Monday, December 23, 2013


More 9/11 TV fakery


  1. If you like Science Fiction, you will enjoy this program.

    1. Please state your specific criticisms.

    2. You were talking about really fancy nuclear bombings everywhere, as if it should be the most realest thing in the world. Like if some terrible exotic metal will explode as soon as some "critical mass" has been reached. This is something that is undemonstrated. It was Science Fiction in 1945, and as far as we know, still some Science Fiction.

    3. El Buggo,

      Belief and agreement that nuclear explosives are real is part of the price of admission to this conversation. If you don't agree that nuclear explosives exist, you can't continue further.

    4. So we have to believe in dogma that is undemonstrated (like where?), and cannot question "the miracles" in the Gospel. Sounds like you are into another religion here.

    5. How do you spot a 9/11 shill? Post under a phony name and deny nukes. El dipshit here even denies nuclear bombs exist at ALL. WOW!!

      While there has been some stiff competition from Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Onebornpaid, Simon Shill etc I'm going to nominate El Buggo for the ADL Shill of the Year 2013. He (or she) has really come on strong here as of late and denying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked makes you a shoe-in for Shill of the Year in my book.

    6. Thanks Don, that was really flattering. Had no idea that I had made such a huge impression on you.

      Technically, I'm not denying that Hiroshima wasn't nuked (that would be very unscientific of me), but are claiming that the evidence for that isn't credible. Same goes for no commercial plane crashes 911. Not claiming that either, but there are absolutely no forensic evidence for any commercial plane crashes that day.

      What could the problem be for you to prove or demonstrate something so obvious that some metal will explode big time as soon as it has reached "critical mass"? Should be a piece of cake for any brilliant Nuclear Demolition Analysts I will assume, provided it happened as the million reports stated. Even "everybody knows", you know.

      The balance of evidence, however, suggest that Hiroshima was firebombed. This can also be confirmed by studying and comparing the footage of the firebombed Tokyo and Yokohama - no material difference has been found.

      Everything you build upon false or incorrect assumptions, may safely be discarded.

      An extraordinary number of Jewish scientists were drawn into the field of nuclear research. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, Szilard, Bohr, Meitner, Szilard et al. I expect at least Ian here will find that suspicious:

      I basically agree with "Cactus" on - read and learn something you too, Don:

  2. TO JIM FETZER: In this interview you AGAIN state: [approx. quote] : " 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."

    [ Fer cryin' out loud], as I have already stated 3 TIMES ALONE in the DON FOX THREAD [!!!!!!]:

    "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. No, what I am looking for is some good reasons to take the hypothesis seriously. I am featuring some guests in an attempt to sort this out and get a handle on why ANYONE would take the idea that all the Twin Tower footage was faked seriously--and I am not finding good reasons for taking it seriously.

    2. Reasons for believing that the Twin Tower collapse footage was CGI:

      1. A debunker website, New Mexicans for Science and Reason, shows the perimeter walls of the Twin Towers being pulled inward, until they buckle under the strain. As they say, "This gradual process is not a feature of any controlled demolition." NMSR is right about that point. How could the perps have arranged for the perimeter columns to bow inward? Answer: Because the image itself is CGI. Here is the link.

      2. We accept that nukes were used to bring down the Towers, so why were there squibs in the footage? These puffs of smoke that are 70 feet below the collapse front? A squib might be part of a conventional demolition, but what role do they play in a nuclear demolition?

      3. Different versions of the collapse are fundamentally irreconcilable. Dimitri Khazelov's version of the WTC has 39 vertical beams, while Etienne Sauret's version has 59 vertical beams. This is unacceptable and both of the images can't be real.

  3. A totally disgraceful show, no one died in the towers?And you call legitimate truthers disinfo agents of the government. If this show was not so pathetic I would have thought I was listening to comedy central. And the other Nubira resident above with his cgi bullshit. This show no longer has any credibility

    1. Be specific and scientific about your criticism, nutsonashow. If there is no furniture, and furniture is more robust than human beings, then how could there be people? How are the found human body parts even allowed? Why is the Falling Man fake CGI? Why are the jumpers fake CGI?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Good point on why there should be no victims in the towers if there wasn't any furniture, provided you can make yourself believe that any of the footage of the rubble is authentic.

      Will you please provide 1 link or more to any authentic image of the rubble pile? Would be extremely interesting.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Frankly Speaking seems to think Fox is a legitimate 911 researcher.

    Frankly speaking, "Frankly Speaking" has to be either deluded, or joking.

    For one thing Fox's revealed agenda is entirely political , _not_ scientific.

    That political agenda basically consists of the necessity to "prove" mini-nukes were used in order to "prove" that Israel "did" 911.

    Real 911 researchers [scientific ones at least] should not get into such unprovable , irrelevant, and purely politically motivated "arguments", as far as I can see.

    WTF does Fox's personal political agenda [ie "Israel dunnit"] have to do with scientific research, and why is Fetzer associating himself with this type of individual and such a blatantly unscientifically based agenda?

    Real researchers also at least make an honest attempt to authenticate all potential evidence [ e.g. videos,photos]_before_ brandishing it/them about as "evidence" of whatever. Fox and associates have made NO such attempt to date for any/all videos/photos they use to "prove" their thesis.

    Likewise, real researchers at least attempt to independently authenticate _all_ claimed eyewitnesses by doing full background checks _before_ using their testimony as unassailable "evidence" of whatever. Neither Fetzer or Fox seem to think it necessary to thoroughly background check _any_ supposed eyewitnesses _before_ using their testimony as "proof" [of whatever].

    Likewise real researchers do not simply regurgitate as unassailable truth the supposed research "findings" of US government agencies such as the DOE , USGS or NIST.

    Fox is a fraud, his " scientific research" is mostly a politically motivated regurgitation of USG agencies alleged "research" , and entirely non-scientific, as is Jim Fetzer's and Frankly Speaking's endorsement of any part of it .

    Regards, obf.

    1. OBF, the pulverization of concrete to dust proves the need for nukes. Here is the article by Joe Vialls which shows that nukes pulverize concrete from 50 feet (or 100 feet).

    2. Don has made many substantial contributions to 9/11. You, however, so far as I have been able to discern, have not. And your attitude about Israeli complicity, which has been well-established, does not enhance your credibility. See, for example,

      "Israel did 9/11--all the proof in the world",

      “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”

      “9/11 Interview with Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran)”

      “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)

    3. You know, I first supported OBF because of his position on September Clues. I also defended him against Don Fox and Ian Greenhaigh. But here, it seems, his position leaves you with nowhere to go at all. He demands checks that are impossible to make. He brings up the issue of Israel's involvement and says that the motives of others are political, rather than just scientific. I mean, the regarding the Dancing Israelis for example, the Jewish Daily Forward acknowledged two of the five Israelis were Mossad.

      So OBF's position doesn't appear to be good faith. I take back my earlier defense of him.

  6. Minute 74:30 Jim Fetzer:"Lenin observed that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Could you please tell me where and when Lenin ever made such an uncharacteristic statement. I've heard Alex Jones make the same attribution and asked him the same question. Did you get it from Alex Jones or one of his Nazis? Or does it come from one of your Nazis, Jim?

    And I've not yet seen or heard a satisfactory refutation of the thesis that it was a large, buried nuclear device. Nor have I seen or heard here an answer to Khalezov's counterarguments for mini-nukes. I believe there are two: (1) it would be difficult to co-ordinate the downward movement so that a cascading series of mini-nukes makes it look like a clean collapse (and most videos actually do give the appearance of a collapse -- downward) and not explosions of debris, or even dust, in all directions, and (2) above-ground mini-nukes would have killed any on-the-scene electronics, including any video cameras and reporters' relay equipment.

    1. Someone should point out to Atlanta Bill that the internet is a useful tool of research. Were I looking for a basis to discredit him, this would be a good example.

      The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.‎

      Lenin — 'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.'

      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Quotes (Author of The State and Revolution)‎

      “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ... “The way to
      crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and ...

    2. These issues have been addressed many times. Here is a sampler:

      “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


    4. Re :"Lenin observed that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

      I like this quote a lot my self, and it has been attributed to Lenin numerous times. But as I understand it, no original source has been provided, so we cannot be sure.

      According to Abraham Lincoln, 28.36% of all quotes on the internet are made up on the spot (also lots of fake statistics out there, btw).

    5. Numerous detractors have tried to credit the saying to Lenin. The Goodreads page you linked to doesn't give any evidence (nor even authority) to substantiate the accreditation. The second citation you linked to doesn't give the source of the quote, either. Could just as well have been Goebbels.

      In the "israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911" you don't attempt to scrutinize Khalezov's thesis but merely mention it as one among many.

      In the "911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii" article, as well as the "mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle" article and the "busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews" article, you misrepresented Khalezov's thesis in saying that he "posits 150kt nukes in the subbasements of all three of the buildings", failing to respect Khalezov's claim that the actual placement of the device was 77 meters below ground level and 50 meters below the floors of the subbasements. I listened again to the Real Deal Khalezov interview you linked to in the "mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911" article and again in the "mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle" article just prior to leaving my December 28 comment; it's there that you give your best countervailing arguments in those particular articles for Khalezov's buried 150-kiloton device.

      I don't think you understood Khalezov's point about the 350-meter upward travel of the pulverized material followed by the 300-meter upward travel of the crushed material. Taking the case of the North Tower as the prime example, the upward propagation of the microscopic dust would have pulverized the internal structure of the building to that 350-meter height, then the crushed aggregate that followed it upward (and the undamaged upper 10± floors) would have fallen unopposed to the ground. The videos showing this downward collapse, and not the photographs showing the building being blown apart in all directions, account for the overwhelming bulk of the photographic evidence (which, admittedly, is also subject to scrutiny and the charge of having been faked). The videos and photographs showing enormous jettisoning of dust in a downward elliptical direction bolster Khalezov's thesis, not Chuck Boldwyn's; but this is not "the building being blown apart in all directions".

    6. In the "busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews" article, you refer to the Storax Sedan nuclear test as counter-evidence, while ignoring the fact that that test was done in desert sand, while the towers were built on (extremely hard) igneous granite. Khalezov's thesis requires the counter-force of the entombment of the nuclear detonation to account for the notion that the direction of least resistance was straight upward. It was a propagation in that direction and then straight downward at free fall, and not a "blowing apart in every direction" as you often state when you want to draw a distinction to Building 7.

      In every instance in which you think you have certain proof that a buried 150-kiloton device couldn't have acounted for the evidence, Jim, you always cite the controlled demolition of Building 7. I have to admit that I myself am puzzled by the absence of a fiery conflagration as we see at the level where the "plane" supposedly struck the North Tower just before the collapse, although this is not one of your own points. According to Khalezov the upward-propagated debris could have reached the full height of Building 7. Obviously, for a buried device to have gone that far, but no further, it would have had to be of a different design. As for a controlled demolition being what took out Building 7, you have to take account of Danny Jawenko's puzzlement when he learned that fires were burning inside the building for several hours before it came down -- seen here after minute 02:15 in this video. How could the perpetrators be sure that the fires wouldn't trigger the charges prematurely or at least disrupt the triggering mechanism? The 12% debris pile could be explained if an underground device had been set to produce an upward propagation that fell far short of the building top.

      I'm not prepared to say that all of the "toasted cars" were faked, but some good cases have been made for that. It's interesting that Judy Wood is so careful to avoid misleading terminology, yet uses a term that implies high heat when talking about the "toasted cars". Some defenders of the Khalezov thesis explain the "toasted cars" by the horizontal propagation of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP); but that conflicts with the notion that above-ground mini-nukes should be excluded because such an EMP would have rendered electronic equipment inoperable.

    7. I call it a "thesis" because it's neither a simple "hypothesis", since it brings a lot of evidence to bear and has some internal consistency, nor a "theory", since it purports to be based on the factual report of a military dossier to which Khalezov says he was privy. Khalezov's thesis can account for the videos purportedly showing downward collapse of the buildings, which the perpetrators would favor over one demonstrating a "blowing out in all directions". And, by the way, the few horizontally ejected pieces could be explained by the collision with a few large upward-moving pieces of the aggregate. Khalezov cites evidence that the "bathtub" was breached (reports of flooding), but I believe he was referring specifically to the bottom of the bathtub. A clean vertical propagation of the aggregate would avoid any damage to the bathtub walls. He may have made some errors in reporting the evidence he claims to have witnessed while a member of the 12th Chief Guards Division of the USSR; however, he's careful to separate the conjectures he makes that seem to fit that evidence but for which he has no direct evidence. I believe that it's the most economical thesis of any to date; and it has a central role for the Mossad, but one that fits my belief that the Israeli leadership couldn't have pulled it off without either full Pentagon complicity or a careful subterfuge that brought them in -- either engineered by themselves alone or as part of a transnational conspiracy (as in the JFK assassination). This video has a good summary of the visual evidence. I hope I've addressed all your points, Dr Fetzer.

  7. Frankly Speaking said : "OBF, the pulverization of concrete to dust proves the need for nukes. Here is the article by Joe Vialls which shows that nukes pulverize concrete from 50 feet (or 100 feet). "

    How can an article possibly "prove" that nukes [of any description] were used anywhere at the WTC?

    How do you know that concrete was pulverized in the manner assumed?

    On what evidence?

    Are you claiming that you have photos/videos that "prove" the use of mini-nukes, or do you have in mind alleged eye-witness testimony, or are you claiming that USG agencies are to be relied on?

    Any/all photos/videos that might be used by a scientifically based investigator as examples of claimed mini-nukes on 911 must _first_ be proven to be authentic evidence via various tests.

    Fo a real scientist, all alleged eyewitnesses must be thoroughly background checked prior to their testimony being used as evidence of anything.

    If such background checks are cost prohibitive,[too expensive] then obviously that type of testimony cannot be used as confirmatory evidence of _anything_. [by a real scientist , at least].

    For a real [independent] scientist US government agencies claimed research would have to be somehow independently verified _before_ it can ever be trusted as genuine evidence.

