96 families that chose to go to court, all but one or two cases have settled out of court after enduring years of obstruction in the court of Alvin K. Hellerstein. Thanks to Feinberg and Hellerstein there may never be a trial for a single victim of 9-11.

  49. honourable family members there ian. where are these family members now, raising the hell that they should be raising? can you answer don as to how many people you really think died? you know there were absolutely no traces found of over 1,000 'victims' at the wtc? maybe they were not there in the first place, just like the 110 floors and the 'victims' from all four (non) plane crashes? 9/11 was a complete hoax, and you are there to keep us mired in the bullshit and fear imo. little respect to you then, and extend that to the fob, tob bolson.
    the average death figures for new York for sept. 2001 remained consistent with other months and did not reflect the almost 3,000 deaths that if should have if 3,000 really died. but they didn't.

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up.

  50. "Fakery, fakery everywhere..."

    Yep....And you're the biggest
    faker of them all!!!

  51. @Don: have you ever actually seen one of the 'shin bones' the families got back Don, or do you just blindly believe this because CNN said so?

    1. Say hello to John Connour and give him our regards.

    2. Possible human remains found in new 9/11 debris uncovered at World Trade Center site 12 years after attacks

      Jim Riches pulled his firefighter son's mangled body out of the rubble at the World Trade Center, but the phone calls still filtered in years afterward. The city kept finding more pieces of his son.

      "They'll call you and they'll tell you, 'We found a shin bone,'" said Riches, a retired deputy fire chief. "Or: 'We found an arm bone.' We held them all together and then we put them in the cemetery."

      Those are the phone calls both dreaded and hoped for among the families of Sept. 11 victims. And as investigators began sifting through newly uncovered debris from the World Trade Center this week for the first time in three years, those anxieties were renewed more than a decade after the attacks.

  52. Bob Tolson said: "It is patently obvious that OBF's posts in here have one purpose and one purpose only and that is "get Fetzer" or failing that "get Fox". "

    Nah, more like its patently obvious that you are halfwit, Bob :-)

    Regards, obf.

  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

  54. Don Fox said :" I'm waiting for your rebuttal of the DOE water samples and USGS dust samples. "

    We've been over this before, elsewhere. Regardless:

    First of all,this quote[above] is from a person [i.e. yourself] who apparently has swallowed, "hook, line and sinker" the NIST's supposed estimate of the collapse times for the twin towers.... [ an aside to other readers here, you're gonna love this if you are not already aware of it :-) ], as [drum roll please] :

    9 secs for one tower, and 11 secs for the other!

    Did you get that all yet dear [other] readers?

    The NIST claims [with a straight face, no less] that on 911, one tower collapsed in 9 secs. and the other collapsed in 11 secs !!!!!


    And you [Don Fox], are apparently naive enough to believe _that_, which 100% explains [to myself at least] _exactly_ why you would be naive/dumb enough to believe that 2 government agencies [DOE and USGS] are actually telling you any part of the the truth - despite the in-your -face fact that _you_ personally, no differently from anyone else, have been lied to from day one by the US government about absolutely _every_ aspect of the 911 psyop.

    One reason that 911 was so successful is that the perps knew that everyone was dumb enough to believe their BS, they were [rightly] so confident of this that they could even pronounce collapse times for towers no different from the date of the events themselves without raising any eyebrows, use poorly prefabricated movies containing a single plane with multiple paths, impossible super fast top down building collapses, rooted- to- the- ground building landmarks that move around and change size impossibly, etc etc, and all topped off with a list of 3000-odd apparently totally fabricated victims that only a very few people in this world have ever attempted to verify as genuine [and mostly failed].

    So the perps were rightly confident. They know that most people are so [there is no other word for it ] dumb, that they could carry off the alleged events of 911 and then give out the most idiotic, totally contradictory, nonsensical lines of bullshit possible, [see partial list above] and still, people like you, Don Fox, would gladly[willingly?] suck up enough of their horseshit and spew it right back out as part of your own supposed "incontrovertible truth" .

    Like the DOE and the USGS are telling us the truth about 911, and we should all believe their "findings".

