Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Well, it's about time!!!!!!!!! At long last, what I've been thinking and saying about 9/11 has been articulated most effectively in this forum. Hooray for Jim Fetzer and his guest, physicist Frank Lee Speekin (Frankly Speaking) who has finally seen the light and put together the clues inspired by "September Clues" into a complete account of how they did it.
ReplyDeleteJust marvelous. Where do we go from here? No place but up from now on, and we can stop the bickering and move forward since all have contributed to this effort. Simon Shack's work shines. He just didn't have the chutzspah/salesmanship to market his own work. But then again, they say "unto everything a time."
The "time" has at last come for the truth to be told about 9/11.
Thank you, Joan, we're working on a follow-up.
DeleteI hope it's soon. Can't wait to see how this comes out.
DeleteSeptemberClues.info | The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11
ReplyDeletehttp://www.septemberclues.info/frameindex.htm
Obstacles to the Truth
The road to 9/11 truth is certainly a bumpy one – ‘not surprising’, you may say - as we may easily imagine the massive interests at stake. You may choose to skip this page if you have little interest in the peripheral aspects of the wider truth search. However, many people are understandably bewildered by the 'infighting' between 9/11 researchers and may welcome some insight on the strategy adopted by the (not-always-obvious) infiltrators. To recognize the true obstacles to the truth goes a long way towards understanding why so little has been achieved to this day - by and on behalf of millions of citizens who keep demanding justice.
Naturally, the 9/11 plotters have invested large resources in order to control, hamper and misdirect the honest search for truth. It would be logical to assume that they are behind virtually all the most prominent “Truth” organizations. There follows the disturbing realization that the real obstacles to the truth are the most well-funded – and consequently most visible “9/11Truthers”. Their handlers (a.k.a. the “9/11 plotters”) are undoubtedly fully aware of the dismal performance of their CGI-crew (the hapless authors of the fake imagery). Thus, they have devised a long series of damage-control schemes to address their top concern : to divert any possible inquiry into the central role of the news media on 9/11. Here is how the plotters’ task-sheet/agenda most likely reads:
THE PLOTTERS' POST 9/11 AGENDA
1 - Produce a large number of 9/11 documentaries for public consumption – in any format: memorial, heroic, sentimental or scientific. The latter format may bring up any sort of seemingly damning evidence. That is, anything but the newsmedia’s complicity.
2 - Diffuse all sorts of conspiracy theories on the internet – the more, the better. Promote seemingly damning aspects of 9/11 in order to sustain in people’s minds the illusion of serious investigations being undertaken; the tower demolitions, the NORAD standdown, the FBI/CIA foreknowledge, etc... – anything but the fake TV imagery.
3 - Ban, ridicule or censor all people aware of the TV fakery: Dismiss them as ‘disinformers’, 'saboteurs' or even 'CIA-funded agents'. Call them ‘no-planers’ rather than ‘TV fakery researchers’. Infiltrate their ranks to stir up controversy from within, using classic, old-style divide and conquer tactics.
Parts of the show were interesting, but I was very disappointed in a couple of major areas of importance where Frank seemed to lose his scientific demeanor and objectivity.
ReplyDeleteHe was particularly weak, I think, when it came to his just repeating "CGI" "CGI" over and over again when it came to discussing WTC7. He did not identify specifically what video he was commenting on, a recurring problem. He said almost nothing about WTC 1 and 2 but just repeated CGI about those "collapse videos" too.
As an aside, I looked up "CGI" and "computer graphics imaging" and find that the term CGI for that does not exist. There is a CGI which stands for, if my memory serves, as "common gateway interface." I was trying to determine if "computer graphics imaging" is the same as "digital animation" and was trying to determine if the CGI in our subject videos was superimposed upon videos of the actual buildings (WTC 7, 1, 2 ) or if the whole video including the buildings was all graphics imaging. Still unclear about this.
I thought the bit about the buildings being emptied before their "controlled demolition" seemed weak also to me.
I found it hard to believe that he never knew there were small nuclear devices. This is a person with "a physics background" and "several degrees" and he had no knowledge at all about the existence of mini nukes or micro nukes? Yet he stated surely that "there would be something" left if file cabinets and phones and other Tower furniture and contents after a nuke had detonated. How do we know that there would be "something" left?
When I hear that the emphasis of Simon Shack and also of Frank is said to be "media complicity", my initial reaction is "well, duh!" Media complicity in the carrying out of 9-11 is supposed to be a big profound area of emphasis and news for us? I mean, really!
Frank's "physics background" and exact degrees was left fuzzy. I also have come to not like it very much when people will not use their real name, or at least their first real name. I do not think that this was a particularly clear and logical presentation.