    It can never be just swallowed, "hook, line and sinker", then spewed back out as "irrefutable" evidence of anything.[As Fox and Fetzer continue to insist.]

    Fox. Fetzer etc. [yourself?] have attempted NONE of these vital validation steps but have instead leapt straight to their wholly non-scientifically derived "irrefutable" conclusions based on the most outrageously non scientific assumptions, assumptions that should never even have been made in the first place.

    And all apparently in the name of a equally none-scientific goal; that is, a 100% POLITICAL goal.

    Since when does politics have anything to do with the scientific method? .

    Regards obf.

    1. The completely unscientific attitude of obf manifests itself here again in his apparent ignorance of some of the most important evidence of the use of nukes at the WTC, none of which depends on the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers but which indirectly confirms what they show.

      In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″, for example, Jeff Prager observes

      (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11;

      (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place;

      (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders;

      (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and

      (5) that, as of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers. The elements that have been found in these dust samples provide an astonishing array of proof of nukes:

      Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.

      Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

      Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

      Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

      Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

      Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

      Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

    2. Thats all bull. look up on Wikipedia or usgs and all those minerals were found in their normal concentrations in soil. Take into account all the pulverized concrete, computer monitors and furniture and there is nothing there. The higher levels of tritium can be explained by the exit lights

    3. Wikipedia also reports that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Zapruder film! I am a bit taken aback by the naivete displayed by nutsonashow, who sound a lot like Judy Wood, who has shown reckless disregard for truth, civility and human decency.

  8. Atlanta Bill said :" And I've not yet seen or heard a satisfactory refutation of the thesis that it was a large, buried nuclear device. Nor have I seen or heard here an answer to Khalezov's counterarguments for mini-nukes."

    Despite the fact that its irrelevant in the big picture exactly which demolition technology was employed on 911 [ Its merely a controlled opp. tactic to keep us all endlessly going around in circles arguing, while deflecting our attention away from the otherwise "in our face" evidence that the media broadcast entirely faked imagery "live" on 911] , Khalezov, no differently from Fox, Fetzer et al, is largely basing his conclusions on entirely unverified photographic and video "evidence".

    For example in his 09/0213 article at Veterans Today:

    I pointed out [09/06/13 comment] that the photos of "toasted cars" he was using as confirmatory "evidence" for his "maxi" nuke theory in his article were obvious victims of photoshop, rather than victims of a nuclear blast, as can be clearly seen in the heavy pixellation patterns in photos posted with his article.

    He never replied to me after that post of mine :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Big nukes beneath the buildings would have destroyed them from the bottom up, whereas the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down.

      The hypothesis that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed the same way is refuted by the differences between their modes of demolition, where WTC-7 appears to have been a classic controlled demolition.

      All the floors are falling at the same time and there is a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the height of the original. The floors of the Twin Towers, however, remain stationary while the buildings are destroyed from the top down and, when it is over, there are no stacks of debris.

      The Twin Towers are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which remained suspended in air until it settled onto the streets of the city or was blown out to sea.

      The necessity for this novel mode of demolition appears to have been to preserve the bathtub, which protected lower Manhattan from Hudson River water. I have explained this many places. See, for example,

      “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”

  9. Jim Fetzer said:

    "The completely unscientific attitude of obf manifests itself here again in his apparent ignorance of some of the most important evidence of the use of nukes at the WTC, none of which depends on the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers but which indirectly confirms what they show."

    No, Mr Fetzer.

    What is "completely unscientific" is the supposed verification of one form of alleged "evidence" [ entirely unauthenticated videos/photos ] via another form of entirely unauthenticated alleged " evidence" , which, in your mind is the supposedly unassailable "proof" contained in various USG agency reports.

    Fox/Prager/Ward's " 911 research" consists of nothing more than the blind, parroted regurgitation of official USG [NIST DOE + USGS] "truth", tarted up with some 100% fake [ie CGI] 911 " evidence of mini-nuke destruction" videos and photos, and also via the extra "layer" on the Fox/ Fetzer "911 cake", that is, a convenient political agenda [ i.e. mini-nukes "proves" Israel dunnit] .

    Politics masquerading as scientific research, nothing more, nothing less.

    You disappoint me, my friend :-)

    Regards obf.

    1. What do Steve Jones, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, OBP, Simon Shill, NIST and Bazant all have in common?

      That's right they all deny nukes were used on 9/11. They all have different spiels to get you there but they all get you to the same place: no nukes on 9/11 and damn sure Israel wasn't involved in 9/11.

      In the case of OBP and Simon Shill they claim nobody died, everything was faked and it's all the US government and CNN's fault. No need to place blame anywhere else.

      In reality people died in the Towers on 9/11, a few lucky people even survived in stairwell B of the North Tower. The only people arrested on 9/11 were the Dancing Israeli's. They were spot in several locales whooping it up and high fiving each other. Yes watching all of the Goyim die was good entertainment for those Mossad operatives.

      OBP and Simon Shill are just here to cover that Jew ass. That's who they work for - the ADL.

    2. You can add the three Jewish kids behind 'Loose Change' and Alex Jones to that list Don.

      It's very simple to make a very strong case that Zionists and the Mossad were behind 9/11, just look at who the key figures were:

      Larry Silverstein & Frank Lowy - owned the WTC

      Dov Zakheim - Pentagon Comptroller responsible for 2.3 trillion dollars going missing

      Yaron Shmuel, Omer Marmari, Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, and Oded Ellner - the five Mossad agents caught with a van full of explosive residue and box cutters.

      Philip Zelikow - Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission that produced the laughably transparent 9/11 Report replete with impossibilities

      Kenneth Feinberg - the lawyer appointed to hush up all the victim's families by paying out billions in compensation in return for waiving their rights to legal investigation

      Alvin K Hellerstein and Michael Mukasey -federal judges who stonewalled all attempts at legal action by victim's families

      Sheila Birnbaum - lawyer who worked for Hellerstein and forced families to accept compensation rather than pursue justice through the courts

      Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon - Israeli owners of ICTS airport security company

      Joseph Hellerstein - son of Alvin and lawyer for ICTS

      Michael Chertoff - oversaw the fraudulent 'investigation' into 9/11

      Benjamin Chertoff - Michael's cousin, penned the notorious Popular Mechanics article 'Debunking 9/11 Lies'

      Burton Fried - owner of LVI services, the leading demolition company that carried out 'asbestos abatement' work in the twin towers in the months before 9/11

      Lewis Eisenberg - Port Authority chariman who personally negotiated the sale of the WTC to Silverstein & Lowy

      Maurice Greenberg - made a fortune in a put options scam on American Airlines and United Airlines stock

      Michael Bloomberg - mayor of NYC, covered up Greenberg's stock scams and warded clean up duties to fellow Zionist jew, Alan Ratner and his Metal Management company

      Alan Ratner - made huge profits on the sale of the debris from the WTC to China

      Yoram Shalmon - owner of PowerLoc Industries, subcontracted by Alan Ratner to carry out the debris removal

      Jules and Jeremy Kroll - owners of Kroll Inc, the company responsible for the security of the WTC

      Every single one of those listed is a Jew and a Zionist, some are Israelis, the others are joint US-Israeli citizens.

      When every single significant person involved in 9/11 is a Zionist Jew with ties to both Israel and the Mossad it's pretty clear - 9/11 was an Israeli/Mossad operation.

      Of couse, obf will bang on more about video fakery and other pointless pedantic bullshit, which just proves he's another of these scummy shills who are employed by the Zionists to distract people from their terrible crime.

    3. Don,

      OBF, I have now realized, is not helping matters. Simon Shack, however, has a lot more of a contribution to make. Please go through the 2nd show and make specific comments. I will be back for a 3rd or more time to finish up the Soft Evidence.

      I will say right here that Simon Shack, on the issue of Zero Casualties, equivocates his position. He says *probably* and *possibly* Zero Casualties. I agree with Simon's equivocation.

      There is abundant evidence for an *intent* for Zero Casualties, in the form of falsification of video with CGI, phony identities, etc. AT THE BOTTOM LINE, were there Zero Casualties? It's impossible to know. If there were truthful casualties intermixed with all of the fakery, you would have to root them out, which is an enormous task and you would have to know where to look. So there is overall intent for Zero Casualties but still a possibility that truthful casualties are intermixed with all of the fakery.

    4. You list a bunch of actors and agents for the 911 operation management there. But they are not so important players. They are just requited for this particular operation and could easily have been substituted by some other members of the tribe, etc.

      They still have their really important Weapons of Mass Deception, that is critical for ALL these operations. Without their total control on the media and the news networks, they couldn't even have launched one of these operations.

      And as you also maybe understand, the gang or tribe who control the news networks, also have total control on the election process, and will always get their controllable puppet in the White House. Then, they can get their agents in wherever they need in the Gov. Need to fake some Gov lab reports? Their agents in the White House will help them with that if required, etc.

    5. Je suis en accord avec Ian Greenhalgh.

    6. The insistence to blame everything on "duh chews" is proof to me that the 9/11 perpetrators and those who are covering for them are part of a Nazi cabal, which can, of course, include the Nazi leadership of the State of Israel and their comrades in high places in the U.S. and Europe.

  10. Jim Fetzer said: "No, what I am looking for is some good reasons to take the hypothesis seriously. I am featuring some guests in an attempt to sort this out and get a handle on why ANYONE would take the idea that all the Twin Tower footage was faked seriously--and I am not finding good reasons for taking it seriously."

    You only need ONE _very_ good reason, Mr Fetzer, and I have provided it to you countless times to date.

    That reason is: your own [claimed] methodology.

    The scientific method requires you to at least try to make an honest attempt at authentication of any/all imagery BEFORE it can be relied on as genuine evidence.

    You can either start to :

    1] consistently employ your own alleged methodology

    or , you can

    [2] continue to waffle and dream up/invent ever more entertaining excuses as to why you [or the "scientists" you endorse] should never have to take this methodologically vital step.

    Of the two options available to you, my money's on [2], and besides, your continual "pretzel logic" and denial of the scientific method makes for hilarious reading.

    Keep up the good work!

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

    Regards, obf.

    1. The videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers hang together in a coherent whole, no matter where they were taken. There is no good reason to doubt it. If and when obf produces a good reason, it would become a question deserving consideration.

      It is always the case, for any scientific inquiry, that there is some base of evidence taken to be authentic, which could include temperature reading, speed calculations or other outcomes of experiments, observations or measurements.

      If their results yield outcomes that cohere the right way (hang together consistently), there is no reason to question them. That is the case here. If there were reasons to question them, that would be appropriate, But there are not.

  11. Les farfelus sont en vigueur aujourd'hui

  12. Frank this was a very good show - never mind the trolls.

    Frankly Speaking makes a lot of great points about HOW the buildings were destroyed. However I think that in fact several thousand people DID die at Ground Zero. There are reports of human remains being found all over the WTC area. Many reports of relatives getting a foot or a shin back sometimes even years later.

    They intentionally wanted to kill a few thousand people but not say 10,000. They wanted a New Perl Harbor and they got one. For instance the South Tower came down right after the fire captain said he could knock out the puny fires with two hoses. The police and fire departments encountered people in the buildings some were already dead but most appeared to be alive and trying to escape. The Survivors of Stairwell B are a prime example.

    Why were there demo squibs going down the side of the Towers? They used conventional explosives on the outer parts of the Towers. In the case of the South Tower they timed the explosives to go off so that the top section would tilt then rotate before it was vaporized by nukes.

    The mini-nukes were used to take out the core columns and the blast was directed up. This kept the fireball from becoming visible to the outside world. It's entirely conceivable that some people on the outer parts of the Towers were blown to bits. Those that were near the center were probably completely vaporized.

    They were able to identify parts of more than 1,600 people found at Ground Zero. That means more than 1,000 people were probably completely vaporized by nukes.

    I'm going through the whole 80 page VICSIM by hoi.pilloi now. Needless to say I think it's a complete load of bullshit. I'll have more on this shortly.

    1. Don, Thanks for this.

      Before going through the whole VICSIM report, start by looking at simple examples like Elizabeth Wainio (why are there bottles behind her in one photo, and not in another? Why is her facial expression exactly, precisely alike?) .

      Here is Louis Mariani (aka Luis Mariano). Do you see how similar they look?

      Also: Since you are a no-planer, you know for certain that CeeCee Lyles (flight attendant) is in fact a sim-person. You can see the joke in her name: CeeCee Lyles = See, See, Lie.

      Now that we get the joke, what about CeeCee Aada, who supposedly died in the Towers. CeeCee is still "See, See", but Aada is the American Academy of Dramatic Arts (

    2. Watch this primer on the victims part of the story, before you dig too deep into the VicSim Report:

      DID 3000 PEOPLE REALLY DIE ON 9-11 ??

    3. Don, I endorse El Buggo's video as a primer.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Frankly speaking said :"He brings up the issue of Israel's involvement and says that the motives of others are political, rather than just scientific. I mean, the regarding the Dancing Israelis for example, the Jewish Daily Forward acknowledged two of the five Israelis were Mossad. "

    Yeah, right- the same media that has told you all those 911 lies somehow told you the truth about "dancing Israelis" etc. etc., blah blah, blah, yadda, yadda , yadda...

    This is comparable to: [paraphrased] "....the USG has lied to us all about every aspect of 911 since that day and yet the DOE and USGS are telling the truth".

    And pigs may fly. :-)

    Your naivete/gullibility appears boundless.

    But lets ,for the sake of argument, assume you and Fetzer/Fox et al are right- that Israel did 911 , and that they used mini-nukes to accomplish that- WTF difference would THAT make? :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Isn't the whole point of researching 9/11 to determine WHO did it and HOW they did it? If you don't care who did it and how it was done then why are you here in the first place?

      And as far as gullibility is concerned we're not the ones espousing views like nukes don't exist, rocket propulsion doesn't exist etc.

