Monday, January 6, 2014

Anthony DeFiore / Clare Kuehn

 JFK throat shot / Reprising the Twin Towers


  1. Okay, I gotta say it, please stop talking about Shack and OBF! A minute of time spnt on these idiots is a minute wasted and even worse, you are falling into their trap! They want you to dissipate your energies by having to deal with their attacks and bogus 'analysis'.

    Surely Jim Fetzer and Simon 'Shack' Hyteen are at opposite ends of the quality spectrum when it comes to 9/11 research!

    Therefore, Jim should rise above the slings and arrows of those fools and carry on doing the great work he was before he was distracted and disrupted by them.

    Honestly Jim, it's a waste of your time imho for you to even acknowledge them, file them away with Judy Wood in the disinfo agent file and move on.

    1. Took the words right out of my mouth, Ian. Do Professor Fetzer and Clare Kuehn not realize that every time they mention those two bozos, they bestow on them a credibility and a status the two clown shoes crave and do not deserve? Besides, why don't Professor Fetzer and Clare Kuehn give me a mention once in a while? Huh? Is it asking too much? I mean fair's fair. Just once and I'm happy.
      I'm knocking my pan outré here and what do I get? Not a word! Nothing!!! It ain't right and Professor Fetzer and Clare Kuehn know it ain't right. I blame Mother (Teresa of Toronto) Clare Kuehn for this!! She's behind it!!!

    2. Couldn't disagree more. It only strengthens the knowledge of the case to exhaust everything. And the possibility of some or a lot of video fakery in use is worth exhausting. Even if it turns out to be untrue, or true but ultimately insignificant....I want to hear it EXHAUSTED.
      Sorry if it is difficult for you to listen to, but I appreciate Jim giving this its due.

    3. Thank you, PM.

      I agree with you entirely, though I, too, prefer not to actually listen to hashing of personal attacks back and forth, and for an important issue such as media levels of involvement in pre-controlling (though not ultimately totally faking, literally) the imagery/audio of the day, it is important -- also the high fake-victim content discovery.

      Best wishes.

    4. Inclusion of several of these knuckleheads in the presentation of a case for what destroyed the WTCs would elicit a contempt of court citation from an angry judge for Dr. Fetzer. 90 days! BANG! goes the gavel. I have studied much of Dr. Fetzer*s work and find it A+++ No.1 for its depth and quality. Has he gone mad? No. His work with Kevin Barrett at The Dynamic Duo focuses and gets at the important points concerning issues vital to resolution for the preservation of the U.S. and generally decent productive life in general. Why here? What*s going on? What*s next?
      The central fusion torch device blasting up from the sub basements would have been hot enough to ignite all of the structural cutting thermitic ordnance installed during construction to cut the entire WTCs I and II structural steel of the cores into convenient lengths for carting away. This, indeed appears to be what occurred. The cloud of highly radioactive dust in the pyroclastic cloud would have speedily corroded steel, and mininukes provided the horizontal component which blasted huge steel beams so far from their positions as structural members. Unless those were NOT an entire floor of batteries installed by the people at Fuji. Hmm.

    5. Lewis, your last paragraph there sounds like something in a Science Fiction movie. It is only in these movies that something as fancy and undemonstrated and untested goes so perfectly well. These Apollo missions also went so extremely incredible perfectly well - just like in the movies. Everyone else have to fail a million times before they get it right. Just compare it to all the failed attempts on the electric car revolution.

  2. Furthermore, far, far too much time and effort is being devoted to discussion of fakery in the videos and photos.

    Please, step back from the videos and fakery and look at the bigger picture, the videos are just a small part of the big picture.

    Again, this is falling into the trap set by Shack, OBF et al, they want you to get mired down in pedantic, almost pointless and interminable discussion about the videos and fakery.

    Why? because looking at videos is not going to allow you to learn anything about who perpetrated this awful crime, or how it was carried out.

    Shack et al are trying to disrupt, distract and mislead, they want to keep people away from the key data that can lead to greater understanding and disclosure such as the USGS dust samples.