I agree with Frank that the planning of 9-11 was indeed "Satanic" but so also are all the unjust "wars" our nation has waged for the last century, many of which were fought not for the stated purpose or fought not to be won (Viet Nam).
Jeannon, I think you make excellent points. Even in relation to the footage of "the falling man", it appears that I was conned. See my response to the transcript and commentary by theacousticvibe. I am truly taken aback--and my impression of the whole Simon Shack effort has suffered a severe blow. Thank you for the kind of quality analysis I have come to expect from you. I am going to have to think about what went wrong in this case. I was conned.
Deleteacousticvibe and Jim Fetzer:
DeleteThere was a misunderstanding which took place over the air. The actual "Falling Man" photo is here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=501 , and you can compare the photo of the real WTC below the "Falling Man" photo. You thought that I was referring to this: http://www.septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm
You were agreeing with me over the air, so I didn't know that there was a problem!
SORRY TO THE LISTENERS for the misunderstanding! The conclusion was still right.
Jeannon:
DeleteMajor areas of importance where Frank seemed to lose his scientific demeanor and objectivity.
>>> Revisionism is about making a scientific judgement about a scientific issue which is *central to the logic of the story*, then taking a stand firmly. While every fair-minded person should enter a subject objectively, after a decision is made, the scientist becomes subjective.
>>>He was particularly weak, I think, when it came to his just repeating "CGI" "CGI" over and over again when it came to discussing WTC7. He did not identify specifically what video he was commenting on, a recurring problem.
Fair point. The video for WTC7 is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HNMcWk5WpY
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ
He said almost nothing about WTC 1 and 2 but just repeated CGI about those "collapse videos" too.
Please see collapse video from movie "Hypothesis" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyimz35UCiU
>>>As an aside, I looked up "CGI" and "computer graphics imaging" and find that the term CGI for that does not exist. There is a CGI which stands for, if my memory serves, as "common gateway interface." I was trying to determine if "computer graphics imaging" is the same as "digital animation" and was trying to determine if the CGI in our subject videos was superimposed upon videos of the actual buildings (WTC 7, 1, 2 ) or if the whole video including the buildings was all graphics imaging. Still unclear about this.
Please accept CGI as Computer Graphics Imaging and move on from there.
>>>I thought the bit about the buildings being emptied before their "controlled demolition" seemed weak also to me.
The lack of furniture forces the issue. Also, please see Phil Jayhan's FOIA which clarifies the issue here: http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html?s=139f8501d313d30ab177b23338c5ad12&
>>>I found it hard to believe that he never knew there were small nuclear devices. This is a person with "a physics background" and "several degrees" and he had no knowledge at all about the existence of mini nukes or micro nukes?
To be more precise, I couldn't believe that could be that small and that people would be crazy enough to use them in a populated area.
>>>Yet he stated surely that "there would be something" left if file cabinets and phones and other Tower furniture and contents after a nuke had detonated. How do we know that there would be "something" left?
Good question. It's a judgement that if the outer steel cladding survived, which it did, then some of the steel furniture should have survived, too. I'm also being influenced by the logic that controlled demolitions are typically preceded by gutting the building and removing the furniture.
>>>When I hear that the emphasis of Simon Shack and also of Frank is said to be "media complicity", my initial reaction is "well, duh!" Media complicity in the carrying out of 9-11 is supposed to be a big profound area of emphasis and news for us? I mean, really!
I was late to the party. I admit it.
>>>Frank's "physics background" and exact degrees was left fuzzy. I also have come to not like it very much when people will not use their real name, or at least their first real name. I do not think that this was a particularly clear and logical presentation.
I wish to remain anonymous, for understandable reasons.
>>>I agree with Frank that the planning of 9-11 was indeed "Satanic" but so also are all the unjust "wars" our nation has waged for the last century, many of which were fought not for the stated purpose or fought not to be won (Viet Nam).
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJeannon said :"When I hear that the emphasis of Simon Shack and also of Frank is said to be "media complicity", my initial reaction is "well, duh!" Media complicity in the carrying out of 9-11 is supposed to be a big profound area of emphasis and news for us? I mean, really!"
ReplyDelete[ I left a long reply to one of your last posts in the AC Weisbecker interview that may interest you].
Its the degree of media complicity that is the issue here.
If the entire "live" network 911 broadcasts,[ a total of 102 minutes shown on ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, Fox], including all of the "plane into building" sequences , all of the building collapse sequences [WTC1,2 and 7] , and all of the "post-crash" Pentagon footage, was 100% pre-fabricated made on computer imagery falsely broadcast by the networks listed above as live imagery, then I would suggest that the level of media complicity is considerably higher than you appear to recognize at the present time, which probably accounts for your "duh!" reaction.