  15. L'une des meilleures explications du cratère de Shanksville :

  16. Voici une vidéo très intéressante expliquant l'idée d'aucun avion :

  17. To repeat what I had said in the Fox interview thread:

    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 the Fetzer/Fox [and possibly this Fetzer /Frankly Speaking broadcast thread too ].

    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.

    So all of you are welcome to call in and call me an ADL shill, jew-lover or whatever the hell else it is you know with absolute certainty that I am :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. OBF,

      I caught some of your show with the Fakeologist. A few points here:

      1. I am not a scientist and I have never been in the military or worked for the intelligence community. I'm an IT guy and I have a Bachelor's degree in Information Technology. I work 40 hours a week. I'm a regular working guy. Christopher Bollyn has done a full background check on me so if you doubt this you can ask him.

      2. I don't get paid at all for going on Fetzer's show or writing articles on Veterans Today. I don't sell anything.

      3. I enjoy pulling your chain because I think you and the rest of September Clueless are totally full of shit.

    2. Don,

      Taking a position that Simon Shack and September Clues is 100% false is not a respectable position. There is too much irrefutable evidence, such as the Falling Man, or the planes hitting the Towers, which are irrefutably CGI. So denying it makes you a "CGI denier". You have called others "nuke-deniers", which, I agree with you, is not respectable. But you are being a CGI denier, which is also not respectable.

      I think that the way to go is to go through the September Clues evidence and evaluate what you agree with and what you dont agree with, and integrate that with your own theory.

    3. Frank if you haven't listened to that show OBF and Simon Shack did Saturday you need to do that ASAP. Simon doesn't believe that rocket propulsion exists and neither do communication and spy satellites. One guy called in and he was a flat earther. Simon DID say the the earth is a sphere. But he doesn't do much to dissuade the flat earth folks out there.

      September Clues is the 9/11 equivalent to the Flat Earth Society.

      I don't deny CGI. I just don't believe ANYTHING September Clues says. Bill O'Reilly has more credibility in my book than September Clueless.

    4. There's so much to say here. I don't endorse his views on anything outside 9/11. I dont agree at all with what he said on Fakeologist. But if you cut off 100% of what he says about 9/11, youre cutting off a big avenue to the Truth. The best way to go is to look at September Clues about 9/11 and independently verify everything.

    5. I don't think the use of GCI and the fakery of videos and images is very relevant, to be honest. I think it is enough to accept that various forms of fakery were used in both the videos and photos and then move on to more important aspects.

      The blasting apart in a few seconds of two half million tonne concrete and steel structures leaving smoking holes in the ground actually happened, no same person can deny that. Figuring out how this was done is important. Figuring out why it was done is even more important. By comparison, analysing videos and images is of very little importance.

      Let me use JFK as a comparison metaphor. Figuring out that they drove him into a crossfire was important, that was the how of the matter. Figuring out the why, the who wanted him in that crossfire is even more important. By comparison to those two, studying Altgens 6 to prove LHO was in the doorway is of very little importance.We know LHO was the patsy so let's just accept that and focus on who did it, how they did it and why. We know video and image fakery was used on 9/11 so let's just accept that and focus on who did it, how they did it and why.

      Videos and photos are not key to 9/11 research, they are a minor subset of the whole and we shouldn't devote too much time and energy to them. They can provide some valuable clues, same as Altgens 6 and the LHO backyard photo provided some valuable clues, but they can give us the important answers.

      Uncovering the fakery of Zapruder was important but didn't lead in any way to revealing answers about the really important stuff, the who, how and why. Figuring out the fakery of the Hezarkhani, Fairbanks and Naudet videos was important, but isn't going to lead us to revelation of any of the important stuff either.

    6. Ian,

      Understanding the fakery of the jumpers is of central importance. Once you discover it, it is essentially an open admission by the perps that all is not well with the people inside the WTC building. Simon Shack has good reason to come to his Zero Casualty conclusion. There might be modifications to allow genuine casualties, but as a starting point for a thesis, the September Clues hypothesis is sound.

  18. Théorie des projectiles multiple pour la tour Nord :

  19. Un écran de fumée de qualité militaire cache le Pentagone :

  20. I was just listening again to the Don Fox and Jim Fetzer podcast of Wednesday, December 18, 2013.

    I am wondering how Jim can accept a totally staged event with no victims, no parents, no shootings, no blood, no photographs of the crime scene, the bodies of the children not taken to hospitals, etc.

    Why is it when you apply that same concept of forgery and evidence that doesn't make sense to 9/11, he is shocked and must explain obviously forged videos of planes doing physically impossible maneuvers by the use of holograms to satisfy "witness" testimony?

    I am late to the party here and have been wondering when Jim Fetzer accepted the no planes theory of 9/11.(For those who told me to look it up, I tried but with no success.)


    Police release full Newtown massacre report, with photos and video - Investigations

    A massive new report from the Connecticut State Police released online Friday reveals new details about the Dec. 14, 2012 mass shooting that took 26 lives at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

    The 11,000-plus page report includes investigative files, 911 call transcripts, crime scene reports and thousands of photos, among them images of the aftermath of the shooting that show weapons, bloodstains, and bullet-riddled hallways, and the clothes shooter Adam Lanza wore.......

    State law prevents the release of crime scene photos that show the bodies of the victims.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. Jim,

    Have you considered that all these attacks from these "Everything is Fake" people is due to your stance on the Holocaust? Sandy Hook? or some other sacred cow?
    Everything is fake so let's just stop looking into this, right?
    Pure obfuscation.
    Don't let them knock you off course. I, for one, really enjoy your objectivity AND your civility....

    Who wants pie?

    1. Nobody claims at everything is fake. Who is that? I have never ran into anyone like that.

      However, there is a limit to what you can figure out by analyzing Hollywood horror movies on "live" news.

  24. HMMMM,
    I agree with you that the position that "Everything is Fake" is WRONG. Instead, each fake or distorted event must be proven individually, and that the baseline is that things are real until proven false.

    1. Well, if you present a claim, you have the duty to prove you claim. I can't prove that your claim is wrong. I can only point out that YOUR evidence isn't credible.

      Example on a unacceptable demand:

      "Prove that bin Laden isn't held captive on the South Pole Base".

  25. why else almost immediately have labelled the damaged wtc area GROUND ZERO (a term previously and solely attached or related to the epicentre of nuclear explosions) unless those responsible for the 9/11 operation wanted nuclear weaponry to be invoked and included into some 'crazy' conspiracy later on down the line? (same goes for the obvious jews ' to the front and centre' positioning at every turn within the conspiracy narrative). we are being said and lead here, and it is clear as day. the whole demolition was probably and almost certainly completely legally covered and carried out, and contaminating lower new York with the fallout from mini-nukes/suitcase nukes/matchbox nukes (should they even exist) would absolutely be completely out of the question. khalezov and judy wood are agents of deception, both of whose works do an excellent job of accounting for the visuals, those self same visuals that were crafted well in advance of 9/11 itself.
    there is one big tell here on this and other threads. team fetzer/fox/geenhaigh/frankly speaking/Atlanta bill will resist complete fakery to varying degrees but if and when fakery is accepted and admitted, then it is as long as it is accompanied by nuclear demolitions. nice controlled compromise, which still only and ever leads to more lies and deception, all seemingly with the aim of protecting the extremely lucrative and long running nuclear weaponry myth. khalezov contends that mini or suitcase nukes were responsible for destroying a U.S. forces barracks in Beirut in 1983 and killing 241, and again with deep suspicion falling on Israeli/mossad shoulders. I am willing to bet that this is just another faked/staged event with no real deaths. it sure reads like it... are we starting to see yet? it's all a set up. we have Israel/rogue and psychopathic newly found state/nuclear weapons/dual citizens in prominent government and control positions/9/11! how many of these little beauties do you keep telling us Israel has again jim? and isn't it just dandy how jfk was 'knocked off' shortly after he began 'confronting' Israel regarding their illegal activities regarding the production of certain nuclear weapons? it is all one long running and well thought out and interconnected psy-op with Israel probably 'patsified' from the get-go and created to be incriminated and destroyed, most likely about any time now...meanwhile the real Machiavellian powers behind it all sail on into the sunset, unwaivering and untarnished. cushty.

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up.

    1. There isn't any GROUND ZERO in Hiroshima, even if these eminent Nuclear Demolition Analysts claim so. At least, they cannot point out any. Imagine that!

      Nice post, pshea. Hard to read though.

    2. El Buggo,

      1. Is the Earth round or flat?
      2. Can rockets travel into space?
      3. Do man made satellites orbit the Earth?
      4. Do nuclear weapons exist?

  26. Joan Edwards said: "Why is it when you apply that same concept of forgery and evidence that doesn't make sense to 9/11, he is shocked and must explain obviously forged videos of planes doing physically impossible maneuvers by the use of holograms to satisfy "witness" testimony?"

    If you boil it all down to the essential thinking processes involved , Joan [Fetzer would claim this is "logical"], what he's doing is "validating" one type of entirely unverified "evidence" [ie videos of planes disappearing whole, inside buildings] with another type of entirely unverified [i.e no background check] , so called "eyewitness testimony".

    The classic example of this is the Scott Forbes interview he did.

    The lack of logic/critical thinking displayed in that particular example [and others too], simply boggles the mind :-)

    Regards, obf.

  27. Here is a clip from RT back in 2010. Manny Badillo from WeAreChange alleges his uncle died on 9/11.

    Here is a clip of Bob McIlvaine discussing his son's death on 911.

    Why can't we track these people down and determine if their relatives actually died in the WTC destruction?

    1. Here is an apparent confrontation between someone named SaiGirl and the family of Elizabeth Wainio.

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

    Disappointingly, none of the "obf's an ADL shill/Jew lover" crowd called in. Oh well, c'est la vie :-)

    The radio show episode is archived here:

    Regards, obf.

    1. It's quite simple, no-one's interested in your BS or wasting their time talking to you.

      As I said before, attention is the oxygen you crave and the best way is to just ignore you because you've got nothing valuable to contribute whatsoever and are nothing more than an agent of disinfo and BS,

  29. Regarding the imagery Fetzer will not watch;

    I would like to see Simon Shack do some more graphic and verbal elaboration on the vicsims concept and the imagery from 911.

    There were 10 videos of Fetzer interviewing Dmitri Khalezov on mini-nukes who also appeared here which is a better interview IMO. The question is why would they use nuclear? Only reason would be that it is the only method to demolish steel as the WTC towers are almost all made of steel--very unusual. Khalezov doesn't tell us how and when the nukes were installed. Was the WTC designed with built-in demolition as was discussed by the son of WTC engineer, Howard Lewis, on earlier podcast.

    Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers\

    by Dimitri A. Khalezov
    October 2009 from Nuclear-Demolition Website


    Ep82:OBF on the Fetzer thread |

    Hey, Fakeologist! Good show with OBF. He's been on Fetzer's show three times and just when he is about to make his point about the extent of fakery on 9/11,etc.,he's been cut off, leaving us in suspense with a promise of having him back.

    Question from Rollo: Is Fetzer truly trying to get to the truth of 9/11? Guests are shouted down by Fetzer, so people like Shack are not inclined to be guests. Can you blame him? He even attacks posters if they disagree with him.

    OBF enjoys the debate and so do I. I've been posting on 9/11 since it happened and was probably the first "no planer." The venues for discussion have been disappearing and I've been happy to find a place where kindred spirits get together in friendly argument. It's great when we can discipline ourselves in civil discourse.

    BTW, I never toss out my credentials except where they apply. If one has a background in architectural rendering, which has to do with images in perspective, one knows there are rules in the visual world. When perspective is off in an image, you can prove it's a fake. (I wish someone would do a perspective study on the LHO backyard photo to show that is a composite because shadows follow the same visual laws as perspective.)

    What a treat to hear Simon Shack. I've heard so much about him. People are afraid of him. I've been warned on some message boards when I've tried to discuss his theories, that I am flirting with danger, etc. Simon sounds like a very likeable person, and he's correct that Fetzer is doing a lot of ad hominem attacks, but it is fun.

    1. Thanks Joan.

      Come on our open air chats anytime.

      We don't tend to attack the many victims of disinformation.

    2. Shack was hysterical on that show. All of that business about rocket propulsion and satellites not existing, that nuclear weapons don't exist etc was funny as hell. You could hear Simon had a hard time keeping a straight face for most of it. I was laughing my ass off. I'll try and catch the show on a regular basis now. You guys are a wealth of material!!

  31. Joan Edwards said: "When perspective is off in an image, you can prove it's a fake. (I wish someone would do a perspective study on the LHO backyard photo to show that is a composite because shadows follow the same visual laws as perspective.)"

    What is "the LHO backyard photo "?

    Whatever it is, Joan, it seems you have the eye and the necessary expertise to at least do an initial broad analysis to demonstrate what you are seeing- how about it?

    Regards, obf.

    1. She's referring the backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald that were used to try to convince the public that Oswald shot Kennedy.

    2. Those photos have been analysed long ago, it is a simple case of cut n paste - they stuck Lee's face on someone else's body.

    3. Jim Marrs and I did a study of the backyard photographs, "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

  33. Frankly speaking said : "....the baseline is that things are real until proven false."

    That's right Frank [and Fetzer et al] - fergit centuries old legal principles such as "false in one, false in all" ["falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus:] , instead, everything is somehow "real" until proven false :-) :-) :-) :-) .

    Regards, obf.

  34. obf is applying a legal precept about the testimony of a witness who offers false reports with video imaging, where it could be as simple as someone after-the-fact faking a few videos and then arguing, "fake in one, fake in all"!

    Ian has observed that he has repeatedly emphasized two points in his recent interviews, namely: the USGS data and the notion of nukes having been used. But he offers no reason at all to doubt the USGS data.

    And his denial of nukes having been used is even more bizarre, since he claims all the footage is faked and we cannot possibly know. If he can't know, then he can't know that nukes were not used.

    Combined with his denial that there are nuclear weapons in the world, I conclude that his ignorance of the nature of science is compounded by his ignorance of science and technology. Unreal!