    Please, move on from the videos and their fakery or not, it is a blind alley you have been led down by these disgusting agents of disinfo.

    Just remember that OBF even stated that it doesn't frickin matter about nukes and Israel and the fakery of the videos was the key thing.

    Whatever these idiots say you should focus on is precisely what you should look away from!

    Do the opposite of what Shack, OBF et al want you to and you will be moving in the right direction. Theentire reason why you have attracted the attention of these lowlifes and become the target of their spurious criticisms and distasteful ad hominem attacks is because you were on the right track and heading in a direction that their Zionist bosses know is dangerous.

    Please Jim, try to see the bigger picture and play smarter.

    1. No, Ian:

      Shack, OBF are well intentioned but feel we are disrupting the big truth, as much as you feel they are.

      They are disruptive here only in that sense.

    2. Same with Jayhan, who was convinced utterly Jim was an agent when he did not understand (accept or understand) the depth of 100% fake victims and footage, and hollow towers.

      Jayhan gave up with Jim, but OBF and Shack (who gave up) still try from time to time, and lately OBF got upset due to a show he did with Jim, etc., so this stuff started anew.



      Ace Baker missed some of the facts, too, but at least he understood some of this.

  3. Clare, I am sure you are wrong and you're doing more harm than good by constantly giving them attention.

    1. I must add, I understand fully Clare's viewpoint on Shack, OBF et al, I just don't share it.

      Maybe I'm being too cynical and suspicious.

      Maybe Clare is being too generous and trusting.

      Maybe the truth lies somewhere between our two opposing viewpoints.

      Regardless of whether I am right or Clare is right, the effect of this infighting between Jim and his supporters and Sack and his cronies has been disruption and a diversion of time ad effort away from more valuable research pursuits.

      I think we can all agree that disruption and diversion of effort are negative things best avoided.

      Now, if I'm right and Shack et al are agents, then the way to avoid further disruption and diversion is to ignore them totally.

      If Clare is right, then I still think the way to avoid further disruption and diversion is to ignore them totally. However, when OBF and others won't stop with their attacks and disruptions then that isn't an option.

      I just want to help find a way to overcome this current mess so that we can get back on track.

    2. Clare gives these guys the benefit of the doubt. After they attacked me time and time again I've had it with their BS.

      If they were honest 9/11 researchers they wouldn't take a ridiculous position like "nobody died on 9/11." Or "all the videos are fake therefore you can't prove nukes." When the videos are a small part of the overall picture. The USGS dust samples merely confirm what is readily apparent: the WTC buildings were nuked. Only nukes can provide the energy needed to turn those behemoths into dust.

    3. Hi Don,

      How many victims should there be if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up? They had a lot to do that day, so maybe they forgot? Or maybe they didn't?

      If they didn't forget, no one should be involved in a conspiracy to murder, with no statues of limitations. That should be the most sensible thing to do for the 911 operation management.

      Should be easier to recruit people to the operation, and they would get total control on the reported victims part of the story, without having to mess with real and mad banksters family members, with access to uptown lawyers, and would never let go. The national news reporters would certainly not have liked to get involved in any conspiracy to murder.

      So, how many victims should there be if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up?

      Have you ever seen any tear anywhere ever from anyone affected by this event? Why not?

    4. "Should be easier to recruit people to the operation"
      It depends on exactly who the recruiters were. It's not so true of Operation 40 or the Mafia or the CIA+MKUltra "Murder, Inc" groups
      "and they would get total control on the reported victims part of the story"
      True and it's a good point.
      "without having to mess with real and mad banksters family members, with access to uptown lawyers, and would never let go."
      The real banksters would have approved of the operation and understood the necessity of sacrificing individuals, and so would anyone in the upper echelons of the class. There was a threatening market collapse at the time that the Towers came down, a major SEC investigation going on in Building 7, and an NIA investigation into the missing 2.3 trllion dollars in the struck section of the Pentagon. The ruling class was desperate, and the war became a major distraction and a source of monetary and stock-market inflation after the first dip.
      "The national news reporters would certainly not have liked to get involved in any conspiracy to murder."
      They've been involved in a lot of such conspiracies -- often on the scale of mass murder.