    Yeah right. Give me a frickin' break! :-)

    'Tell you what, you and Fetzer et al can take you 9 and 11 sec "official "collapse times, and your DOE and USGS "official research findings" [or whatever you call them] and stick em all "where the sun don't shine", as far as I'm concerned.

    I, for one, was not born yesterday.


    1. You may not have been born yesterday but you were born paid :)

      The Judy Wood Cult has a script they have to adhere to: no nukes, no high heat etc. The September Clueless guys appear to have one as well: everything was faked, nobody died, the government and media altered or faked ALL of the evidence etc.

      Onebornpaid will never offer up a serious critique of either the Department of Energy Water samples or the USGS dust samples. These items are not included in his script so he isn't allowed to comment on them.

      Did the government plant tritium in the basement of building 6? Is it helping their cause to have elements like niobium, yttrium, barium, strontium, arsenic, cesium and thorium show up in the USGS dust samples?

      You can take the ADL script you're working off of and stick that where the sun don't shine.

    2. You certainly express yourself as if you were born yesterday.
      Btw, why no regards for Don in your last post?


    3. Don's right, paid shills for the ADL who are following a script.

      “All the intelligence services of America and Europe… know full well that the disastrous attack ( of 9/11 ) has been planned and realized from the Mossad.. with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the Western Powers to? take part… in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
      Francesco Cossiga – the 43rd Prime Minister and the eighth President of the Italy. He was also a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sassari. (now deceased)

      The ADL is a Zionist organisation of course, it's entire business is disinfo and persecution of anyone who speaks the truth.

  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

  56. OBF, I'm confused about what Fox and Fetzer believe happened on 9/11. They have no problem with the images of planes in the archived footage nor the cookie-cutter plane-shaped gashes in the towers. Do they think planes made those shapes as well as the fireball in the south tower? Just what do they think happened?

    As to the collapsing towers, what method of destruction do they theorize was used? Do they believe fire from the crashed planes caused the floors to sag ending in a pancake collapse? The video shows a top down collapse but it's not a controlled demolition-type IMPLOSION, it's an EXPLOSION!

    Now, if the buildings were loaded with furniture and 3,000 people, wouldn't they have been spewed out with the rest of the building as it exploded and pancaked? And wouldn't there have been a huge debris pile instead of practically no debris? Wouldn't whole pieces of furniture be found along with bodies? How did an explosion cause everything to turn to dust?

    How do they explain the tiny debris pile? I'd really like to know. I am wondering how long it took Dr. Fetzer before he realized there were no planes on 9/11. . Seems to me the no-planers were ridiculed and ostracized for years and now we are getting it for daring to believe a couple of hours of video was faked to give the illusions we saw.

    1. To restate our positions for Joan and anyone else who is confused:

      Jim and I both believe that no commercial plane crashed anywhere on 9/11. What exactly hit the Towers is an open question. We both believe that explosives planted inside the buildings produced the fireballs. There is some on-going research into what produced the gashes. More to come on this in the near future.

      The contents of the Towers were vaporized by mini/micro neutron devices. Nuclear weapons produce a lot of heat and blast force. Nuclear bombs reduce material into very small particles - that's what it means to "get nuked." That's why the debris pile was so small - 1/3 of the Towers was completely vaporized.

      People and furniture that were inside the Towers were vaporized. The first YouTube clip on my blog post from 10/26 last year sheds light on what happened to the furniture. At 7:08 you can see the saw dust on top of the parked car. That's what really happened to the furniture: it was vaporized. It wasn't moved out after the 1993 bombing like Sept Clueless would have you believe.

      There was real people and furniture inside the Towers when they were nuked. It wasn't a Hollywood style production. 9/11 truly was a terrorist attack. Except the terrorists were Zionists not Islamic. They used mini-nukes not box cutters.

    2. What were the explosive bolts of 1969 for that were somehow applied to or were planned to be applied to the World Trade Centers I and II? Ignition of fast acting thermitic ordnance is a proven done practice, patented and commercially applied as of 1998. Why not at the WTCs I and II? Nuclear isotope additions to the 1969 original thermitic material application are proven, and I can testify to thermitic material of some sort being applied throughout the WTCs I and II to complement the original subbasement nukes. They certainly had tons of the stuff in their warehouse. The Bush cabal had complete access and control of the areas impacted, and they lied repeatedly about the events of 9-11-2001 to all investigations AND congressional mewlers, with 100% compliance and cooperation by the CFRtv and Rothschild American Associated Press.