Am I getting warm?
Regards, obf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding proposed[?] mini-nukes used to demolish WTC1 and 2 as mentioned in this interview :
ReplyDeleteThe "live", archived broadcast network tower collapse sequences [WTC1, 2 and 7] were all prefabricated [on computers] as Simon Shack has conclusively demonstrated.
Therefor, NOTHING concerning the methodology used to demolish the towers [mini-nukes or _whatever_] can EVER be deduced from watching faked tower collapse videos!
See: "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-scamsthe-faked-live-cnn-wtc1.html
Regards, obf.
OBF
DeleteYou can, however, infer that nukes were used from the confirmed presence of concrete dust, even if the videos themselves are CGI.
@ Jim Fetzer and Frank Lee Speekin:
ReplyDeleteHOLOGRAPHIC PLANE IMAGES?
There were no holographic plane images on 911. This is easy to prove via one of the previous guest interviews, AC Weisbecker.
In his 11/29/13 interview : http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/11/allan-weisbecker.html , he mentions a video presentation he made where he presents to a pro photographer the original "live" NBC broadcast of Fl. 175's approach , compared with CBS's "live" version of the exact same event.
The plane paths are entirely different in those two network broadcast examples.
Obviously, if a holographic plane image had been projected, the two plane paths would have to be IDENTICAL in both of those original "live" , still archived on line, network footage sequences!
But they ain't!
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch
v=Ty6YsS1oUpM
See also my own 4 part analysis of Richard Hall's [false and none-scientifically researched] holographic plane hypothesis:
"Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique":
http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html
TOWER JUMPER VIDEOS
As far as the alleged 911 tower jumpers go, see also :
"9/11 Video Fakery:The Fake,13 Foot Tall WTC Tower Jumpers" :
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/911-video-fakerythe-fake13-foot-tall.html
Regards, obf.
Jeannon wrote:
ReplyDelete"As an aside, I looked up "CGI" and "computer graphics imaging" and find that the term CGI for that does not exist."
Dear Jeannon, the acronym "CGI" stands for Computer Generated Imagery:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Computer-Generated+Imagery
I think it was you who recently lamented about my 'unprofessional and non-scholarly manner' in going about my research. So let's make a deal: I promise to keep improving my ways of presenting information - if you promise to improve your ability to look up the meaning of a simple acronym. Deal? ;-)
regards
Simon Shack
Joan Edwards,
ReplyDeleteYou might enjoy listening to this outstanding radio show by my research partner Hoi Polloi - from December last year:
HOI POLLOI on KFAI radio :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2378652#p2378652
There simply is no better audio overview of our September Clues research on air.
best regards
Simon Shack
Frank Lee Speakin, si c'est un vrai nom, il est bizarre ce mec. Le spectacle était intéressant, mais si toutes les vidéos "live" sont des faux, alors il n'y a aucune preuve à analyser. La conjecture que le mobilier a été déplacé avant les explosions est complètement ridicule. Jim a dit qu'il allait rappeler ce farfelu. Jim ferait mieux de ramener Allan Weisbecker. Il est le sage qui est capable d'argumenter rationnellement avec le Fetz.
ReplyDeleteJorge, Please take a good look at www.septemberclues.info . What is wrong with the idea that the furniture was moved out in advance?
DeleteIl faudrait trop de temps, et beaucoup de gens arriverait à travailler dans des bureaux vides. Tout le monde demandait : « Merde, Qu'est-ce qui se passe? Il n'y a pas de tables ou des chaises. Où est mon ordinateur ? »
DeleteJorge,
DeletePlease check out the following:
PART 1: Larry McWilliams and Phil Jayhan - The Hollow WTC Towers & Missing Contents 9/11:
Monday, August 9, 2010
PART 2: Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams - The Hollow Towers and Missing Contents 9/11:
Also, please check out this:http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html?s=139f8501d313d30ab177b23338c5ad12&
The arguments that you are making about empty offices work in the favor of my argument! There should have been thousands of desks, doorknobs, vending machines, etc.
Additional point for Jorge: Perhaps you didn't understand, but when I say "phony media", I'm saying that there were many, many false news stories laid down about the activities at the WTC. In truth, I think that only the lobby, Windows on the World, and the Observatory were operating, and anything else was a bare minimum. And, in fact, no one was in the building on 9/11 itself. We will talk more about that on 12/23
Delete"fausses"
Deletejorge:
Tu écris le français comme un con.