    1. It is unreal Jim. I surmise that what OBF, imafakeologist, Shack et all attack the most fervently is a good indicator of where the truth actually lies. My logic for this is that they are disinfo agents and their goal is to obfuscate the truth, so their targets for obfuscation are likely where the truth lies.

      They attack the USGS data, they attack the use of nukes, they attack the involvement of Israel. Therefore, it is a clear indicator that those three are sensitive. After all, why would they throw up their cloud of obfuscation around those points if there is nothing there to be hidden and distracted from?

      The way they have singled us out for extensive attacks just tells me that we are on the right track with our research.

    2. Ian, I am having a hard time finding reasons to disagree with you. Attacking others as perps when you are the perp is a classic tactic of disinformation.

      Not only is there no good reason to discount the USGS dust studies, but they provide the most powerful proof that the government's own account of 9/11 is false and that it was done with mini or micro nukes.

      And for him to insist IT WAS NOT DONE WITH NUKES when he maintains that all the videos are fake is beyond belief: HOW CAN HE POSSIBLY KNOW? Were he consistent he would deny that we can know.

      But of course that denial is contradicted by the before and after (now the towers are there, now they are not) and the production of millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.

      I guess obf, Simon Shack and others are just grouping around trying to guess where that enormous quantity of dust came from--or perhaps they want to claim that all the later footage is fake, too?

      Someone who denies the existence of nukes is obviously cognitively impaired or grossly ignorant. The atomic bomb was the greatest military development of the 20th C. We might all wish they were not real, but denial in this case indicates something is terribly wrong.

    3. Yes Jim, I am in full agreement with you and all those points.

      I try to break complex situations like the destruction of the towers down into the most basic logical terms. We have a situation where, in the case of tower 2, the fires burnt for 56 minutes and then, in around 10 seconds, give or take, half a million tonnes of concrete and steel is blasted apart and roughly half of that material is turned to dust. There is a tiny pile of rubble and a smoking hole in the ground left.

      What happened? Well, just consider how much energy is required to dustify that much concrete and steel. It's a vast, tremendous amount of energy. Where could that energy come from? I don't believe in directed energy beam weapons or other sci-fi nonsense, I look at what we know exists, and to get that amount of energy, you need a nuclear weapon. Thermite, dynamite, whatever conventional explosive, just can't produce the amount of energy required. I do think some conventional explosives were used, William Rodriguez reports explosions, as do others, I suspect those explosions were to destroy key parts of the infrastructure. I suspect one of the explosions that Rodriguez heard was to destroy the water tanks for the sprinkler system, otherwise the sprinklers may well have put out the two small fires that we know were there.

      Shack et al bang on about fake videos and fake images, well, I think that all these theories about video fakery are pedantic at best, what is real and what is fake when it comes to the videos and photos is not relevant, we can merely accept that there was fakery of both and move on to the more important aspects, but Shack et al insist that the video fakery is the heart of the matter.

      The real heart of the matter is that two half million tonne concrete and steel structures were blasted apart in mere seconds with approximately half being dustified.That's not fake, no sane person can claim otherwise, the towers stood there one minute and the next we had two smoking holes in the ground and a colossal dust cloud covering Manhattan. Figuring out how that happened is the key thing, analysing videos and photos is so far down the list in importance terms, it is in the realms of the irrelevant and pedantic.

      Personally, I don't like to use my time or energies in engaging and debating Shack et al, I feel that the reason why they exist is to cause serious researchers and critical thinkers who seek answers to dissipate their efforts and waste their time in pointless, pedantic invalid 'analysis' of videos and photos.

      If we spend more than the bare minimum of time and effort on refuting Shack et al then we are letting them succeed in their nefarious game.

      This nonsense about nuclear weapons not existing is just a blind alley they want to steer us down as another way of wasting out time and energies. The more time they can make us spend countering their BS, the less time we have t devote to serious research that might lead to answers they don't want us to have.

    4. Clare made so many excellent and subtle points last night that I want to give her credit for doing a more perceptive analysis that Don or Ian or I along the following lines:

      (1) SS, in particular, has found some real instances of film fakery;

      (2) he apparently does not believe that the towers were converted to dust;

      (3) he therefore infers that the videos of the towers turning to dust are also fabrications.

      I have explained why I think this is too much because there are so many videos from so many directions and perspectives, which are mutually consistent and hang-together.

      That gives us reason to believe that they are authentic, which yields visual data that has to be explained by an adequate theory of how it was done.

      Given the USGS dust studies and the data on cancers for first responders, the mini or micro nuke theory appears to provide the best explanation available at this time.

      No empirical knowledge is ever "absolutely certain" and we are not taking these videos as proof that the Twin Towers were nuked, which is a distortion of our position.

      They, like the dust samples and the cancers among first responders, are data (evidence) that an adequate theory must explain, which mini and micro nuke theory appears to do.

      The claim that obf has made--that we take these videos to be "definitive proof" of nukes is therefore not only false but an unwarranted distortion of our position. But if he believes it then that may explain some of his strange claims about these things.

      He does not even believe in nukes. But that does not justify misrepresenting our views in relation to hypotheses and evidence. We are looking for the best explanation of the data, which mini/micro nukes appears to provide.

    5. There are many sources of information about the Twin Towers. Here are some of them:

      (1) They were standing, then they were gone.

      (2) It happened in a very brief period of time.

      (3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.

      (4) They were destroyed below ground level.

      (5) We have the so-called "toasted cars"

      (6) And massive parts blown great distances

      (7) There were videos and there were photos.

      (8) There were many witnesses observing.

      (9) We have cancer rates among responders.

      (10) We have USGS dust samples and more.

      There are various alternative possibilities:

      (h1) natural causes (earthquake, tornado,...)

      (h2) collapse due to plane crashes and fires.

      (h3) classic controlled demolitions (a pair).

      (h4) non-conventional mode of destruction;

      (h4a) lasers, masers or plasmoids;

      (h4b) directed energy weaponry;

      (h4c) nukes (large/small/micro/mini/)

      So far the evidence most strongly supports (h4c), which we have explained repeatedly.

      I may have omitted other kinds of evidence, but it is indefensible to claim that we place excessive dependence on the video/photo evidence, which appears to be consistent with many of the alternatives cited above.

      Why don't obf and SS discuss the evidence apart from the video footage and explain why we cannot possibly know what happened on the basis of the totality of the evidence that is available for study. I suggest they do that.

    6. Really excellent points Jim. Pardon my ignorance, but who is Clare? Is she appearing on the show?

      The misrepresentation of our points is disinfo 101. The constant harping on about video fakery is distraction 101. The BS about nukes not existing and other lunacies is obfuscation 101.

      Shack et al wish to cause us to waste valuable time and energy in several ways:

      1. Defending ourselves against their attacks (OBF is the lead man for that angle)

      2. Refuting their insane theories such as nukes don't exist. (El Buggo seems to be the lead man on this)

      3. Keeping 'analysis' of images and videos centre-stage in 9/11 research when really, it is a minor part of the overall picture.

      4. Offending and disgusting us with their 'no-one died' BS, because it is both offensive and disgusting, we feel we simply have to refute it and disprove it.

      It's a fairly sophisticated operation they are carrying on, but not so sophisticated that it didn't take very long to figure it out.

      We need to avoid falling for their game and letting any of their various ways of wasting our time, distracting us from the key issues and obfuscating the important facts actually have more than a minor, inconsequential effect.

      Perhaps the best way to deal with them is to thoroughly expose their game and then simply ignore them, let them carry on 'analysing' all the BS they want while we move onward and upward towards more noble and valuable goals in 2014.

    7. Clare Kuehn has appeared on the show in the past and made terrific contributions discussing obf and SS last night. The show has yet to be posted, but I think you will find it fascinating.

    8. Other evidence would include seismic readings and acoustical recordings from certain videos.

    9. Excellent Jim, I eagerly look forward to hearing the show with Clare.

      Your 10 (now 12) sources of info is a great breakdown. I would point out that fakery of images and videos in just one of the 12, therefore, without weighting the different sources based on importance, it represents no more than 8.3% of the total info available to us.

      Therefore, it seems only logical to me that we shouldn't devote more than 8.3% of our time and energy on the fakery of videos and images.

      Shack et al seem to think the videos and images represent 90% or even more of the available info and spend 90% or more of their time on them.

      Those simple numbers alone surely expose the very skewed priorities and fallacious reasoning they are employing.

      Add to that their refusal to consider the other info sources and complete lack of cross-referencing from multiple sources and it is pretty clear o me that their work is at best, of marginal merit and very deeply flawed.

      Any serious, valid research must consider as many info sources as possible and cross-check between them. Shack et al do not make even a token attempt to do so, therefore I can only conclude that their work in invalid and can't be taken seriously.

    10. Clare has corrected in as follows: "In your assessment of my points, you made a big error. Simon does think they were turned to dust but the timing and manner were not SHOWN according to him. And in not trusting any gov't info at all (with Ab and OBF, too), they do not feel there is any reason to try to figure it out."

      Well, they were there and then they were not. It happened in about 10 seconds apiece. We had the buildings and then we had millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. How difficult is it to tell when it happened?

      This gross mistrust of the government is not warranted, especially when the government's own data contradicts the official account. I regard this as another blinder that has made it impossible for them to address the issues.

      Moreover, if they don't care how it was done or by whom, why are they even bothering? I would add that the use of nukes strongly suggests they came from Israel, since the US nuclear arsenal is tightly controlled but the Israeli arsenal is not.

      For Ian, Clare suggests that you can "look up my full name, Clare Kuehn, and hear those older broadcasts. I also covered the Victim Fakes and why Shack, etc., and Jayhan, etc., did OVERALL great work, but some of their conclusions might be in detail wrong."

    11. Very interesting Jim. I believe that there was some controversy last year regarding the dismissal of some Air Force officers from Minot AFB in North Dakota and the suggestion that an attempt at misappropriating one or more nukes was the reason for their dismissal. Also, I seem to remember reading that several US nukes had been misplaced which was explained as an error in record keeping and the USAF stated that they definitely had the nukes, they just weren't sure where they were.

      That said, I agree, Israel's nuclear arsenal is far less closely monitored and the likelihood of the nukes being of Israeli origin is far higher.

      I shall check out Clare's shows, I am sure I will find them very informative.

  35. This file is unavailable for playback. Please look into this, thanks!

  36. I am unable to play any of the archived files. What's up?

    1. I have asked Total to check it and please fix it.

  37. Ian Greenough:

    My Reply-to-a-specific-comment button won't work. So here are some thoughts:

    You can search my full name, Clare Kuehn, and hear my broadcasts from Radiofetzer.

    Shack's work developed over time to consider ALL BUILDING IMAGES to be CGI in key videos and photos. The actual points raised in Sept Clues are far more valuable.

    Such as:
    The planes do not glint at all in some videos; the nose-out is a brilliant catch, since the fade to black and multiple feeds to different channels and banners over them are clearly a set-up but fucked-up shot with CGI; the ball vs. black blob plane are important; the white out for the layer on and edit at the 60-storey spire, and another looped overlapped dustball on the 60-storey spire are right, though Shack, etc., fail to identify WHY that section would be particularly covered up, now that they tend to espouse the idea that it was not even from a real inconvenient moment a the layer with real towers etc.

    They also did great work on the victim fakes, but we do know of many deaths as well, of very ordinary folk going in to help. So what has happened is the emphasis on the psy-op has obscured, for them and now for many people here, the fact that there was some very real faking (i.e., there really are a lot of fakes) and some very real stuff, too.
    Also: Simon does think they were turned to dust but the timing and manner were not SHOWN according to him. And in not trusting any gov't info at all (with Ab and OBF, too), they do not feel there is any reason to try to figure it out.


    They are so in doubt they feel great looking into ANYTHING. We need people to do that, but what happens is they also forget to sometimes make a more ORDINARY judgment. (Shack is not quite so wildly doubting of all things all the time as Ab and his interviewees and listeners.)

    I have listened to SO MANY odd persons over my life, I can spot the kinds of thinking they really do have, and why they don't take simple-ordinary parts of conclusions at times when they could.

    1. Thanks Clare, that is all valuable. I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with Shack's work to be able to really debate it's merits. Quite simply, I never placed enough importance on the fakery of videos and images to study them in any great depth, instead I looked at other aspects such as the physical evidence left behind after the destruction. I felt the existence of high temperatures upto 6 months later, the testimony of people like William Rodriguez, the transcripts of the Fire Dept radio comms to all be more interesting. However, you're making me think that I may have missed out by not giving more attention to the imagery. For me, the key point that made me realise the towers were destroyed in some kind of demolition was the fire captain reporting from floor 78 or 79 of the south tower that there were two pockets of fire and he could knock them out with 2 lines. From the moment I discovered that info, I was 100% convinced that the towers were demolished and the planes were not the reason. For that reason, I have tended to overlook the issue of the planes and now I realise that may have been an oversight.

      I will definitely listen to your shows with Jim, and will try to familiarise myself better with the key points of wok done by Shack, Jayhan etc. My background is in electronic imagery and I have expertise in CGI, video editing etc so I might be able to make some cogent points and offer some further analysis.

    2. Clare, I'm VERY PLEASED with your balanced response about September Clues. I agree that the points that he raised (about 9/11 only) are a valuable contribution to thinking. I accept his overall analysis on victim fakery. I also accept your input that there were genuine victims from people who went into the building, in addition to the fake identities. That is allowed by the physical evidence.

  38. Sorry, I should have put that they do believe there was mostly dust left, but "turned to dust" might not be how they put it. ----- Jayhan, however, goes the other way, believing that there was not much in the towers (not only pre-demo cleared out, and not only real estate scamming with companies not using floors, but partially missing floors or nearly wholly missing floors for most of the towers), and so thinks that explains the missing debris overall.

  39. Also, Jim:

    They don't trust the TIMING either. They don't (now) think much can be known except from some after-photos.