    3. There exists a video of a phone call made to the video producer who fast order created a few WTC/jet impact photoshops for CNN. The video tech refuses to talk. He admitted but did not want to discuss.

  57. Joan, your questions seem to reflect that you have not been following Dr. Fetzer's work for very long. Otherwise, you would have the answers to all of the matters that you are curious about.

    I suggest you read all of Dr. Fetzer's (some of which Don and Dennis co-authored) articles in date order at

    I used to think Simon Shack and OBF had some very valuable ideas that were worthy of attention and further study, but their behavior of late is just not right. They seem to have an agenda other than truth seeking for truth's sake.

    I know I may be the only person here celebrating the most important event in human and world history, but I say with all sincerity...

    God bless us each and every one in the Name of the One Who is Truth.

    Merry Christmas and happy new year to all!

    1. Merry Christmas to you Jeannon and all of the other readers of the radiofetzer blog! Yes that includes all of our friends at the CIA, NSA, DIA, ADL, Mossad. Mi6 and all of the other alphabet soup agencies in case I left anyone out!

    2. A belated Merry Christmas, Jeannon! And, Don, a great sentiment, which I thoroughly endorse, in regard to our alphabet-soup friends. Maybe they'll get a seasonal visit from a Marley's ghost of their own imagination. We can only hope. The chain's getting awfully long, guys and gals!

  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

  59. Don Fox said : "Onebornpaid will never offer up a serious critique of either the Department of Energy Water samples or the USGS dust samples. "

    Yeah, right, I'm paid by the US government, while on the other hand, Fox and Fetzer, who both fully endorse/promote/ regurgitate, like trained parrots actual official US government figures [NIST, DOE, USGS] which you, dear reader, on their say- so are then supposed to trust.

    As if regurgitating official US government lies from various agencies, and then adding a few faked photos to the mix as extra "proof", plus "da Jewz dunnit all", counts as genuine independent research. :-)

    Do not be fooled, dear reader, Don Fox's 911 "research" was, and remains, nothing more than pseudo-scientific gobbledegook, and is actually no more than regurgitation of official US government figures [LIES], that has little, if anything, to do with independent research, as far as I can see.

    Which begs the question: if these two are perfectly happy to fully endorse/regurgitate "official US government research findings", and at the same time steer you all away from any/all independent research carried out by lone individuals such as Simon Shack etc., what does this make them, Hmmm?

    Enquiring minds want to know ! :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Yep. To be sure the only scientific approach to evaluating 9/11 evidence is to call it all fake and blame CNN. No need to see what's in those darn reports from the Dept of Energy or the United States Geological Survey.

      Just stare at grainy videos on the Clueless Forum and you'll have all the answers to 9/11.

  60. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all our loyal and dedicated bloggers, posters and commentators!!!

  61. do jim, ian, bob etc. believe the Madrid train bombings and 7/7 to be genuine incidents with real deaths? or oslo and utoya, aurora theatre, sandyhook and the boston bombings? ALL have been categorically shown to have been staged affairs, mainly by cluesforum contributors but by others also. 9/11 and the jfk fassassination are more of the same. can you at least answer this question?

  62. More On The Nuke Hoax :

    Here is a link to a declassified US government nuclear test film made by the Air Force:

    Look closely and at around 5:17 in the movie you will see a technicians hand and face to the lower right of the mushroom cloud column.

    Heh! It would appear that this movie is an official USG fake. Why am I not surprised? :-)

    regards, obf

    ...and a happy Amanita Muscaria celebration to one and all:

  63. Just found this video. The thermite-sniffers are right about the molten steel below ground level. But it's better explained by Khalezov's thesis.