    5. Thanks Atlanta Bill,

      Deception may be very legal. That may basically just be another religion. So they avoided committing any crimes as much as possible and stuck to deception tools that is basically legal for these top agents in this operation. We can trace the complicity to the gang who control the national news networks, like jew Redstone & Murdock, and to Gov officials, like POTUS & VPOTUS. If caught, they would not face prosecution. All they could lose was their reputation.

      Also good reason for these top agents for the 911 operation management to stay away from any conspiracy to murder was for themselves to avoid being blackmailed by agents on a lower level, among other reasons.

      Maybe, in smaller operations, or mini-operation, where it is harder to connect the top agents of the Nutwork to crimes or murders, maybe avoiding that is less critical. But I will guess it is not. Maybe on the micro level murder could be a solution, maybe.

      The national news reporters are the most expensive and valuable actors they have to sell the message in ALL these operations. Exposing these people for conspiracy to murder after conspiracy to murder when they simply can fake the victims instead, doesn't sounds rational or necessary. Let other people get blood on their hands instead.

      Btw, control on national media isn't one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto

    6. If the buildings were evacuated before they were demolished why did 14 people trapped in the North Tower survive in Stairway B?

    7. Of course Don, they had to add some drama to the story, or to the movie. People believe in stuff like that. They also reinforced the notion that they forgot to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up.

      If the needed some actors, I'm sure they could find some retired people from porn movie business for a few 1000$ if they had to.

      Here is a silly bunch of actors in police costumes 911:

      And here is an even worse actor in ultra clean firefighter costume 911:

      They really do know how thy should present a fairytale to adults, that I can tell, because you are one of the many who believe in all this stuff the scriptwriters wrote (almost).

    8. I also believe the Earth is round.

    9. Actually, it is slightly pear shaped.

    10. It's an oblate spheroid actually, slightly fatter at the middle.Still counts as round though. :)

    11. Most (80-70 per cent or so) of the victims are likely fake. At least about 1/3 or more are.

      We have a BOOSTING of the numbers. That we can prove.

      That is all we need to know; more than that, we cannot determine exactly.

    12. How many victims should there be Clare, if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up? Could be 0.

    13. One victim is a potential life sentence for ALL perpetrators involved. Period. The heinous nature of this crime means a life term and execution for treason for many. There is no defence for such a cowardly porcine act.

    14. I know Lewis, therefor it was really important for the 911 operation management to avoid killing anyone so that no one should be involved in a conspiracy to murder. All they really had to do was to remember to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, and just report it a million times that 3000 patriots had perished. All other potential crimes that day have now expired.

  4. I'm sorry that our discussion may have gotten out of control. When the ad hominems start flying, it's time to stop. We were doing so well until now.

    But, before we stop our pursuit of 9/11 truth, it would be nice to get Dr. Fetzer's take on the video evidence.

    As far as I know, he has yet told us what his theory is regarding how the gashes and fireballs were made. Here is his interview with Ian Greenhaigh. Both give their opinions here:
    Monday, December 16, 2013
    Ian Greenhaigh / Meria Heller
    9/11 TV fakery / "The Roaring Truth"

    Dr. Fetzer said: at 22:35
    1. A cruise missile [cut the outline of a plane on WTC2 ] could have been used so image of plane (CGI) could hide the missile.
    2. Pre-positioned fuel containers hit by missile caused the fireballs.
    3. Fireballs caused the low heat office fires.
    4. The towers were blown apart from the top down.
    5. Ian speaking: Vast energy had to be used to "vaporize" the buildings. Hasn't a clue as to what caused all that dust. Dust samples point to fission, etc. Police banned geiger counters. JF: Laughs, why would they do that?
    IH: Judy Wood a gatekeeper, no reason to exist. JF: Judy is working for ADL.....Judy is not well....etc. Israel did 9/11,,,,article by JF.
    Please set the record straight.