Ferme ta clape-merde et va te faire foutre. Enculé de ta mère!! Casse-toi!!!
Frankly Speaking:
DeleteSince the illiterate and arrogant jorge refuses to write in English,
here's what the cunt wrote in his comment beginning with "Il faudrait... ( Translated as written by the Spaniard(?) jorge).
"It would need too much time and a lot of people would arrive (?)
to work in the empty offices.
Everyone was asking: " Shit. What's happening? There are no tables or chairs. Where is my computer?"
It's bad French and sounds fucking weird in English.
Hope this helps. It's fair to say that your lack of French is an advantage in the circumstances.
You are missing nothing!!
I would like to ask a question. Does anyone else agree with me on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteBelow is a fairly close transcript of this interview. At the end, I leave out some unnecessary content to the point.
The transcript runs from 1:05:00 - 1:18:20.
Fetzer & Speakin are looking at the link below discussing "The Falling Man".
http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm
At the top of the page there is an animation from the 1996 movie Skycraper.
It seems clear to me. That when Fetzer is discussing this page with Speakin. Fetzer is referring to the animation of the movie.
At not addressing the point that Speakin is making about the corners of the towers being at a 45 degree bevel.
I find this to be. How did Speakin put it ?
"This should shock you!"
I have great respect for Dr. Fetzer. But, WTF?
1:05:00
No Causalities at the WTC
1:05:53
http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm
1:06:25
Speakin talks about Sick aspect
1:06:34
Speakin refers to CGI Jumpers
1:07:02
Speaking brings up Falling man
1:07:40
Speakin - "The building behind the falling man shows the corner of the WTC apparently. Right. You have two faces and they come together"
1:05:51
Fetzer - interrupts "It does not look like the facade of the WTC at all."
1:05:53
Speakin - "It is not at all."
1:05:55 -
Fetzer - "Not even remotely".
1:05:57 -
Speakin - stuttering "Not even remotely"
1:05:58
Fetzer - "And it is showing video from above as well as below. I mean I do not even know there was footage from above. And here is another where it is near it is not the facade of the WTC. I am just floored by that."
1:08:18
Speaking - stuttering "Jim I want to lay the blow here. Ok. I wanna give the coup de gras here. Ready? Here's the thing. The building behind the falling man shows a corner. OK. It is the corner of two faces as a line. They come together as a line. A corner right? Well, the truth if you look at REAL WTC. They came together a bevel. They came together at a 45 degree bevel between the two faces. It is on all eight corners. So it's like.
1:08:47
Fetzer - stuttering "Frank, Frank, Frank, I am looking at the facade it is obviously not a WTC building. It is obvious that it is not the South Tower or the North. It is obviously not. The lines are completely and totally different. They are all vertical. This is most horizontal. They are vertical and they have this real narrow windows. These have big windows and they are most horizontal. Ridiculous."
1:09:12
Speakin - "It is ridiculous. For your listeners this is a lesson. This should shock you." ....
1:09:43
Speakin - "There has been a lot of attention paid to it and it is not even the WTC."
1:09:47
Fetzer - interrupts "I know it is so blatant. I can't believe it."
1:09:51
Speakin - "Thank you for response."
1:17:55
Fetzer - "Well you know, by the way, I am just noticing. If you go down below the falling man. There are images of the facade of the twin towers. Where you have other fallers. But I mean that one is so blaring and so stunning. It is so completely indefensible. It is fascinating. "
1:18:19
Speakin ' "Yes, yes, that's right."
You are telling me that the footage that frankly was presenting as having been from 9/11 was actually from a MOVIE and not "live footage"? If that is the case, then I am completely baffled. I hate to think I have been conned, but my impression was that this was "live footage" from 9/11 that had obviously been faked. Thanks for letting me know. I am dumbfounded.
DeleteSorry for the misunderstanding. Please see explanation above. Jim, your conclusion was still correct.
DeleteJim Fetzer said: "You are telling me that the footage that frankly was presenting as having been from 9/11 was actually from a MOVIE and not "live footage"? If that is the case, then I am completely baffled. I hate to think I have been conned, but my impression was that this was "live footage" from 9/11 that had obviously been faked. Thanks for letting me know. I am dumbfounded."
ReplyDeleteTo interject/attempt to clarify :
The clip at the top of the page : http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm , from the 1996 Hollywood movie "Skyscraper" is merely being used to illustrate the point that the software technology capable of fabricating realistic[ at first glance] movie sequences depicting persons falling from tall buildings was fully available PRIOR to 911.
THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE USE OF THAT CLIP!