  64. The Nuclear Demolition Analysts Dilemma

    As Frank Lee Speekin explained so well, it is not possible for any rational nuclear demolition supporter to believe in that the "live" collapse videos were real. And this is a REALLY BIG DEAL. That must imply that all the national news networks must have been complicit in this operation, AND THAT IS A REALLY BIG DEAL! Government at the highest level must also have been complicit in this operation. The news networks couldn't all have faked their "live" news reports that day, without the Gov would have noticed sooner or later. That is not believable.

    So if they even faked the "live" news reports, how hard could it be to fake some lab reports? Slim chance that the Gov at the highest level not was involved too. Should be pretty easy; open Word. Type the report and add the numbers. Press Print. Open Outlook and create and send a press release to AP so that it can be distributed everywhere. AP is one of the national news networks branches. So if they could fake the live news reports, it would be a piece of cake for this gang to fake some lab reports - that's for sure.

    So if the nuclear demolition analysts cannot use the lab reports to build their case, because they cannot be any credible at all, they wouldn't have a case for nuclear demolitions either, or cannot argue for that in a credible way, they cannot reach the conclusion that WTC was brought down by nuclear devises. Then, they don't have to accept Frank Lee Speekin's reasons for that the "live" news reports and the collapse sequence were faked, and the published lab reports may still be valid. But if they build their case on those lab reports, they again will run into the reasons for why the "live" news reports must have been faked, and so on.

    So how to get out of this logic circle? I wish Jim Fetzer would step down to us again and clear this up ones and for all so that we can continue.

    Certainly not easy to be a Nuclear Demolition Analysts these days. We Dynamite Demolitions Analysts have it much easier. First of all, it not so hard to prove that the substance exists, and that it is powerful. Watch this spectacular video by Dyno Nobel on what dynamite can do. Some really wonderful mountain moving here in slow motion:

    We also have this quite fresh example on how some sand jockeys blew a hole in the warship USS Cole with 500 pounds of a dynamite substance and a little boat (if we should believe those reports):

    So quite likely, dynamite can even blow up steel. Imagine what dynamite could do with better preparations, like adding some sandbags here and there and so on. Isn't very expensive or hard to get in huge quantities either.

    So all we Dynamite Demolition Analysts have to do is throw the word "dynamite demolition" out there, and collect the evidence we need for a dynamite demolition, then declare the case for solved, and move on to the next demolition case. Pretty simple and easy, every time.

    Well, if you still are doubting if WTC dynamite demolition would be possible, ask the experts at Dyno Nobel yourself, whether they can blow off some really heavy pipes, and best practice for that:

    "Simple or complex, Dyno Nobel’s experienced people, and specialized services can solve your blasting challenges. Our blasters, engineers, operators and technical consultants are among the best in the industry. For more information on any case study or for technical assistance, please email us: In the Americas:".

    Here is another Dynamite Demolition Analysts take on WTC:

    Aviating yours, if any.

  65. El Buggo said:

    Government at the highest level must also have been complicit in this operation. The news networks couldn't all have faked their "live" news reports that day, without the Gov would have noticed sooner or later.
    If the government falsely claimed we were attacked by Muslim hijackers who flew planes into the WTC, why be surprised they were complicit in faking the video footage in an attempt to prove it?

    No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

    By Elias Davidsson
    10 January 2008

    Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names,
    deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them
    in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that
    there is no credible evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this
    reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to
    prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded
    as a lie.
    If there were no planes, there were no cookie-cutter outlines of planes on the towers nor would there have been explosions, fire and smoke. Time for "researchers" to decide what the networks showed us on 9/11 as news.

  66. Thanks Joan, really interesting post.

    Have in mind that the gang who control the news networks and the media also have total control on the election process, and will always get their controllable puppet in the White House, and many, many others on Capitol Hill. This has been the case for >100 years I suspect.

    The candidates don't rise to the top, but are pulled up, by the gang who control the media.

    Also have in mind that the 911 operation management didn't retire that day. Among other things, they spend their time on controlling the opposition.

    The controlled opposition has succeeded very well in hiding medias involvement in this operation. For most truthers, this will be news.