  5. Dr. Fetzer, please look at these implosions and tell us if you see just one that looks like the 9/11 video.

    Incredible footage of the second tallest building ever imploded!

    LANDMARK TOWER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground.


    ? Explosive Demolition- 2002 Best Building Implosions - YouTube

  6. PS. Notice how, in these implosions, the walls are pulled toward the center. Clues Forum shows how WTC7 could not have been a standard (implosion) demolition by analysis of the videos.

    Had the towers exploded (top down with nukes complete with mushroom cloud) as we see in the 9/11 videos, all of the surrounding buildings would have been leveled.

    1. Hey Joan,

      I'm no expert...but isn't that an insanely amateurish view of a nuclear demolition?

    2. WRONG. The state of nuclear technology is such that near exact specs for the resulting detonation can be both directional and absolutely controlled in intensity and direction. Thousands of nuke tests by the USSR and US developed the basic KABOOM into near silent to even louder, as well as control with efficiency for designated purposes. The development of the US/USSR cooperation in the commercial application of nuclear technologies was deffinitely in evidence on 9-11-2001. So very tragic it is that criminals in our own government did it and all congress will do is prance and mewl to the Rothschilds for favorable media coverage for their next political campaign. The US justice system is quite the disappointment as well. That leaves the military, and you know what that means once they get started. Sheeple FAIL.

    3. True: this nuclear hypothesis is different than most people's impressions of what nukes are and can do.

  7. The problem with the towers was that they were mostly steel--all the pre-fabricated column/spandrel assemblies and the 47 thick core columns. There would be a lot of scrap metal to contend with and salvage. The height of the towers would have been an issue and they may have demolished them partly sideways as we see with tall chimneys, etc. Therefore, they would have fallen on buildings 5 and 6, which is consistent with their damage.

    1. Thanks, Joan. Those are all very helpful points. For me, none of the WTC take-downs look like the controlled demolition of the Landmark Tower.

  8. I will not even try to sift through Clare's idiotic flights of language. This has got to be a joke, a disinfo masterpiece. Who has the patience to sit through a tale told by an idiot? Clare could single handedly shut down the idea of discourse. ENOUGH!

    1. You are not capable of careful lines of combined reasoning, then.

  9. "ODE TO A CYBER-CYNIC" by Andrew Tyme, esq.

    IMHO, Simon Shack is a provocateur.

    But not an AGENT provocateur, as far as I can tell.

    (If I had accepted his kind invitation to be a house guest at his "Roman villa" last year, I'm sure that I would have learned more about his sources of income, but so far he doesn't doesn't impress me at all as some sort of covertly funded spook -- despite all of Phil Jayhan's innuendoes.)

    Au contraire! Mr. Hytten/Shack should be celebrated as a modern-day Diogenes, playfully "tweaking the noses" of all those whose belief systems are stodgily rooted in conformity and woefully lacking in curiosity.

    And Simon (ably assisted by his on-line compadres) has solved one of the great mysteries of our time, namely just HOW the USA public was masterfully CONNED into supporting multiple WARS OF AGGRESSION -- to profit "the Chosen" and ruin or destroy the lives of untold legions of "the cattle".

    Yes, Simon has much to be proud of.

    And I'm afraid that he's become so proud that he has more recently delighted (in a mischievously passive/aggressive manner) in posing a whole range of much wider (than 9/11) epistemological questions to his readers:

    Are ANY OTHER "terror attacks" real?

    Are lone-gunman, mass-shootings real?

    Are nuclear bombs real?

    Are NASA's accomplishments real?

    Are earthquakes/typhoons real?

    Is modern cosmology real?

    and on... and on...

    Yes, I think he's "toying" with us now, but that's just what a contemporary Diogenic-cynic SHOULD be doing, amidst all the excessive complacency and intellectual smugness engendered by our modern world's "another-brick-in-the-wall" educational systems and those smarmy 24/7 news channels, crammed with vacuous, smiley-faced shills endlessly repeating the seductive talking-points of their fascistic/corporate masters.