The 911 "Falling Man" and associated video/photo sequences are all prefabricated, made on computer "movies" [and photos], nothing more [just as they are in the movie "Skyscraper"].
For proof see the complete SeptemberClues.info 15 page thread devoted to this very topic: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=501&hilit=the+jumpers
or, my own [shorter] contribution: ""9/11 Video Fakery:The Fake,13 Foot Tall WTC Tower Jumpers" : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/911-video-fakerythe-fake13-foot-tall.html
After the collapses ABC aired a sequence with people supposedly hanging out of WTC windows prior to alleged jumps, that was first broadcast at 1pm on 911 [i.e. _not_ "live", but _after_ the events] .
That sequence appears to show a bevelled edge to the WTC tower, although I might be mistaken- the sequence is, in typical 911 "live network" fashion, is almost completely lacking in resolution/definition.
For more on this ABC "jumper" sequence, please see page 15 of the 15 page Septemberclues.info "jumper thread :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=501&hilit=the+jumpers&start=210
or, see my own minor "jumper" contribution at my blog-link previously given.
The problem is , the people in that ABC sequence appear to be at least 12ft tall., which means it had to be a fake movie sequence made on computers [just as with the movie "Skyscraper], and fabricated prior to 911.
Regards, onebornfree.
OBF, Thank you for the clarification.
DeleteOnebornfree said :"For more on this ABC "jumper" sequence, please see page 15 of the 15 page Septemberclues.info "jumper thread : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=501&hilit=the+jumpers&start=210 "
ReplyDeleteOr, alternatively, simply type the words: "King Kong Man" into the Septemberclues.info search engine, located at the top right corner of any internal page there.
Enjoy!
Regards, onebornfree.
Fetzer,
ReplyDeleteEgad! (to use your favorite exclamation). Are you actually saying that you don't know WHAT iconic image Frank was referring to? Gimme a break.
You are not dumbfounded. You are just playing dumb - much like you have clearly been asked to do - for the last 40-odd years or so - ever since your JFK gatekeeping 'blablabla' agenda was handed to you.
Frank was referring to the internationally renowned "Falling Man" image - credited to phonytographer Richard Drew. It is very much as (in)famous as the Zapruder clip by now. Here it is discussed on Cluesforum:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363306#p2363306
That iconic 9/11 image - as Frank tried to make you understand - is an obvious fraud. Yet, it has been used in countless articles and TV shows around the world to propagandize this gory part of the official 9/11 fable - namely, those "poor people jumping to their deaths". This notion of people jumping out of the towers served TWO important purposes for the 9/11 perps:
1: To uphold the illusion that there actually WERE people trapped in the towers that morning.
2: To 'turbocharge' the public's anger towards the "evil muslim terrorists who committed this crime".
At Cluesforum, we have analyzed EVERY SINGLE existing video clip / and still image of the alleged jumpers . We have conclusively demonstrated that they are all digital fabrications - each and everyone of them.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=501&start=195
Your stubborn insistence at ignoring the many people urging you, for half a decade now, to review our work and to formulate logical conclusions from our findings - is becoming legendary - and so is your affected "dumbfoundedness".
Whether you feign to misunderstand what iconic image Frank was referring to (the internationally renowned "Falling Man" image / forgery credited to phonytographer Richard Drew) or whether you really have no familiarity with such iconic, "Zapruder-like" 9/11 imagery - is a quite pathetic state of affairs - either way. Please spare us further intelligence-insulting antics on your part. Thanks.
Simon Shack
Simon,
DeleteProgress is being made on this front. Let's be peacemakers. :-)
Jim, linked here is a solid interview. What are the prospects of you having this guy on.
ReplyDeleteFormer US Marine: President Obama should be tried for treason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fh3-5ErbD4
simonshack wrote:
ReplyDeleteLadies and Gentlemen,
Here is what I would call the VERY BEST radio podcast summarizing the entire SEPTEMBER CLUES research, courtesy of the magic Hoi Polloi (aka Maxeem Konrardy - the author of the Vicsim Report) ! You're da man, Hoi !!!!
Please everyone spend those 50 minutes listening to it all!
HOI POLLOI on KFAI radio:
http://www.septclues.com/AUDIO%20FILES/ ... ec2012.mp3
It was broadcast on the Minneapolis KFAI radio - yesterday! There's hope people, there's hope for our planet, if such rational and truth-packed radio programs are still allowed to be aired!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon, this is just excellent. This summary is what has been missing from our group conversation about 911. We needed an overview before tackling the details. Thanks so much. How remarkable this was first aired on a Minneapolis radio station.