  67. El Buggo said:
    Have in mind that the gang who control the news networks and the media also have total control on the election process, and will always get their controllable puppet in the White House, and many, many others on Capitol Hill. This has been the case for >100 years I suspect.
    I call them the "power elite." They are the ultra wealthy who are calling the shots and control the presidents, the Congress and the intelligence agencies as well as owning the media. Over the years, they have slowly grown so that now they own every one. They are so powerful they don't even have to plan their false flag events carefully. Anyone can see through these schemes. Trouble is, they also control the public, the people who might offer resistance.. It's time people caught on to the fact that what they see on TV is not necessarily real or true.

    1. Pretty good, Joan.

      I prefer The Nutwork as an neutral term for this gang.

      Maybe this video is more detailed? Herge Degrelles two "super keys" of figuring out what the heck is really going on in this world:

      When they control the media and news networks, they can manufacture the peoples perception of the world. Use the broken record strategy, and they can make people believe that the aliens are invading, or what have you.

      Hard to explain so much to people who still watches TV, I have found.

  68. The main objective of 9/11 was to demolish the World Trade Center and make it appear to the public like it was an enemy attack..

    The only way to destroy the WTC towers would be by controlled demolition, an implosion that causes the walls to collapse in on themselves and not explode outward which would cause damage to the surrounding buildings.

    The problem is the videos show a volcano-like explosion near the top of the towers presumably where the planes had hit them. Therefore, the videos can't be authentic.

    No file cabinets, bathroom fixtures,etc. were found because these would have to be removed in order to implode the building successfully.

    I don't know what the reasoning is for the mini-nuke theory except that the towers were all steel with very little concrete and nukes would turn steel to dust.

    Other than that it had to be an implosion, I don't know what explosives were used.

  69. Thanks again, Joan.

    The purpose with the 911 operation was to create the basis for a perpetual War on Terror and anyone else.

    If we can remove any of these parts, the basis for the WoT etc, would evaporate: Planes (with foreign hijackers) killed 3000 patriots. I will later present the argument for why no one was killed and no one got hurt 911.

    In short, they evacuated the buildings, and blew them up themselves - that is what we need to know.

    Non of the many thousand stainless steel elevators doors can be found in any of the footage of the rubble either.

    If they could fake the footage of the plane crashes, they could fake the footage of the collapses, and of course also of the rubble pile. They had to do that too, because the buildings were not brought down as shown on "live" TV, but most likely as the conventional bottom up process. We would have noticed something terrible inconsistent if we had been shown the real rubble pile of course.

    911 was just a Hollywood horror movie on "live" TV. You need to get out of the virtual realty they created for us that day, or you will be spinning your wheels forever.

  70. El Buggo, you've got it! You have to work backwards to see how they did it.

  71. I just spoke to a guy last night who returned from a six month stint in Afghanistan and he told me he didn't see any trouble whatsoever, he never witnessed a shot fired but reported witnessing miles upon miles of poppy and cannabis plantations/fields. 9/11 was a fakery extravaganza, and the war on terror is just as fake. fuck it!

  72. To all ["enemies" and friends alike] :

    Fakeologist [ ] has invited me back on his live radio show at 9;11 EST this Saturday [12/28/13] , to discuss this particular Fetzer/Fox broadcast and the related posts here.

    The show often runs for 3 hours. If you would like to call in live to the Fakeologist radio show, details on how to do that are given at the site link already provided.

    Regards, obf.

    1. Hmm, so that probably means Fakeologist is also a paid ADL shill....

      You people sicken me with your 'it's all fake, no victims' BS, sickening because of the massive disrespect to all the victims and their families.

  73. " El Buggo said: As Frank Lee Speekin explained so well, it is not possible for any rational nuclear demolition supporter to believe in that the "live" collapse videos were real. And this is a REALLY BIG DEAL."

    As I see it, one of the problems for the "nukes dunnit" crowd is, E. B, that most of them do not even know the difference [and cannot tell] between original fake "live" MSM broadcast imagery and all of the just as fake,[but higher res.], more detailed imagery cranked out by the perps later on, post 911.

    That later, faked higher res. imagery[e.g the cover photo of J.Woods book], is perhaps a little closer to being possibly explained by nuclear weaponry than is the original "live" MSM footage, as it is far more dramatic/detailed.