  40. Oh and sorry, I misspelled Ian's name as Greenough, when it's Greenhalgh.

    1. No problem at all, almost no-one ever spells or pronounces my name correctly. :)

  41. Great points guys. I thought Jim has an excellent summation. I would add don't forget about temperatures between 600 - 2,000 °F that persisted at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/11. Only underground nuclear explosions can explain that.

    1. That point has always fascinated me Don, molten steel and high temperatures persisting for months was a red flag for me that something was very suspicious, long before I had even heard of the nuke theories I was pondering why those conditions existed below ground level. I always considered the testimonies of firefighters and clean-up workers to be some of the more reliable information we had because those guys are just ordinary working men who surely were not part of any op.

    2. Don and Ian,

      The underground temperatures persisting for 6 months is BAD PHYSICS. Nukes are a one shot deal in terms of heat, they wouldnt persist for 6 months. That whole story is a lie and a cover for watering down the rubble pile because of the radiation from the mini nukes. Check out Clare Kuehn's writing, she's on the right track.

  42. Jim Fetzer said :"
    And his denial of nukes having been used is even more bizarre, since he claims all the footage is faked and we cannot possibly know. If he can't know, then he can't know that nukes were not used."

    You need to take lessons in reading comprehension, Mr Fetzer.

    I have _never_ claimed that nukes were not used, only that I have no idea as to whether they were or not [besides the fact that the whole question of whether they were or not is entirely irrelevant], simply because the photos/videos used to promote "nukes did it", are all forgeries. I have even stated as much to Don Fox in another thread.

    Jim Fetzer said: "This gross mistrust of the government is not warranted, "'

    Hah! and there we have it, I believe. That just about says it all- its right up there with your :

    "Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic."

    Trust the governments info , and trust the media too while your at it, [and trust me , Jim Fetzer too, because I have a degree in the philosophy of science and have taught logic and critical thinking for 30+ years and I know what I'm talking about] , right Jim? :-)

    Regards, obf

    1. Considering you stated that you'e 'a sick person who does this as a form of entertainment' and admitted you're here because you find it fun to attack people, I think it's about time you left because your credibility is thoroughly shot to pieces.

      Take your childish sick mind elsewhere and leave it to the adults to do some serious research.

    2. OBF,

      How do you account for temperatures at Ground Zero that were between 600 - 2,000 °F for six months after 9/11?

  43. Clare Kuehn said: "They don't trust the TIMING either. They don't (now) think much can be known except from some after-photos."

    The logic of the people at Sept. Clues forums is basically that because the MSM "live" network feeds were all 100% CGI faked footage, [and that seismological reports cannot be trusted either], that it is impossible to know anything for certain other than the fact that the WTC complex was there on 09/10, but that it had apparently been deliberately destroyed by the end of the day, 09/11/01.

    Exactly _when_ the various demolitions actually occurred that day, and in what sequence, and exactly what type of explosives were used to bring the buildings down etc. etc. cannot therefor be definitively known- although it is postulated by Mr Shack that most likely regular explosives were used to demolish the twin towers and others in [off camera] routine , bottom up demolition style, as per standard demo. industry practice.

    Regards, obf.

    1. Perhaps the demolitions occurred right before that giant dust cloud rolled out and covered Lower Manhattan in a fine dust powder consisting of cement, steel and gypsum?

  44. Jim Fetzer said: "Combined with his denial that there are nuclear weapons in the world,"

    Total bullshit, Mr. Fetzer!

    I have _never_ claimed that. Again, learn to read/comprehend.

    I have only said that I simply DON'T KNOW whether they exist or not- after all, the visual imagery record that supposedly "proves" their existence is fraught with hundreds of very obviously faked videos and photos.

    For example :

    Regards, obf.

    1. Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways besides videos to determine if nuclear weapons have been detonated? Take for instance the massive amounts of tritium that above nuclear testing put into the atmosphere:

      Total and fission tritium yields for each reported atmospheric test over the period between 1945 and 1978 have been estimated (Bennett, 1978). Data compiled over this period included tritium releases from 422 nuclear tests in the atmosphere, with cumulative yields of 217 megatons and 328 megatons for fission and fusion, respectively. This corresponded to estimated yields of 2.6 x 1013 Bq tritium per megaton for fission explosions and 7.4 x 1017 Bq tritium per megaton for fusion, and a total tritium activity of 2.4 x 1020 Bq tritium for atmospheric tests (based on tritium generated from fusion reactions) (Miskel, 1973).

    2. Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks

      Prior to 1950, only limited consideration was given to the health impacts of worldwide dispersion of radioactivity from nuclear testing. But in the following decade, humanity began to significantly change the global radiation environment by testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. By the early 1960s, there was no place on Earth where the signature of atmospheric nuclear testing could not be found in soil, water and even polar ice.

  45. Don Fox said :
    "How do you account for temperatures at Ground Zero that were between 600 - 2,000 °F for six months after 9/11?"

    And you know this for an indisputable,incontrovertible fact exactly how?
    [Aside to other readers: this ought to be good :-) ]

    Regards, obf.

    1. Per Charlie Vitchers who worked at Ground Zero:

      The fires were very intense on the pile, the heat was very intense. In some places you couldn’t even get onto it. In some areas where you could walk, you’d travel another five feet and then you could just feel the heat coming up and you would have to just back off. You’d say to yourself, “I can’t see a fire, but I can feel the heat, so something’s wrong here,” and you’d back off.

      That was one of the concerns we had about putting equipment on the pile, because the operators were sitting eight or ten feet up above the debris pile in their cabs and couldn’t feel the heat. But they’re carrying a hundred gallons of diesel fuel, hydraulic hoses, and other flammables, and there was nothing to stop the heat from wrecking the machine. If they got stuck in a place where the heat was so intense that it set his machine on fire, that operator wasn’t going to make it out.

      We were so lucky. We didn’t lose anyone. We lost a lot of equipment, mostly due to collapses, but didn’t have any piece of equipment catch on fire or anything like that. But hoses melted, and there was a lot of damage to tires- some of them melted just from being too close. I mean, the bottom of your shoes would melt on some of the steel. Some of that was so hot you could feel the hair on the back of your neck start to burn when you walked by. There were cherry-red pieces of steel sticking out of the ground. It was almost like being in a steel-manufacturing plant. You just couldn’t physically go near that stuff.

      Every time a grappler grabbed a piece of steel and shook it out, it would just fan the fire, like a fan in the fireplace. All of a sudden there’d be smoke billowing out. The Army Corps of Engineers eventually supplied us with infrared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at the blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be here, it would be 1,400 degrees, the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, then five days later it wouldn't register over 600 degrees.

      But the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn. For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

      ‘In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,’ Fuchek said.”

    2. La chaleur intense est la raison pour laquelle je crois que une sorte de réaction thermique se déroulait. La pile de débris était très similaire au volcan de l'île de Hawaii.

    3. Don,

      I'm sorry for Charlie Vitchers but what he's saying is not physically logical. Its not a nuclear meltdown in a nuclear reactor! It's (hypothetically) a nuclear bomb which is a one shot deal of intense heat that doesnt persist! It wont create 6 months of heat! Consider the option of CGI (such as the earthmover holding the glowing hot steel piece), hire-a-liars, and phony media instead! The physics doesnt work!

    4. Frank,

      Underground nuclear explosions deposit heat in the ground and it stays hot for months. Checkout my blog post on this.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. I need to know more details. The underground nuke is possible but there are still things that I dont like. I dont like the firefighter saying that there was molten steel running down the channel rails. Or the guy who said that it was like a foundry down there. How could the guy be down there if it was like a foundry down there? There was also a photo of multiple firefighters, looking down a hole into blazing heat, used by Steven Jones, and it turned out to be an overexposure of the firefighters overhead helmet light. I need to know more but the whole "6 month" thing doesnt make sense. Why would the fire move from place to place under the firefighters feet? Why would the temperature go from 1400 F upward to 2000 F, and down to 600 F?

    7. For starters I KNOW that there were underground mini-nukes to take out the foundations of the Towers. As Ed Ward points out underground nuclear explosions produce a lot of heat and that heat gets trapped in the earth.

      As far as moving hot spots go my working hypothesis is that may have been caused by unexploded nuclear material going through a low level fission process.

      As for the temperature variance that may have been caused by chunks of nuclear material burning up, getting removed or burrowing deeper underground. Again it appears that the chunks were moving. Remember they hauled hundreds of dump trucks of dirt in and out of Ground Zero.

      6 months was the about the cool down time for the Project GNOME detonation. That fits very well with what we see at Ground Zero.

    8. Don,

      I dont understand the unexploded nuclear material going through a low level fission process. The unexploded nuclear material in a fission bomb is atomized by the blast to very small particles that are each far below critical mass and give off no heat each. Can you explain any other time in history that an underground nuclear explosion led to a low level fission process afterward?

      The project Gnome doesnt work for your position, it supports my position better. It was done in solid salt (a good insulator of heat) and still it was a mere 140 F after 6 months. If it was 140 F after 6 months, there is nothing like a fire going on. What might the temperature have been after 3 months, two months, or one month? How could any fire go on without oxygen consumption? In project Gnome, there was no radioactivity after 6 months. How does that fit in with "low level burning of nuclear fuel"? It fits in with the original nuclear fuel being blasted to small particles and not emitting appreciable radiation from each particle thereafter.

    9. Frank,

      A fission bomb will typically explode only about 6% of its U-235 or P-239. So with any bomb you'll have some left over nuclear material. The Anonymous Physicist has stated that this material would fission until it was removed from the scene. And as Jeff Prager points out the USGS dust samples themselves were still fissioning at the WTC01-16 sample location."The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei."

      The difference between GNOME and Ground Zero is that there were multiple underground nuclear detonations at Ground Zero. Buildings 1,2 and 7 were all nuked below ground.

      Again my position is that most of the heat was generated by explosions but there were probably a few hot spots from the leftover nuclear material. Nuclear fission does not need oxygen.

  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. As I said, OBF, many other types of sources & they show indications contrary 2 official account which flow quite naturally if, as usual w/big events, cover-up=partial, sloppy, somewhat ad hoc & preplanned (w/ errors in that, along the way, too), instead of total.

    September Clues itself is commendable.

    If you wish to doubt all and permanently, there is nothing which could be gleaned at all & yr position rests there. No need to debate the matter further.

    If you wish to understand that a total faking, complete & utter, with no botched moments, no real photography layers, no derivable facts from any data source, is far less likely and in fact its opposite is rather tenable from the evidence sources, 2, & human nature, then you could debate.

    Assuming perps would love to have everything completely simple and fake is fine. But assuming they would go that route, feel they could, or find themselves alone in the world, able 2 do complete faking, is unlikely.

    Let me point out, once & for all, that Shack's initial position, that there were, in some instances, layers & inconvenient moments in real photographic content inside overall fake (as in result is not a total camera original) suits far better the types of errors found: the places of loops or whitewashes, for ex., for the 60-storey spire which -- let's say putatively -- survived inconveniently 4 a while then turned to dust.

    The spire has complex qualities in certain sources, a falling top part which converts to dust as it goes, but mid-sections which convert first, beneath it. It also is the main place where there is cover-up w/in 2 other sources for the dustification images, original or not (1. whitewash & 2. loop-image of dust) documented in Sept Clues. This suits, internal to reason, a real moment of inconvenience which probably different groups of faking (not total faking, in this postulate, but agents who were image-processors) covered up in different ways.

    To notice such subtleties means there was likely, let's say for the moment, a set of pre-conceived image mock-ups with a layer to show the real towers just in case there were something majorly obvious and different which might happen which really was not foreseen & every1 wld notice. (This would be the case in a real cover-up most likely.)

    Less-obvious but somewhat big problems, such as the 60-storey spire on one side would be something inconvenient but not, say, a major item. Therefore that would be specially treated. But having a real layer makes sense for if something ended up happening which everyone would notice but was unforeseen, just in case.

    There are reasons to think that groups such as the USGS brought in scientists and the cover-up was not total, though you postulate that would never happen. That they did some real work is suggested by the types of things found and the later disease profile of the survivors of the region and the strange lack of debris concrete chunks left at the scene.

    That some in the USGS would think they were doing honest work is actually the most likely thing. This was a big cover-up, but not everyone everywhere can know. Besides, the USGS findings are typical of single-minded scientist tests: they (if accurate, let's say) tested for chemicals, but did no INTERPRETATION.

    The interpretation was, in a sense, beyond their ken. This is how real life and division of thinking go.

    Perps cover up things, but also have to hope some ppl don't realize what they have/ find. That is human nature. In that sense: better to move back & forth betw. prima facie case for real, and the proving of fakes in the record.

    Assuming b/c some pre/re/post-processing (Bob&Bri, yrs later, on Youtube, etc.) were done, that all records of all types were controlled, and all images were controlled to the point of fake is actually unreasonable.


    The fact is, it's, harder in case of some terrible error on the day of, t2do computer work w/no real coverage. It makes more sense 4 gist 2B filmed, back/foregrounds largely masked.

  48. Jim Fetzer said: "This gross mistrust of the government is not warranted, "

    This quote from you, Mr Fetzer, is simply too good not to comment on again, but as I am sure you would not appreciate me pointing out the absurdity of what you are claiming, I'll leave it up to George Carlin to do a far better job than myself of making the point:

    Regards, obf.

  49. Claire Kuehn said :" Let me point out, once & for all, that Shack's initial position, that there were, in some instances, layers & inconvenient moments in real photographic content inside overall fake... "

    I don't think that that has _ever_ been Mr Shacks publicly stated position.

    What evidence do you have that he ever said that only parts of the original [ allegedly "live"] MSM broadcasts were fake and that they partly consisted of fabricated overlays over real live imagery?

    Regards, obf.

  50. Don Fox said:
    "Per Charlie Vitchers who worked at Ground Zero:"

    And you have done a deep background check of this supposed Vitchers person, correct?

    Regards, obf.