I guess I should not be surprised by Dr. Fetzer's reaction to what his guest said. Any media or university connected person, much as we like them--Jesse Ventura, for example--can only go so far. So we have to understand that only so much of the truth will be allowed to be told.
So, what do we do about this--continue to post the truth and fight with everyone or just say nothing?
Should we be grateful for their telling part of the truth? It is a dilemma.
Every time there is a Sandy Hook, or a Boston Marathon Bombing, the parallels to WTC 9/11 are so obvious it is painful not to acknowledge them.
Is Fetzer slowly seeing the light that shines so bright? If so, it will greatly reduce the quantity of guests, as most appear to be shameless shills. Investigating the real truth doesn't sell well I'm afraid.Either way, this latest "conversion" is, in Fetzer's words, "stunning".
ReplyDeleteReply
ReplyDeleteLOL, Fakeologist!
Too bad Fetzer has focused on the jumpers, such a small part of 9/11.
Listen to Frank speak at 44:34 "Hire a Liar" Information craziness due to computers in the 90's and early 2000s led to "information crimes. (I think these are going on now with Sandy Hook, Boston, etc.)
The next step would be to just tell the public a lie with no graphics needed. If officials tell people a dirty bomb, for example, has gone off in their neighborhood, just that alone can force people to evacuate their homes or whatever.
Joan,
DeleteThe fact that the jumpers are CGI is very central to the 9/11 story, because it is evidence that no one died at the WTC at all. We'll talk about that on 12/23.
PS, The "falling man" shows no blur, nor do any of the jumpers. Odd that the choppers were able to capture so many fast moving images on tape--same with the planes. Where's the blur on those planes? One is coming in at 500 mph from the west and another is coming in from the south slowly, IMO, for a fast moving plane. Oh, the planes from the west have to make a left hand turn before hitting the South Tower.
ReplyDeleteJust a note. There was more steel in the towers than concrete. That is why they needed nuclear ordnance to dustify the steel. Might they have used DU which was used in Iraq to destroy armored tanks?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.greens.org/s-r/15/15-20.html
Depleted Uranium
;;;;;a new kind of ammunition: shells encased in "depleted uranium" (DU), which makes them super-hard and able to penetrate all existing armor-plating.......over the course of the two month war, 3,700 Iraqi tanks were obliterated-1,400 of them by shells encased in depleted uranium. Thousands of artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers, and other equipment were destroyed by DU rounds.
>>>Might they have used DU which was used in Iraq to destroy armored tanks?
DeleteNo. Nuclear weapons using enriched Uranium, and DU are different things. Nuclear devices (neutron weapons) were needed to dustify the concrete.
There's some excellent science in the comments, and I'm glad to see some good counter-evidence to Rich Hall's holographic theory. I've already listened to most of Ab Irato's long interview with One Born Free (OBF) and will go back to hear the rest; the audio link is http://radio.abirato.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/obf-11-23-2012.mp3 You'lll hear a very intelligent look at the counter-evidence by OBF referring to some convincing work at his website. I said a long time ago that Andrew Johnson's embrace of Hall's theory gives me cause for suspicion. Note, in the presentation of the theory on Hall's program (the video of it is embedded on OBF's website at the link above) that Andrew Johnson, amazingly!, lets Rich Hall summarize Judy Wood's book!
ReplyDeleteHowever, with all the good reasoning Frank Speekin treats us to in his interview, I didn't hear much evidence of his physics background. Far worse than this is the fact that he and Jim found it necessary to drop a huge turd in the punch bowl by repeating some of the ambiguous evidence that the holocaust was a hoax. Let's take a couple of points that they cited.
(1) That the work of Bletchley-Park with the German Enigma machine didn't uncover any plot to exterminate the Jews. Well, one might just as well say that there was no government conspiracy to pull off 9/11because the government couldn't keep the conspiracy a secret. You can't have it both ways. Additionally, there was apparently another British program that secretly taped conversations with high-ranking German POWs and did record German authorities admitting to a policy of extermination. If this British program was unreliable because it perpetrated the "hoax", how can you rely on the same British secret service that produced the Bletchley-Park evidence?
(2) That the doors to the gas chambers should have opened outward. There would be a very good physical reason for having the doors open inward--and that is that they could lack a knob or handle on the inside so that the inmates could neither pull nor push the doors open.
(3) That there would be evidence of cyanide on the walls of the "shower rooms". This was explained by the very experts at the lab that Ernst Zündel relied on as part of his appeal. According to them, natural weathering processes would have degraded any cyanide residue to the point that it would be unreliable as evidence.