    Regards, obf.

    1. OBF,

      I suspect people first must understand that they faked the "live" news reports, before they can grasp your point. You see, they are completely absorbed in the virtual reality they created for us that day. They are like the prisoners in Platons cave you know.

  74. Joan Edwards said : "The main objective of 9/11 was to demolish the World Trade Center and make it appear to the public like it was an enemy attack.."

    Yes, I agree, as far as you go, Joan, but it seems to me that beyond even that, the main objective was a coup de'tat [to remove any last vestiges of the Bill of Rights], and to give the security state [ i.e. the usual suspects] a very handy excuse to engage in what historian Harry Elmer Barnes has called "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" :

    against an unseen enemy[ "terrorists"] who will handily exist wherever in the world the government claims them to be.

    In other words, nothing more than a scam by which the government finds a way to justify its own existence, ultimately :-) .

    Regards, obf.

  75. El Buggo said: "I suspect people first must understand that they faked the "live" news reports, before they can grasp your point. You see, they are completely absorbed in the virtual reality they created for us that day. They are like the prisoners in Platons cave you know."

    Yeah I know. Remember, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

  76. Dear all, I appeared on the Fakeologist radio show last night [12/28/13] to specifically discuss mine and others comments in this thread regarding the Don Fox interview.

    The radio show episode is archived here:

    Regards, obf.

    1. I'll be on with Fetzer for an hour tonight from 6-7 CT. Should be an entertaining hour!

    2. Please comment on the missing GROUND ZERO in Hiroshima then, and what that possibly may imply. Would be extremely interesting if we could locate something, or get an explanation.

    3. OBF,

      I've listened to MOST of the show you did Saturday night with the Fakeologist. WOW. You guys have given me a wealth of material. I did a half hour on Fetzer's show tonight but look for a full show in early 2014 on you guys.

      And once again I am not a government agent. I work in the IT dept of a private company in Downtown Minneapolis. I'm a regular working stiff and my home phone number is listed in the phone book.

      My opinion of you guys is there is no way you actually believe this nukes don't exist crap. And that satellites don't exist etc. I've had many exchanges with you and you're quick witted and in command of your faculties. You know what you're doing. Therefore it's highly likely you're on the payroll somewhere or other. I can't prove that but until proven otherwise I fully suspect you're working for the 9/11 perps.

  77. There was no 'missing ground zero' that's just some BS you came up with.

    1. Point it out then, Ground Zero in any published photo or relevant film from Hiroshima. You cant.

      And what do you think that can imply? That Hiroshima was firebombed like Tokyo and Yokohama, with these?

    2. Actually El Dipshit didn't come up with the "missing Ground Zero" at Hiroshima that's on his ADL script that he's working off of.

    3. If there isn't credible evidence for that this exotic metal suddenly will explode big time, after this magical "critical mass" has occurred, why would it be so interesting to inspect Demona? Cant we wait for a demonstration of this reported monster weapon?

      The first global public demonstration of this in Hiroshima looks like firebombing, you know, there isn't even a discernable Ground Zero in any of the published films or photos from that very famous and important public demonstration.

      It's like that plane crash in Shanksville, with no plane parts or blood or baggage or any signs of anything. They dug a hole in the ground and REPORTED millions of times that a plane had crashed there, and everyone believed that too. I don't feel like being fooled again with these fancy Science Fiction nuclear neutron demolition devices.

      Same goes for the plane crash in Pentagon, where a 140 feet plane was sucked into a 30 feet hole, also according to millions of reports. They even called me a "crackpot" when I pointed out this impossible performance.

      So if the story stinks in the beginning, it will stink later also. Therefore, it is just as important to verify the basis for the story as the story itself. But if the basis is wrong or missing, we can safely throw out the whole story.

      Assumptions is the mother of all fuckups, you know

  78. Why should we waste our time and energy refuting your crackpot theories?

    Just like Simon Shill, OBF and the others, you're using photo 'evidence' to make a paper-thin theory and ignoring all other evidence.

    Waste of time, go spread your BS somewhere else.