    1. When the World Trade Center fell, construction superintendent Vitchers and crane operator Gray were among the hundreds of workers hired by one of the management firms selected by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to recover bodies and clear debris. The authors recall how tensions grew between construction workers and fire and police personnel as the latter focused their efforts on recovering the bodies of their colleagues, slighting civilian casualties, who received no honor guard or a flag as they were carried out of the pit. Aided by freelancer Stout, Vitchers and Gray have harsh words for the DDC, which often put bureaucratic and political concerns above the recovery process: "The faster and cheaper the work was done, the better the DDC would look." Morale was low, site safety was problematic and chaos often reigned at ground zero. Although it has some worthy moments—particularly, the demythologizing of the firefighters, the shoring up of the unstable slurry wall and the logistics of removing millions of tons of debris from a burial ground.

      But I guess Charlie Vitchers doesn't really exist and if he does he's a government op/construction supervisor.

  51. Here's the gist of the problem:

    One cannot absolutely always prove fakes or reals.

    And fake can mean partially utterly fake, with partially real elements, making an overall fake impression -- in an image, or in print-news sources, etc.

    The rainbow versions of the TV images at times with oily (polluted) skies on a supposedly perfect day, are obviously processed, but cannot be proven fake any further than that. In the context of so much else odd, they can be said to be part of a fake record, but are they completely fake? Not necessarily.

    With items such as inconvenient and detailed stories from people who volunteered to help out, such as Don's news report above, about weird temperatures and boots, one can say that we have no further way of knowing if it is true DIRECTLY, but with the USGS findings as a maybe, since they, too, were mostly likely not controlled but would not think through all the implications of the chemicals they found, and the diseases and lack of general chunks of concrete, etc., we can say that something untoward might well have been happening with heat effects as aftereffects from nukes or something else.

    Now, to further question nukes, we have to go to the idea that because some propaganda films of the 1940s do indeed seem to have used fake imagery (internal evidence to some of those films suggests they used models and regular explosions for some), but also go further to all the servicemen and servicewomen who have had to work on nukes, etc. This is far beyond a security oath issue; this gets into the true la-la land of conspiracy too many people.

    Often, people will levy against us the idea that hundreds or thousands in some way knew of an event, but to have hundreds OF thousands of those under oath is far too implausible for such a thing, even with oaths, and then there are many, many scientists and tinkerers who also would have to cover that up.

    So let us say nuke tech exists.
    If so, nukes do fit the types of inconvenient items showing up in some of the news and science record do fit the sudden-takedown and residue (witnessed by many, far more plausibly real than planes, which few saw and many thought was a missile or unusual object).

  52. Yes, OBF, that is the implication of Sept Clues, that there were many problems done for different reasons. This would only be the case in a real event with partial problems.

    Whether Shack held it or not, it is certainly the overarching effect of the work, and is excellent for what is most likely in a complex event: control but not perfect, and a wish to have some real things in most images, in case there is something they DO need to show which is unplanned but occurs.

  53. Clare Kuehn said :" The rainbow versions of the TV images at times with oily (polluted) skies on a supposedly perfect day, are obviously processed, but cannot be proven fake any further than that. "

    What would _you_ need to see to prove to yourself that that imagery was entirely fake?

    In other words, what, evidence-wise, is Shack not showing _you_?

    Regards, obf.

    P.S. Are you familiar with the legal term "false in one, false in all"?

  54. Clare Kuehn said :
    "Yes, OBF, that is the implication of Sept Clues, that there were many problems done for different reasons. "


    Regards, obf

  55. Clare Kuehn said :".... but with the USGS findings as a maybe, since they, too, were mostly likely not controlled .."

    Why would you assume that?

    Regards, obf

    1. They were just chemists doing their job. I trust the USGS a lot more than I trust some moronic flat-earthers in a forum!

  56. @ Clare Kuehn: as I asked D. Fox before, if we assume, for the sake of argument that yes, nukes [even "mini"- nukes] actually exist, and that yes, they were used on 911, what difference does that make, in your opinion? Assuming it's true, why is it even important [to you]?

    Regards, obf.

    1. Well obf must have said 20 times on the fakeologist show that he was a sick person and had a sick mind so no surprise that the deaths of thousands doesn't matter to him.

      I'd love to put the sicko in a room with some of the firefighters and some of the victim's families, then he might realise that what is just entertainment to his sick mind is deeply upsetting to those who suffered.

    2. I'm assembling the clips from that show today. These guys have given me a ton of ammo. If they're not a laughing stock now they will be.

  57. One may point out the following items which smack of real items being co-ordinated:

    1. The 60-storey spire (and dustification, which is so odd). It would have been pre-modeled and not happen, plus, in a simple object for CGI, all they would have had to do was act as if everything were simple floors. A section would not be left like that.

    2. The co-ordinated beeps would not be necessary.

    3. The "ball" would not have been caught on film.

    4. The nose-out would not have happened and whitewash (of 60-storey spire moment, with edit) and loop of dust clous (of 60-storey spire moment in one later version) would not be necessary.

    5. Chopper 5 would be reported in the air.

    6. Crowd scenes when added have glitches only on crowd, as Shack himself notes, so this must be post-processing.

    7. No need to mask the side of the smoke if it was 3D generated for all versions.

    8. Problems in some tower versions may indicate those ARE CGI.


    Some posted versions DO seem to have had fake introductions by broadcasters added after the day, as Shack observed.

    I have no doubt that some things are CGI in the mix.

  58. What difference does the use of nukes have for me? Well, for accuracy, if they were used, we have solved part of the takedown, for posterity.

    But also, only the US, Israel, UK, etc. could have wired those buildings, provided nukes, etc., NOT a few hijackers and an upset but isolated Arabist Islamist group.

  59. It is also important to know if nukes (or DEWs or something more than "regular", but enhanced explosives were used): for health reasons and to explain other parts of the day's events, and to predict what may be coming/ used in wars and so on in secret.

    As to "false in one part, false in all": well, are you familiar (in your seeming moment of smugness, which I wish you would drop with me here), familiar with the idea of truth no matter what? Having an expression for total illness, total falseness, etc., does NOT MEAN that is always the case or usually.

    Why do I say the USGS was likely not fully controlled or controlled? Well, their findings are INCONVENIENT, for one thing. Also, it is quite ordinary that perps do not have perfect reach; we know this from human nature and also other cases. So, let's say teams which did work wanted to help. You couldn't tell them all to go home. Too many cooks, so to speak.

    Things can get messy. Let's just open your mind to the possibility and then point out that except for inconvenient findings, lying dormant for years until someone puts together the pieces suggesting weird dust and takedown results and sicknesses and bizarre reports of heat ... just in case those were all real, let's say, then goes to look at the USGS findings and confirmed are suspicions that a nuclear event (whatever the cause) came about.

    Given the bizarre reduction to dust in the air (not mere dustiness dissipating, but dust in the air and on the streets -- in the air for miles in a stream -- we may know that something odd and truly explosive, impressive went on. And that does not depend only on photos, but on many persons.

    Point being: this event could not be fully controlled in the perception; nor could Kennedy's death. But for the broader public, the general gist could be massaged, controlled. Not pure CGI: too many other witnesses, but certainly for the larger audience, it was warped.

    How about that, OBF?

    I know it makes you maybe feel (briefly) as if the world is not quite as weird as maybe you'd thought it -- a little less interesting, perhaps? -- but it is still weird enough, contains plenty of faking, plenty of complexity and human error and human cleverness, and possibly a whole new class of nukes for the public to discuss and suffer from.

    Happy New Year, by the way.

  60. Really good thinking, Clare. Happy New Year. May I ask your background and education? How did you get into this issue?

  61. Sorry to add one more thing. It is important if more than explosives were used because too many total deniers of ANY big (as in, not official story) conspiracy on the day rely on mere collapse vs explosives; if alternative lines of findings (such as the USGS can show them that there were results from the dust), then more than a few contested items of thermite, more people can be perhaps open to the idea of the mass faking (as in, overall lies) of the day's story.

  62. Clare Kuehn said :"I have no doubt that some things are CGI in the mix."

    But you are dead certain that you can accurately discern which are and which are not, correct?

    Regards obf.

  63. Clare Kuehn said :"only the US, Israel, UK, etc. could have wired those buildings, provided nukes, etc., NOT a few hijackers and an upset but isolated Arabist Islamist group."

    Are you claiming that if regular demo explosives had been used, that " the US, Israel, UK, etc." could _not_ have wired those buildings"? [Who knows, maybe they were wired in initial construction.]

    Regards obf.

  64. Clare Kuen said : "in your seeming moment of smugness, which I wish you would drop with me here),"

    and you know I was being smug, because......?

    Regards, obf.

  65. Clare Kuehn said : "Why do I say the USGS was likely not fully controlled or controlled? Well, their findings are INCONVENIENT,"

    Inconvenient to whom, the government? Doesn't the government benefit by simply muddying the waters with this type of deliberate disinformation?

    And you admit to "mass faking" and yet the USGS is somehow telling you the truth? Is this because you need to believe in a nuclear demo for some reason? [Otherwise, it seems more than a little naive to me.]

    Regards obf.

    1. The folks at the USGS were chemists sent out to check the dust for asbestos. That's why their analysis of the dust doesn't contain isotopic data. But even without the isotopes the pattern of nuclear fission can be seen plain as day if you know what you're looking for.

  66. Don Fox said: "But I guess Charlie Vitchers doesn't really exist and if he does he's a government op/construction supervisor."

    So bottom line, your answer is "no", you have not done any sort of background check on this alleged person.

    Regards, obf.

  67. Clare Kuehn said: "As to "false in one part, false in all": well, are you familiar with the idea of truth no matter what? Having an expression for total illness, total falseness, etc., does NOT MEAN that is always the case or usually."

    Please remember Clare, that that principle is a centuries old, still regularly applied guiding principle of law used in determining truth in courts around the world - so surely it has some merit, no?

    Regards, obf.

  68. Clare Kuehn said : "if alternative lines of findings (such as the USGS can show them that there were results from the dust), then more than a few contested items of thermite, more people can be perhaps open to the idea of the mass faking (as in, overall lies) of the day's story."

    So basically you are saying that you are more or less dependent on the "truth" of nuclear demolition being proven as being a necessary part of your own personal plan to wake people up to "911 truth", yes?

    Regards, obf.

    1. OBF,

      A few questions for you:

      1. Is the Earth round or flat?
      2. Can rockets travel into space?
      3. Do man made satellites orbit the Earth?
      4. Do nuclear weapons exist?

  69. OBF likes to make the point over and over again that Fetzer hasn't read 700 pages of drivel in the Clueless Forum. I'd like to point out that OBF hasn't read any of the articles that I have posted on Veterans Today. If he had actually read the articles that he has left hundreds of comments on I wouldn't have to keep bringing these same points up over and over and over again. That's why I'm losing my patience with this idiot.

    We don't need one photo or video to prove the WTC buildings were nuked. So why do these nameless "video analysts" keep posting all of these moronic comments at VT and here on the Real Deal?

    OBF has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't have even a basic grasp of physics. I'm no physicist but I have put in a few hours of study AND LEARNED SOME NUCLEAR PHYSICS BASICS!! Anyone who does this will have a much easier time analyzing what happened at Ground Zero. Go read the posts on my blog. It's all there.

    Yet OBF tells us how Simon Shill follows scientific protocol and Fetzer does not. What a complete joke. Simon doesn't believe that rockets can travel into space or that satellites exist. Simon appears to be a closet Flat Earther. If he's not a Flat Earth guy why deny rockets and satellites?

    So we're supposed to believe some Flat Earth jackwagon that runs a forum for morons or shills over the USGS dust samples and the DOE water samples. Get a clue September Clueless!!

    1. I admire your efforts to fight the sick mind Don, but I think it's better if you just ignore him.

      Don't forget, he has plainly stated that he is only doing this 'as a form of entertainment' so if we all ignore him he won't find it quite so entertaining and might even go somewhere else to find his sick entertainment.

      As for Shack, all of his supposed 'analysis' is completely worthless, undermined and invalidated by the character of the man and his lunatic crackpot theories.

      It's a waste of time engaging these people, they have nothing to contribute of ay worth and their agenda seems to purely be to annoy people, cause them to waste their time countering their avalanche of BS and flat-earthery.

    2. Well said Ian. The comment was directed at the general readership more than OBF himself. We know what we're going to get out of OBF.

  70. I have a technical tip for everyone who posts here: IE11 doesn't work that well with blogspot yet. Even in compatibility view I noticed some issues. The option to reply to a comment does not work in IE11. I've been using Google Chrome the last few days and that works a lot better.

  71. For the record I have stated that WTC Buildings 1,2,6 and 7 were nuked. OBF stated on the Fakeologist show that I said Buildings 1,2 and 7. This once again proves he doesn't read the articles that I have posted at VT that he leaves multiple comments on.

    I state that Building 6 is the mini-nuke poster child in the Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs article. OBF left several comments there but again didn't bother to read the article.

  72. That's interesting Don, I certainly am familiar with the rationale for nukes in the twin towers and the big round hole full of tritiated water in 6 is a very strongindicator of a nuke being used there. Howevr, thought 78 was a traditional controlled demolition where they blstedaway all the base columns and the building pancaked into it's own fooprint leavinga pile of debris roughly 12% of the height of the building. Danny Jawenko, the Dutch demolition expert was 100% sure it was a conventional controlled demolition and the sad fact he appears to have been murdered is a big indicator for me that he was right.

    I'd been interested to read any writings you have authored on 7 being taken down with a nuke or nukes, it's an intriguing possibility that I'm not familiar with so being keen to learn more...

    1. I haven't had time to do a full article on 7. Checkout my blog post from 7/9/12

      Building 7 was nuked below ground. Above ground it appears that only conventional explosives were used. Everyone forgets how much of building there is below ground level :)

      The bottom section has comments from Ed Ward MD. Ed is pretty much the king of mini-nukes. A lot of my knowledge came from Ed and the material he references.