Atlanta Bill,
DeleteI took the revisionist method of Robert Faurisson, which is logical and very effective. The complete technical picture is given by Germar Rudolf. http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf .
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf
Lastly, the Red Cross itself released it's estimates of all Concentration Camp deaths as 262,000 here: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6924&start=15
Scroll down halfway.
Well, Frankly, you're not only skillful at logic and reasoning--and at understating the physics so as apparently not to leave everyone behind (as reciprocal decency compels me to conclude)--but you're also a gentleman.
DeleteI'll examine the linked material, but I have to point out that I don't consider the Red Cross to be an objective source. They passed on the concentration camp at Theresienstadt (Teresín), giving out glowing reports to the world press. The precarious situation of the Danish and Swedish authorities who compiled the wartime data induced in them a readiness to believe the Nazis (an instance of cognitive dissonance if not of complicit skullduggery). Denmark was under German occupation, and Sweden was afraid they would be next.
Just glancing at the Red Cross link, I note that the author(s) fault a nemesis they identify simply as "the Jews", which indicates to me that they are blatant racists--and I'm not inclined to give any shrift to the arguments of open racists.
So, my assessment stands, despite your admirable gentility. To wit, you've participated in what I can only assume is a calculated attempt to introduce Jew-bating antisemitism into the Truth community and, by doing so, discrediting the community in the eyes of the public. Could Shin Bet have done a better job?
The only purpose of bringing the Holocaust into this discussion was to show the Revisionist method of Robert Faurisson. Please see this: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n2p-7_faurisson.html . For the whole Faurisson picture, this: http://www.ihr.org/books/faurisson/faurissontoc.html .
DeleteFor the purposes of this discussion only, the Holocaust/gas chambers are examined as a technical/mechanical event. After "what happened" is determined, other thoughts and feelings about the event can follow.
Joan Edwards said : " There was more steel in the towers than concrete. That is why they needed nuclear ordnance to dustify the steel."
ReplyDeleteJoan, what firm, trustworthy evidence do you believe that _you_ have to so confidently claim that :
steel was "dustified", and that nuclear weapons were used?
Regards, obf
Regarding Judy Wood, I have recently abandoned my "philosophy" of "eat the meat and spit out the bones" regarding her 9-11 research, or anyone's 9-11 research work, that I cannot accept in toto but do like certain parts of.
ReplyDeleteThis show with Frank seemed to more tightly seal the coffin on Dr. Judy Wood's whole "program."
I guess the final nail in the coffin for me was my observation, listening to Dr. Fetzer's fairly recent show with Susanne Posel and Vinny Eastwood. I will repost an excerpt from a recent post of mine on John Friend's site.
"Susanne Posel said on a Dr. Fetzer radio show and in other places that Dr. Wood kept an ongoing live connection during Santilli shows to the woman that co-hosts, coaching and directing the Santilli show in progress. This took place on the radio network that Santilli was on when he did a set-up, ambush type interview of Dr. Fetzer and for which Santilli got kicked off of that network. This monitoring during the Santilli show by Dr. Wood, as I understood it, also is now taking place on Santilli's own new network, GuerillaMedia. That’s totally dishonest unprofessional and subversive, anti-truth behavior by Dr. Wood. Even if one does not want to take the Anonymous-revealed FBI agent information about Santilli as true, the guy's record is one of a totally dishonest con artist. Dr. Wood, Dr. Morgan Reynolds ... have apparently thrown in with a con-artist Santilli. Makes all of their respective work suspect to me."
The more I think about the Santilli show where he interviewed Dr. Fetzer, I believe more and more that Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood probably had already established some kind of relationship with Pete Santilli and that Dr. Wood and/or Dr. Reynolds arranged for that invitation to Dr. Fetzer to be a Santilli show guest.
This seems like the lowest, most immoral, reprehensible behavior by these supposed 9-11 researchers and "scholars."
This particular aspect of the "Judy Wood saga" has also more or less blown up many of the radio show hosts who focus on exposing the "truth" about the Holocaust and "the Jews." I will not elaborate on that aspect here but it generally has to do with doing quality documented research, addressing ALL ideas and opinions and just taking the " 'the Jews did it' research" method."
OBF said:
ReplyDeleteJoan, what firm, trustworthy evidence do you believe that _you_ have to so confidently claim that :
steel was "dustified", and that nuclear weapons were used?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just this article:
Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
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. Despite common misconception, there were no steel-framed skyscrapers ever been demolished by an implosion anywhere in the world.
So, despite common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme. In bygone days when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-paneled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders.........