    1. I think I can detect here a confession of that there isn't any Ground Zero inn Hiroshima that you can find, and that you prefer to talk about other stuff from the million reports of this event.

      You ask us to believe and have faith in fancy nuclear neutron demolition devices, without even being able demonstrate any Ground Zero in Hiroshima - that is a stretch.

    2. Looks like you have run out of bullets here, and are now throwing the kitchen sink at me. Are you mad at me, Ian?

    3. You haven't made any serious attempt at a valid argument, just some BS based on a few pictures, no attempt at finding and presenting other data to support your theory, no examination of the actual evidence, nothing valid whatsoever.

      I know exactly what your game is - to distract us from the important and valid by this piss-weak theory of no nuke at Hiroshima.

      I'm not foolish enough to even waste a minute of my time on your BS, because that would be falling into the trap and doing exactly what you want. A minute spent on your BS is a minute away from the important research.

      Mad at you? I have nothing but scorn and derision for you, emotions don't come into it.

      I hope the ADL paychecks salve your conscience, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    4. Looks like you basically only have lots of "BS" and "ADL" bullets to you disposal.

      It is not my theory that something magical, like in a Science Fiction story, will happen to some exotic metal when "critical mass" is achieved, but I am questioning that idea.

      I have much more objections then I have presented here, like the missing moderator in these devices, and the compleately missing seismograms, but I prefer to keep it simple, like asking for that Ground Zero in Hiroshima in any of the historical films or photos anywhere of the reported event. There isn't so many out there. Why not just Google "crater in hiroshima"? Or "ground zero hiroshima"? Shouldn't take so much to locate something that "everybody knows" of such an reportedly important historical event.

      It's like asking us to believe that a 140 feet plane can be sucked into a 30 feet hole, you know, if you even cannot substantiate an simple request like pointing out Ground Zero in Hiroshima, in any of the historical films or photos of the reported event.

      Hiroshima should have been a glassified crater and buried in concrete for decades if not longer, according to these reports.

    5. Yep. The earth is flat, satellites and rocket propulsion don't exist and neither does nuclear fission and fusion.

  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

  80. again, ian greenhalf is not to be trusted, who-ever the duck he really is. donald duckfox happens to land upon the (cartoon) nukes explanation for everything 9/11 (following all the carefully laid out and offered up clues left for him) and by God he is sticking to these big guns, come (fall-out) hell or (radioactively contaminated) high water. it all comes across as being very scripted, doesn't it?
    if you cannot consider that fox/prager/khalezov/fetzer/wood are all part of the same 'fantastical energies' propaganda pushing outfit, then you might want to take a few steps back and re-consider some of the more grounded arguments and posts made (and indeed their opponents consistent (bad) manner of response) by valuable contributors here such as obf, el buggo, joan edwards etc.. things should begin to clear up somewhat.
    if you do not bear the possibility of (complete) fakery firmly in mind when it comes to analysing (and trying to make real and common sense out of) all of these psychologically traumatising news/information packets/bundles broad-cast your way, you will soon find yourself in Oz, barefoot and without any special slippers to take you home (to truth), where we all best belong. (look to the sandyhook, boston bombings faked realities for examples and compare worldviews of those who believe in the nonsense to those who do not).
    (jim is king of Oz, btw. he lives behind a large curtain and has many bells and whistles.)
    i see these foxy/greenhalf characters also as unreal and part of the cast and crew surrounding/supporting the magical presentations that hol(l)ywood has tirelessly conjured up (at the behest of their paymasters) for our viewing/perception pleasure/management over the course of our lifetimes, and beyond.

    so, for me, the bottom line is you can stick your macro/mini/matchbox/micro nukes where the sun don't shine, deactivate the coding (access codes are all 000000000), and then, by God...let there be light!

    the spell is broken. and all is good (or much better, at the very least).

    1. What color is the sky in your world Peter?

  81. Everybody needs to listen to the Fakeologist show that OBF, Simon Shack et al were on last Saturday.

    OK they spend the first hour or so ripping on me and Fetzer. They get bored with that then it becomes pretty much a stand up comedy deal. A whole spiel on the earth is flat, satellites and rocket propulsion don't exist, nuclear weapons don't exist etc. Simon Shack is hysterical!! I had no idea what comedic genius the guy is. OBF says he laughs himself to sleep at night and I have no doubt about that after listening to the show. I was laughing my ass off!!