  73. Ian Greenhalgh (and Don, by extension):

    Ian's comments here -- no offense -- must be modified:
    "Don't forget, he has plainly stated that he is only doing this 'as a form of entertainment' so if we all ignore him he won't find it quite so entertaining and might even go somewhere else to find his sick entertainment.

    As for Shack, all of his supposed 'analysis' is completely worthless, undermined and invalidated by the character of the man and his lunatic crackpot theories."

    No, OBF feels all he can do is entertain himself with us, because he feels so misunderstood that he feels he cannot get anywhere with us (because he expects agreement of total faking, and because too many of "us" cannot handle that he and Simon have a great case for partial faking and doctoring in different ways when "we" interact with them).

    SIMON HAS A MARVELOUS CASE FOR PARTIAL DOCTORING, which includes what we can call "fake" images, if we do not assume total CGI. There is some case for some CGI in the mix, too.


    1. Simon Shack thinks the Earth is flat, rockets can't travel into space, man made satellites don't orbit the Earth and that nuclear weapons don't exist. Simon Shack can be ignored by any serious researcher. If you want to do your own video/photo analysis that's fine. Just don't site Simon. He's either a complete moron or an op.

    2. No offense taken Clare.

      However, I have a very different opinion on the work of Shack. I think it's at best, of marginal importance, at worse, it's farcical nonsense.

      Firstly, I think his analysis is of poor quality, and is then totally undermined by no cross-referencing of other data sources. All he does is look at low quality videos and images then come to conclusions, no attempt to validify his findings by looking at other data and information. This is very poor quality research indeed.

      Secondly, he comes up with outlandish theories based on just image 'analysis', I spent some time looking at some threads on his forum and the theories are farcical, one classic is the theory that there was no nuke at Hiroshima, a claim which seems to be based on little more than his opinion that the photos taken from the planes are faked. No attempt to study the case properly, completely ignoring all other information and data from the event, therefore it's a farce. It strikes meas the height of arrogance and conceit for him to claim he has uncovered some huge hoax merely by spotting some supposed fakery in a few photos.

      Thirdly, the Vicsims and no-one died. This is just total BS, no two ways about it, it causes me equal amounts of anger and amusement. It's an absolutely indefensible argument and to be honest, I find it deeply disgusting.

      So, my opinion of Shack is that, at best, he's an arrogant clown, at worst, he's a disinfo agent who is doing his level best to cause trouble and distract from the important aspects of 9/11 research.

      It just seems so obvious to me after looking at the Sept Clues forum that Shack and his cronies are a bunch of clowns with nothing valuable to contribute. I suspect they aren't tinfoil-hat wearing lunatics as they appear at first glance and the truth is actually far worse, that they are working to a hidden nefarious agenda.

      At this point, I don't see what could convince me otherwise, but I do remain open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

    3. Ian,

      Respectfully, I think that you should be open to the possibility that you are wrong. I take no pleasure whatsoever in suggesting that the victims are simulated. Really, none at all. What moral person would? But getting the right answer is pretty damn important. Ian, the events of 2013 helped to prepare me for September Clues. There were numerous events, such as Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, the Capitol Shooter, Navy Yard Shooter, where violations of physical law are taking place at the core of the event. After getting used to the phrase "false flag", where there are genuine victims, I discarded it for "hoax", where no one dies. That opened my mind to 100% media collaboration, and the crazy concept of "crisis actors". We came from the same skeptical place, Ian, but there really is evidence for the whole concept. You should note that the original Operation Northwoods, from 1962, was intended to have no Americans die -- in other words, a hoax. So there is a good historical basis for the concept.

  74. Ian Greenhalgh and Don again:

    This does not mean there is nothing to be gleaned from the imagery, contrary to what they assume from their more radical conclusions, because, THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE that there was complete faking of all imagery, it was not the case: there are too many natural type images (by overall texture of photography) even when composites or doctored with CGI added.

    Also, there were almost no dead in the towers, or the numbers are completely obscured. The bulk of the claim (3,000) has to be fake, because of several lines of reasoning which are very solid:

    Multiple fake person records as determinable by a combination of:

    - doctored photos, ridiculously bad photos never updated & consistently spotty and corny comments on the memorials & many, many with no photo at all
    - problematic computer coding in the memorial records, with what companies and people are linked to others, suggesting a created list, chopped up to make it seem organic but defeating the purpose, since any real memorial site would have decent spreadsheeting behind its creation
    - name syllabic repetitions in suspiciously repetitive form (indicating possible "seeding" of a name data program to spit out many but not all names as fake composed results),
    - Addresses and names which gave an empty lot location, and a victim home phone number which routed after so many years to the Pentagon extension openly (probably had an agent on that line originally) and now is defunct (after LetsRollForums started calling it),
    - Victim Fund payouts mostly not collected and who collected
    - Social Security Death Index (SSDI) missing most names, and having problematic names in the 9/11 memorial record which match long-dead names (if I recall that one right).

    Only the fake photos can be absolutely proven; in the combination of all the indications of "maybe", however, the picture emerges with so much wrong and the hinge of so many fake photos (that is, if they were of real victims, they at least are doctored because they have the same photo heads on different bodies).

    Let us PULL BACK from assuming September Clues Forum's ultimate conclusions are the sum total of what the contributions are.

    They are not.

    For a show on the Sept Clues and LetsRollForums findings on victims which I did -- and it is very considered and thorough and critical but comes to the same basic conclusion, of most people in the main record being fake -- go here:

    None of this means ALL PERSONS ARE FAKE. It could, but it does not have to.

    They forget this. I understand why, and think they have a point, though there are too many testimonials of "raining people" jumping and shock at how many there were, and the general controlled imagery suggest to me that something was going on inside those towers which caused people to be ejected (not exactly jump). Wood makes this point, and whatever the rightness of her overall position, I think this point is excellent.

    However, it raised the question, and from that, people found what they thought were indications the people (or at least some great shots of them) jumping and standing in the gash might be fake. I tend to disagree, though a close-up on a person falling DURING A ZOOM is definitely rather suspicious, because it is hard to keep the person in frame. It may be the image was authentic or some combination was.

    However, none of that means that no-one died.

  75. OBF -- to you specifically:

    I am not effectively married to nukes to prove to the public that it was a conspiracy of the non-official story kind.

    However, it DOES have that aspect, which is usable, as is any line of discovery or potential discovery in the field.

    The USGS was out there and was unlikely to promote findings of things which cannot support the official story, if they had been controlled and of the science type to recognize the significance of some of the chemicals they listed in the quantities and combinations overall. Given that, and the mostly missing towers, intense dust with not chunks of concrete in layers and a light dust after a few minutes, and also the diseases people are suffering from, and the consistent and bizarre claims of high heat firey effects beneath the surface of some areas, but not all,

    we may then say the events were very controlled, but that it is likely the physical mechanism (we have to have one) was nukes or some combination of nukes and other things which may also leave nuclear effects. (That would be a softer Wood-type position.)

  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

  77. OBF: One part fake, all fake is a concept for proving a very specific type of thing ... which is a prima facie argument again. If, for example, we find ABSOLUTE faking (such as Honor Elizabeth Wainio's photos, of which there are at least 8 of the same head on different bodies), and then PROBLEMS WHICH ARE MAYBES in other photos and other arguments, one realizes that the likely problems are, in gist (i.e., most or all) also fake.

    One part fake means all fake is ONLY FOR SPECIFIC PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT. If the argument is about something which looks roughly wrong, such as Zapruder, then absolute math arguments on blur and lens distortion missing in parts of frames show the whole can be called "fake" but not in the sense of no photography and no real items from the day left in. What it means is that the END RESULT is a lying story and that parts which looked wrong and painted more probably were -- but there, we still have REAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE COMPOSITE, and real INCONVENIENT THINGS still having to be in there, because there would be too many witnesses to screw with EVERY aspect of the event.

    Same for reality:

    If one has an absolute argument or highly likely argument for something's being real, and one finds generally real effects or looks or sources in other things, then One part real means all likely real.

    Now let's go one even better:

    IN COMPOSITRY, and in COMPLEX EVENTS, these arguments for prima facie real and prima facie fake (once one part has been found fake) COMBINE into the total logic.

    So if we're asking whether there is a simpler reason for mostly SEEDING fakes and composite parts into a real event record, by human-flawed perpetrators, yes indeed, that is the way the world usually works, though it is a "wet dream" of perps to completely control everything to the point of NO real info getting out.

    And once one has this prima facie likelihood but has found SOME ABSOLUTE FAKES in the record and others from that with problems which can be seen as "likely" fake even without the absolutes, and we call those now prima facie fake ...

    then the total event includes absolute fakes, prima facie fakes, and (since real cannot be absolutely proven at some level, but can be near-absolutely generally reasoned) real items and prima facie real ones.

    There are all kinds of problems, and all kinds of real things, but to understand the real ones one has to be careful to notice what is inconvenient to the official story, and how f***-ups happen in life and conspiring is real part of human life with real humans doing it -- and so where would we find the mess-ups which real-life covering up would have?

    One is the ball,
    one is the 60-foot spire (which would not happen in a simple CGI tower takedown and which have every reason for specific coverups -- e.g., whitewash moment and edit of that LAYER of a composite image with fake foreground and real background, and looping overlap of that area of the dustcloud in another clip.

    And so on.

    We would have different agencies (not intel) in gov't which have to be hacked and/or seeded with errors, but there are lots of legitimate people and work, so for example, the SSDI does not even HAVE the names of the fake people, overall, so would they not have tried to seed them into it if ALL were perfectly controlled?

    So, no:

    Again, One part fake means all fake is ONLY FOR SPECIFIC PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT. If the argument is about something which looks roughly wrong, such as Zapruder, then absolute math arguments on blur and lens distortion missing in parts of frames show the whole can be called "fake" but not in the sense of no photography and no real items from the day left in. What it means is that the END RESULT is a lying story and that parts which looked wrong and painted more probably were -- but there, we still have REAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE COMPOSITE, and real INCONVENIENT THINGS still having to be in there, because there would be too many witnesses to screw with EVERY aspect of the event.

  78. This comment has been removed by the author.

  79. Don, it would be nice if you could be more selective, friend, in what you criticize from Shack, etc. There ARE FAKE ELEMENTS and an overall fake result of narrative visually and audially in the TV images.

    This is different than what they forget, these people, which is that some items have a better claim for being real, and thus that the perps, who might, as Ab and Rollo and OBF and Shack point out, have wished with all their hearts to put out purely fake items the whole way through, not only did not, as knowable by elements which are inconvenient to that conclusion and are better represented in argument by the half prima facie real-not-fake side of reality (not the half prima facie argument of fake ONCE some faking has been discovered) and also have a general look and feel of real.

    Real perps, as complex interactors, probably felt they could not have faked everything, even if they could have, hypothetically speaking only.

    In reality, they could not have done everything fake all the time. Too many elements could have gone wrong in reality and it also goes against ordinary human thinking (perps are ordinary in the sense I mean): that a wet dream, so to speak, of faking everything all the time completely, does not tend to be the way people actually plan things. They tend to plan an event and a cover-up, a fudge, of things they predict could go wrong; the rest is bumbling after the fact as sloppy cover-up additions to the problem of the inconvenient moments of the event and of the cover-up itself, as parts get discovered.

  80. To franklyspeaking:

    I just noticed your comment. Thanks. You may wish to hear my broadcast on the Victims information with Vicsims (not necessarily all morph-simulation, but simulation of overall assumption of many real victims).

    It is from July, 2010.

  81. El Buggo: yes, OBF and Simon now claim EVERYTHING IS FAKE in the images, and no help can come from other lines of argument, due to the fact that though everything should be assessed as possibly doctored, things which are inconvenient to the total claim of the official story, cannot be roughly trusted either, for example from USGS, news reports of melting boots, any diseases which fit nuclear reactions, the dust as a total quantity and bizarre amount (critics notwithstanding who think "a lot" stands for absolutely fine, coherent dust in the air).

    What they forget is parts of their own TV findings actually better support some reality mixed in which was inconvenient to the perps and to the argument these all-fake advocates make, items such as the ball and spire and such,

    and also they forget that NOTHING CAN BE FORMALLY PROVEN REAL, at some level. Fakes can be proven unreal in some instances, not all.

    So once some fakes have been proven, and other things looking roughly doctored or having reasons to think they are doctored, become likely doctored.

    But things which look real, arguably fit real aftereffects, etc., can also be taken as real. In fact, the perps have to have been setting this up for some time, with extra thought to getting out fake names and images of people (there are some provably fake images, though proving a person does not exist is a different thing, which we cannot absolutely prove; it is proven by extension, not as absolute argument). The perps also set up what they expected for the missile or cloaked missile with hologram, to do and where it would hit. Once they had that footage, they showed it a few seconds later, so there was some real hinge to the images.

    This is more reasonable (it is called prima facie, but does not mean it is not correctable if we found sure evidence of faking of all elements in the videos; we do not have that).

    We do, however, have fake aspects to the plane images: no glinting plane looks black in a film, and the physics of the butterknife effects don't work.

    We also have drift on the camera which makes the nose-out occur. It is very reasonable to set up a shot, and not notice that there is a slight drift, revealing more of the chicanery by having the nose come out.

    This may have required a later addition to other fireball images, where there is a weird columnar grey paint-like effect where the missile or plane idea comes out the other side. It is more likely that nothing came out, but that nose-out fiasco required further doctoring in other images.


  82. Don,

    I dont think that the 94% unfissioned material in the form of blasted small particles will produce much heat at all. I would place all of the heat potential on the initial blast. I can see melted steel, etc, in the first days after the blast, but the water would cool it quickly. The first water hitting the cavity would create a big steam explosion. Jeff Pragers article mentions fire for 99 days. 11 million gallons of water were dumped on the site. Try to make diagrams with pencil and paper and try to figure if it makes sense. How does the nuclear blast cavity fit in with the guys saying that there was molten steel running down the channel rails? Was this firefighter gazing into the nuclear blast cavity when he saw this? Why werent the channel rails melted, too? Also, take the GNOME test. It started at 2000F, and dropped quickly thereafter. But whats the melting point of steel? Does it make sense that the temperature in the cavity would stay hot enough to melt steel for very long, more than a few days?