However, it is no longer possible with modern steel-framed buildings - such as, for example former Twin Towers of the New Your World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7, or the Sears Tower in Chicago...........
That is why they were spared by GENERAL PULVERIZATION the Towers were subjected to during their demolitions, while virtually nothing, except MICROSCOPIC DUST remained of similar columns belonging to the lower parts of the Twin Tower structure.
Joan Edwards said : "So, despite common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme."
ReplyDeleteAssuming , for the sake of argument, that as you claim, it was not possible to demolish the WTC complex [9 buildings], with conventional explosives, why is the method of demolition important to you? [i.e. what difference does it really make what type of explosives were used, in your opinion?] .
I am still not clear as to what evidence you have concerning the alleged "dustification" of steel.
Regards, obf.
It's been so long ago, I'm not sure where I got the information except that it was inspired by
Deleteremarks by Howard Lewis III below.
The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Howard Lewis III
Joan EdwardsOctober 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This ability of nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.
"The picture below [oranges covered with dust] shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was "complete" dust - mainly pulverized steel.
"Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. It was not used anywhere else. The major part of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete.
"So this finest dust was in its major part represented by steel dust accordingly.
OBF, I tend to believe there were no nukes but instead a dismantling of the WTC buildings,of which there are 7, not 9 as you state. If nukes were used, the core columns would have been destroyed but we see them in photos laid out in a hanger somewhere. Why would the contents of the buildings not be salvaged and sold? We did see trucks carting off loads of core columns. Anyway, Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams make this case on earlier podcasts.
DeleteJuly 28th, 2010
PART 1: Larry McWilliams and Phil Jayhan - The Hollow WTC Towers & Missing Contents 9/11:
Monday, August 9, 2010
PART 2: Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams - The Hollow Towers and Missing Contents 9/11:
Jim Fetzer said :"Even in relation to the footage of "the falling man", it appears that I was conned."
ReplyDeleteYou were not conned- you had an on air misunderstanding with your guest, concerning which images you were supposed to be looking at, and what they are supposed to be an example of, that's all.
For a little more detail see my explanatory post for December 15, 2013 at 3:34 PM .
Jim Fetzer said :" I am truly taken aback--and my impression of the whole Simon Shack effort has suffered a severe blow" .
Now that has to be a joke. You remain almost entirely unfamiliar with the bulk of his research, and what little you have looked at to date you have consistently denigrated, so how can your "impression of the whole Simon Shack effort" have "suffered a severe blow"?
obf
Comment une vidéo peut s'avérer un autre vidéo est fausse? Peut-être la preuve alléguée est faux aussi.
ReplyDeleteJorge, Could you clarify your comment in English, so I can answer it?
Delete"How can one video prove another video false? Perhaps the alleged proof is also false."
DeleteJorge,
DeleteThe videos are proven false because the events that they depict are technically impossible. The "Falling Man" is not in front of the WTC. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=501 . The comparison picture of the WTC is below the Falling Man photo.
Il est impossible de savoir avec certitude. Vous prétendez les vidéos des tours jumelles sont fausses. Mais s'il est vrai que, le bâtiment 7 et les tours jumelles seraient encore debout. Il n'y aurait pas de nettoyer les décombres
DeleteJorge,
DeleteMisunderstanding here. The Twin Towers and WTC7 were demolished by controlled demolition. But the videos shown to the world from major media, and "amateur" vidoes, and on YouTube, are in fact CGI. That is why they look exactly as they should to support the official story. The WTC7 looks just as it should to support the theory of fire-induced collapse. According to Simon Shack, the military and police authorities controlled the ability to take independent video by electronic interference and confiscating cameras. Also, in 2001, YouTube did not exist, limiting the ability to get possible independent video out to the world.
Si je vous écoute trop, je pourrais aller complètement fou. Vous croyez sans doute dans la vierge Marie et Jésus est réellement Dieu. Peut-être aussi qu'il se ressusciter d'entre les morts.
DeleteIma Fakeologist said: "Is Fetzer slowly seeing the light that shines so bright? "
ReplyDeleteErrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..................... no. :-)
Regards obf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletejorgeDecember 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Delete« Le Fetz » est un grand Poobah. Le plus fou de l'idée, le plus il aime à l'exposer. C'est la raison pour laquelle il aime beaucoups « Frank Lee Speakin ». C'est rationalisme contre la folie. Et en cas de doute, jeter tout le blâme sur les sionistes.
Jorge,
ReplyDeleteI urge you to keep an open mind as we uncover the truth about 9/11. Everything I said, was motivated by physical and logical necessity. Nothing that I said is physically impossible, but the Official Story is full of physically impossible things.