    9/11 is a serious subject but you can't always take yourself so seriously. September Clues is a bit of comedic relief in the whole deal. Obviously there is no serious research there. It's all a bit. But it's a damn funny bit to be sure.

    For the record I'd rather have to slug it out with Simon and OBF than the Judy Wood freaks. Judy Wood has no sense of humor at all. Andrew Johnson DOES but they don't let him express himself much.

    1. I listened to as much as I could stomach. My god, how boring. Obf began by listing the most notorious disinfo agents and calling them true researchers of 9/11. That made me laugh. Obf freely admits he is just out to amuse himself and needle Fetzer and Fox. Then he states 'I AM A SICK PERSON AND THIS IS MY FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT' and laments how there are few places on the internet he can go to amuse himself.

      These guys are patetic, they make incredibly asinine comments such as Shack being 'the only researcher that applies scientific principles to 9/11 research' and that 'the only evidence we have are the images'.

      Obf freely admits he's not interested in research or the truth, and that he is purely a sick person looking to entertain himself. He states that Fox has a political agenda - that Israel did it, so he is making it pretty obvious that he is attacking anyone who is trying to do serious work. Obf repeatedly states that he's trying to 'have a little fun'.

      What a waste of time, what a pack of lowlifes, I'm more disgusted than amused, they have nothing worthwhile to point out, nothing valid to say, it's just a joke, a sick joke.

    2. Ian,

      I'm going to get a shitload of clips out of that interview and play them on the Fetzer show. That will pretty much be the end of whatever credibility these jackwagons ever had. They did all of the work for us.

    3. Good plan Don, should be hilarious and deadly. :)

    4. I listened to this most of this interview today.
      2:30 hrs worth anyway.

      They make a couple valid points. Which I think you and Fetzer need to address.

      1) How do we know the USGS water samples collected by the Department of Energy is legit? Why do you both believe the government in this instance?

      2) How can we apply the scientific principle to video which has not been verified as authentic? It seems like a waste of time otherwise.

      The points you and Ian are making is just window dressing. It seems to me you are avoiding the valid points OBF and Shack are making. I think Fetz has tried to lamely address this point. We need professionals in video animation to weigh in on this topic..

      I agree most of the show was window dressing.

      Everyone is peacocking themselves.
      That includes you, Ian, and Fetz as well.

      My 2 cents.

    5. BWT, it was quite a shock to learn Ace Baker committed suicide on the Real Deal. WTF!!!!!!!

      And Fetz just blew it off. Interviewing AB again! AB turns on Fetz after the 2nd interview. Naive would be a word comes to mind.

      I am also embarrassed that I j ust learned about the fiasco 4 years late.

      If I had. I might not be listening to the Real Deal now.

      I admire Fetz. I think he is an honest Indian.
      Maybe, a bit immature for his age.

      Fetzer why didn't you confront AB for such a stunt!!?? Maybe, you did. I could not find it.

      Don, I hope on your rebuttal to OBF and Shack. You don't decorate the window dressing some more. Stick to the science. PLEASE!!

      Best Wishes!

  82. 911truthnc said: "They make a couple valid points. Which I think you and Fetzer need to address.

    1) How do we know the USGS water samples collected by the Department of Energy is legit? Why do you both believe the government in this instance?

    2) How can we apply the scientific principle to video which has not been verified as authentic? It seems like a waste of time otherwise.

    The points you and Ian are making is just window dressing. It seems to me you are avoiding the valid points OBF and Shack are making. I think Fetz has tried to lamely address this point."

    Thanks for listening. Fetzer and Fox will probably _never_ address those points, judging by their current denials/obfuscations.

    Don't know if you saw my article on all this :

    "911 Scams: Prof. Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of the Scientific Method ":

    Regards, obf.

  83. This comment has been removed by the author.

  84. This comment has been removed by the author.

  85. I think Mr Fetzer is the big daddy. Master of puppets.