    A close reading of Simon's pronouncements does not actually find him PONTIFICATING that "nobody died, all the victims are fake and none of the images are real."

    Rather, he is POSTULATING, offering up a "target," if you will. He's asking us, "How do we KNOW the conventional wisdom is true?" "Prove me wrong," he asks us.

    And in regard to the faked images and victims of 9/11 at least, that's a mighty hard task, even if a FEW of them DO turn out to be genuine, after all... and nukes WERE used. ;)

    1. Agreed, Andy. Absolutely.

      He is a critic, a tweaker of noses -- but he does sometimes forget what makes his best case and what is not worth it and makes his basic and most important points look stupid.

    2. What has Shack to be proud of? Some very flawed, misleading, shoddy analysis of videos?

      Come on, his work is of next to no value.

      It all boils down to one simple question - is Shack deliberately misleading people or not?

      If he is doing it deliberately, then he's a disinfo agent working to a hidden agenda.

      If he isn't doing it deliberately then he's a pompous, smug, self-righteous clown.

      Regardless of which of those two possibilities is correct, Shack has nothing to be proud of and a lot to be ashamed of. The way he has deliberately disrupted the work of others and the way he and his cronies have attacked others and attempted to ridicule them and their work is something he should be deeply ashamed of. The fact that he isn't ashamed in the slightest means either he has nefarious intentions or he's hopelessly arrogant, both possibilities are disgusting to me.

    3. an, how many times do I have to cover the excellence of Shack's work?

      I covered some of it in this broadcast, some in other broadcasts on this show (search my name for those).

      Shack and colleagues (and in some areas, Jayhan and colleagues) have done excellent work on the victim record for 9/11 history: much of it is fake, outright.

      Also, most broadcasts visually and audially on the day of and afterward have to be pre-planned, and they show that.

      The question is: does pre-planning control mean ALL-FAKE IMAGERY AND COMMENTARY GOT IN?

      And the answer is NO. They don't see why that is; you should be willing to make the distinction, however.

      As to arrogance: yes, just as some of us are being. In thinking we/they are "the Diogenes" poking at the other side, they/we are being a pain to each other.

    4. The "I" was cut off. The first word was "Ian".


    5. Excellent? No way, not in any way, shape or form.

      Sorry Clare, but you will never get me to agree with you on that.

      It's deeply flawed and very misleading, the only thing to be determined is if he intentionally made it misleading or whether he's just incompetent.

      It is very obvious to me that Shack has virtually no knowledge of computer graphics or video compositing techniques and there are many examples in his work where he is either deliberately lying and intending to mislead or is just totally incompetent.

    6. Ian...I would really appreciate it if you could explain to me why the Fox live shot of Flight 175 is anything but a ridiculous forgery.

      Because with or without SimonShack and crew...I PERSONALLY believe that to be some sort of illegitimate video.

      I'm not attacking you...I genuinely want to know WHY there is no goddamn plane in that shot before the zoom in. I've been over it a thousand times and I CANNOT justify it.


    7. I don't know, I've given that some thought too, my opinion is that flight 175 didn't hit the tower, that no plane hit the tower, but what exactly happened I don't know. As I said when I was on the show, what exactly did people on the ground see? If there were no holograms, as this video fakery suggests, then it throws up some intriguing questions about the witnesses. Firstly, are the witnesses telling the truth? Were all the witnesses interviewed by the TV crews actually New Yorkers or were they perhaps crisis actors as used in other instances such as Boston and Sandy Hook? Secondly, if the witnesses were actual New Yorkers who did witness something, what dd they see and hear? Maybe they saw something hit the towers but it wasn't a Boeing. I would suggest the possibility of a cruise missile. You could hide the missile in the faked video simply by placing the 3D model of the airliner on top of the missile. I don't know what a Tomahawk or similar missile's jet engine sounds like but perhaps it sounds enough like the engines of a Boeing to fool laymen on the ground? Finally, no plane means they must have placed kerosene or similar within the building prior to the event to create the fireballs.