    1. The way Ed Ward explained it to me was that the underground blast would deposit a lot of heat in the earth. But you've also got all of this foundational steel below the building that attaches to the bedrock. This would act as a heat sink. You don't have that in the GNOME detonation. That steel was probably what they were spraying water on for 99 days. That's what kept the ground so hot for so long.

      According the HyperPhysics site it takes about 30 kg of U-235 to achieve critical mass. 28 kg of U-235 trapped below ground would probably generate a hot spot or 2. Then multiply that by 9 (3 underground nukes per building) and you would probably get a few hot spots. If the bombs were buried deep enough the radioactive material would stay buried:

      "As the depth of burial (DOB) increases the confinement effect increases, as does the amount of material lofted by the upwardly expanding gases. The average velocity of the material propelled upwards decreases as its mass increases, and the imparted motion becomes more vertical - i.e. less radial motion is imparted. As a result a larger and larger fraction of the soil thrown upward falls back into the crater (and is consequently called fallback). This tends to trap and bury much of the radioactivity. At some particular depth the increasing amount of material thrown upward is exactly balanced by the decreasing fraction escaping the crater, the crater volume reaches a maximum. This depth is called the optimum depth of burial and varies somewhat with the geology of the site, being greater for less dense and structurally weaker material."

      Is this enough to heat acres of land for 6 months? No. But undoubtedly some of the Ground Zero workers encountered this trapped fissile material and had to deal with it. It would keep reacting underground until it was removed. Uranium has a very long half life. That's why all of the dump trucks of dirt were coming and going for YEARS at Ground Zero. I've seen reports that they were hauling dirt in and out even as late as 2007.

  83. I wish I had some physics knowledge to be able to contribute to this discussion.

    If we can verify that there was tremendous heat and molten metal below ground for upto 6 months, then we have to account for why and I fail to see any alternative hypothesis that doesn't involve nuclear fission. What else could generate great heat for so long?

  84. BTW, what happened to the excavated dirt? I take it no-one was able to do any tests or analyses on this dirt?

    1. I believe it went to a landfill under armed guard.

  85. Don Fox said :" OBF likes to make the point over and over again that Fetzer hasn't read 700 pages of drivel in the Clueless Forum. I'd like to point out that OBF hasn't read any of the articles that I have posted on Veterans Today. If he had actually read the articles that he has left hundreds of comments on I wouldn't have to keep bringing these same points up over and over and over again. That's why I'm losing my patience with this idiot."

    If you actually bothered to read the comments section in both of your very own last 2 "Veterans Today" articles, you halfwit, you would see my various comments [months ago] :-)

    No Regards, obf.

    P.S. WTF has my opinion on :
    1. Is the Earth round or flat?
    2. Can rockets travel into space?
    3. Do man made satellites orbit the Earth?
    4. Do nuclear weapons exist?

    have to do with anything concerning whether or not the MSM footage for 911 is 100% CGI or not- and besides, again,if you bothered to read, you would know that I already answered no. 4 on your list here _twice_ now. Dumbass.

  86. Well, OBF, technically speaking, your opinions on other matters do not matter (unless the opinions show absolutely no logic, not mistakes with correct aspects, or unless the issues are directly related to required knowledge to comment, say, on nuclear physics).



    That is not a necessary conclusion from the findings, as a matter of fact.

    As I have pointed out, it is a sloppy conclusion from the findings. Computer-organized, as in, composited, yes. Computer reworked, yes. Computer co-ordinated between stations, yes. But 100% CGI, is not only not necessary, it is directly contravened by the gist of the inconvenient moments in the films, and by the general real qualities of some of it.

  87. Also, as to the nukes-as-fake postulate:

    There indeed seem to have been some early propaganda films to make nuclear blasts easy to show and look scary, which used models blowing up and cut to real trees and back again.

    And some wonder if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only firebombed, because there is no crater of any kind, they say, and some witness testimony may contravene nuclear bombing.

    However, EVEN IF some images were fake and, further, even if WWII US nukes weren't ready yet and Japan was not nuked ... Just EVEN IF ...

    The constant stream of scientists and amateurs, not only servicemen and servicewomen who deal with nukes and are under oath but eventually info would leak out -- PRECLUDES the idea of a cover-up where there are no nuclear weapons. It is one instance whereby the numbers game actually is effective.

    In general conspiracy research such arguments do not preclude what is claimed, since the actual numbers are not so high, not even close.

  88. OBF,

    Anyone associated with September Clueless will get asked these 4 questions from here on out. Your hero Simon Shack stated on the Fakeologist show last Saturday that rockets cannot travel into space and that man made satellites don't exist. The only good reason to deny these things is if you think the Earth is flat. He also that denied that nuclear weapons exist. I heard you say that you don't know if they exist or not. I'm giving you a chance to separate yourself from Simon.

  89. Don, enough, really. Those questions are IRRELEVANT TO THE BASIC WORK DONE THROUGH SEPT. CLUES.

    1. I don't think so Clare. If you believe in a Flat Earth you're not competent enough to add to the discussion here. I won't respond to anything posted by a Flat-Earther. Jim was contemplating some house cleaning here on the Real Deal and I think getting rid of the Flat-Earthers is a great place to start.

    2. Don,

      Different minds work in mysterious ways. I have the physics background to put my foot down about things like Flat Earth, Newtons 3rd Law, satellites, etc. But on the other hand, Simon's skeptical and critical attitude found the issue of the paratrooper jumpers or circus performer jumpers. Personally, I wouldnt have caught that, I don't have the jaundiced frame of mind. But once Simon told me about that thru Sept. Clues, I have to say that I agree with him. It IS RIDICULOUS for Paratrooper Jumpers or Circus Performer Jumpers to exist.

      I would never in a million years have done Simon's research. Remember, I only got interested in 9/11 truth 21 months ago or so !! 2 1/2 years ago, I wrote an eloquent but very wrong piece ridiculing conspiracy theory. So I respect Simons contribution. Everyone has skills to bring to the table.

      Please, Don, separate 9/11 from the other issues and accept the evidence of CGI on an image by image basis.

      My view is that the baseline for casualties should be set to zero, and that you should modify that upward on the basis of proof.

  90. Again, Don, friend, ENOUGH.

    Your position is untenable about the main aspects of their work, not their final flawed logic stringing it together, and you are becoming as fanatic in denying the wonderful work on the TV and audio -- which proves major mass media complex involvement and cover-up, and specific inconvenient aspects of the day (as do areas the Zapruder film was changed to leave out or to modify) but does not prove 100% CGI faking; and they have proved most victims are false identities, whatever that means for some real persons in the towers and around them.

    Picking on the overly open-minded people (as in, openmindedness is great, but they do not always pull back when necessary) is unfair.

    What if I said I won't respond to anything posted by a conspiracy theorist, who just are incompetent, believe nonsense, yadda yadda.

    STOP the bludgeoning from your end.

    Don't engage with their 100% CGI end-result thoughts, but the WORK DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CONCLUSION and is excellent until they get uncareful about some aspects of ... if one thing is doctored or fake, then all is.

    ENOUGH. They are absolutely right in many things.

    1. But they are 1000% wrong in saying that nobody died on 9/11. That's disgusting. Then all of this Flat Earth BS on top of that? They think the big perps of 9/11 are Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer and CNN. DUHHH!

      These guys are right up there with Andrew Basiago and his teleporting to Mars and encountering a Plesiosaur.

    2. Don, listen carefully. I PERSONALLY REMEMBER back in 2001 when the screen went black for 1 second after the plane hit the tower.

      Question, Don: Who and where was the TV technician who hit the button to black out the screen, 0.28 seconds after the nose "burst" out the building? Don, listen to me: was that technician in the media studio? at CIA headquarters? Did the technician work for the media? or the CIA? or both? SOME TECHNICIAN was trying to cover up fakery.

      DONT JOKE about the media being the perps!!! Simon is right about this.

  91. Regarding IGNORANCE AND LOGIC:

    Remember, there are arguments, flawed or not, for just about everything.

    This includes a flat earth.

    Once one thinks one is "deprogramming" oneself, an "anarchist" of the mind, one can FALL FOR THINGS which are, themselves, actually complex to properly handle to debunk.

    Now, the flat earth society believes it is "deprogramming the world".

    As such, it marshalls many seemingly complex arguments that what we are told about a round earth has other reasons for being perceived.

    Just as you question 9/11 and other things, such as Paul's death, so these people question their pet issues.

    Unfortunately, their arguments do NOT stand up to all careful analysis and 9/11 as a conspiracy and Paul as dead do.

    But what happens is that when a person -- and you know this personally!!!!!!!! -- starts to ask one thing, questions lead to other questions.

    If one's knowledge of imagery and audio manipulation shows SOME doctoring and manipulation of the end result, with possibly SOME CGI, and one makes the uncareful assumption (in spite of contradictory indications of real material in the overarchingly changed TV imagery), that all items in the TV work is fake ...

    One might begin to delve (as Ab Irato did) into many other topics. As such, he (and Simon) have branched out into areas they are not, seemingly, as good at assessing as the parts of 9/11 faking (I don't mean 100% all-CGI; I mean fake results).

    So, please leave off your attacks about the satellite and rocket and flat-earth and anti-nuke thinking here ... if talking of whether they DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF PART OF THE COVER-UP as Dr. Costella also found for the Zapruder film, with concomitant conclusions (if Simon were more careful about those), that the ball and 60-foot-spire and so on must have been PARTICULARLY inconvenient, and real, and thus extra-specially treated.

    As to the anti-nuke thing: remember, there are (if you had gone to look at the "crazies who think there are no nukes", which I did) actual problems in the early nuke films, which suggest propaganda films were made cheaply and easily with models at times.

    As such, they came to doubt all nukes. It is an uncareful and untenable idea in the end, but it does rope some people to think forever through the maybes ...

    Just as the flat earth society spends much time discussing their alternate explanations.

    Yes, 9/11 was a conspiracy; yes, Paul died (not all the Beatles, for that is directly contravened by certain types of study of their faces and personas, but impressions about the other Beatles have convinced too far for some who went on impression AND science for Paul).

  92. As to "no-one died", well, Don, they may be far closer to the truth than those who emphasize 3,000 deaths.

    That is the point.

    There is one study which showed only 3 legitimate names (appropriate dates of death) are in the SSDI.

    But even if it's several hundred, the point is, MOST ARE FAKE. Even many firefighters have fake photos.

    How this happens, why others don't complain, I don't know. But it is one of the things which led them to their extreme position.

    I think there were a couple of firehouses in on it (the ones used for the Naudet snuff film/ propaganda film).

    And Gelitin-B, the Israeli art student front, did take images of themselves jumping, and lived on an unused floor for several months, so Shack and Jayhan think there were NO jumpers. I disagree, but I can see where they get that idea.

    Shack and Jayhan and others do tend to think NO-one died. Well, can you see how they get that?

  93. Clare Kuehn said:"yes. Computer co-ordinated between stations, yes. But 100% CGI, is not only not necessary, it is directly contravened by the gist of the inconvenient moments in the films, and by the general real qualities of some of it."

    1]What "inconvenient moments" are you referring to, and in what films?. Please specify.

    2] To what "general qualities" are you referring?

    Regards, obf.

  94. Clare Kuehn said: "Again, Don, friend, ENOUGH.
    Your position is untenable..."

    In defense of Fox, please don't try to referee here - you are coming across as a little presumptuous, in my book.

    Fox has got nothing else, he's a fraud, but in his defense he has a perfect right to post whatever he wants- besides it only makes him look even worse than his fake "research" already does.

    Don't listen to C.K., keep it up Fox, you're doing great! :-)

    Clare Kuehn said :"Picking on the overly open-minded people (as in, openmindedness is great, but they do not always pull back when necessary) is unfair."

    You are not speaking on my behalf that's for sure Ms. Kuehn. I don't need defending by you or anyone else from Fox or Fetzer. It's not "unfair" at all- does not bother me in the slightest [as I said elsewhere recently, Don Frauds lame "attacks" make me laugh.]

    Clare Kuen said : "STOP the bludgeoning from your end."

    He ain't bludgeoning anyone but himself, so by all means carry on Foxy :-)

    Regards, obf.

  95. I don't care, OBF, if I am coming across as "presumptuous".

    The reality is:

    Shack's work mostly is tenable; at the point where he (and you) ignore the counterpoints, it is not.

    Don's dismissiveness (and he is a friend) is as total as your credulity, which is regrettable.

    As the only person here, it seems, who is actually quite familiar with Shack's work AND sees flaws AND doesn't think people are agents, it is entirely appropriate from my own feelings to express them.

    Others do, and at least mine are to promote reasonableness and peace in the person currently (Don) who has some chance of understanding that there are parts in Shack's work which are important, since you, it seems, currently buy the overall end conclusion in spite of not only how it sounds (which would not matter if in fact it were perfect, and it is not),

    but also buy it in spite of the fact there are plenty of indications the final logic is flawed, though not some of the findings.

    If you want to keep the bludgeoning going both ways, then put down MY right to tell him to get real about Shack and to stop maligning those who look into odd subjects, sometimes falling for nonsense or improbabilities (such as all-fake nukes, flat earth, etc.).

    At least I look into these things first.

    Let the maligning continue, then.
    And your false conclusions.
    And the misunderstandings from Shack's excellent work (the aspects which are great), work which deserves a major hearing instead.

    Clearly Shack himself, and you, currently, are not going to "get" the real aspects of the day, including the evidence (multiform) for nukes.

    Don has some chance of "getting" the case for bloated numbers of "victims" and of TV faking (in all senses, not 100% CGI in all film clips).

  96. OBF:

    What inconvenient moments? Read higher in the thread. I listed several ways (besides naturalness of photography for certain aspects of and certain whole shots).