      It's an intriguing question and without further evidence or info, we can't do much more than speculate.

  10. My take:

    1. He thinks Jim means that all the stuff hanging together is okay, but to Ima Fakeologist (Ab Irato), it is only fake things which are hanging together.

      Unfortunately, the case for CONTROL and PREPLANNING in the media is strong, with some outright fake elements/witnesses, but utterly fake broadcasting is NOT supportable in many ways.

      With the victims, the case is shadier; exactly how many died and who they were is almost indeterminable from afar, though it seems most were fake. Deaths in WTC7 are highly likely -- though some "all-fake" proponents would question even that. I tend to think there were persons stuck in the towers; but there are those who question the visual jumpers (and testimony of them), and the images of people in the gashes, though I doubt people question that the fire chief went up there -- maybe they question even that broadcast.

      Anyway, the numbers were severely bloated at least, to reach Pearl Harbor levels.

  11. Ima Fakeologist said : "My take: "

    Heh! Great job IF. Very funny, and makes the point with pictures and text in a compact way that makes my long-winded texts on the same issue pretty much obsolete. Congratulations :-).

    Regards, obf.

  12. superfun said : " I will not even try to sift through Clare's idiotic flights of language. This has got to be a joke, a disinfo masterpiece" .

    I am almost at the point where I am ready to recount my introduction to the Clare Kuehn/ Don Fox entities. It's a pretty sad story, in retrospect. Some of you might be interested?

    Regards ,obf.

    1. Flights of language? Complex arguments, emphasizing the best in each position and pointing out the metalogic which shows us when to discount a whole position or only part or none.

      Some of your work is good, OBF, but not your patience with complex subtlety.

  13. Well, this place is a shit storm. Not one of you is patient, respectful, scientific, or mature. Except maybe Clare, who is (as far as I can tell) the only person here who is reasonable. Too many people in the Nuke camp have utterly written off the Fakery camp, and now berate and insult them. Too many people in the Fakery camp have utterly written off the Nuke camp, and now berate and insult them.

    Well, isn't that nice. Isn't that scientific. Isn't that useful.

    1. Exactly, it's been dragged into a morass of petty insults and bickering.

      This is precisely what OBF and his cronies intended when they started attacking Jim and others.

      I badly want to move on and get back to proper research, but that is next to impossible until the disinfo agents that have ruined this place are dealt with.

  14. Andy Tyme said :" A close reading of Simon's pronouncements does not actually find him PONTIFICATING that "nobody died, all the victims are fake and none of the images are real."

    Rather, he is POSTULATING, offering up a "target," if you will. He's asking us, "How do we KNOW the conventional wisdom is true?" "Prove me wrong," he asks us."

    Andy I agree, but you have to realize that you are apparently talking way over the heads of the average Fetzer/Fox "Iz-rayl dunnit awl wid nookes" crowd , who mostly appear to be lacking in basic reading comprehension skills [eg D. Fox] :- )

    Regards, obf

  15. I've stated this previously, but I still don't understand....

    Even if all the video is fake. All of it. It was a movie, and nothing more. AND the USGS dust samples are somehow fake. AND none of this has leaked out. And I mean none of it.

    Then what dustified the towers?

    I have a hard time believing that no one in NYC saw anything happen.

    I do NOT have a hard time believing that very few people died that day. The evidence surrounding this particular aspect is VERY questionable. I can observe that as a human, and it doesn't mean I agree with OBF/SS at all.

    If merely a few dozen people were caught in the crossfire of the day's events and the gov/media exaggerated it, intentionally, to 3000....I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. A few dozen deaths wouldn't get the psyop done.

    And a few dozen is so close to 0 that I can easily see people latching on to that belief as result of the same set of evidence. It is a more shocking stance to take, after all. To say No one died on 9/11 will certainly get people's attention...

    I feel too many of you deal in absolutes. And it is disastrously inhibiting your ability to find truth:

    3000 died vs. 0 died.
    -it was probably a few, a boringly small number.

    Video is real vs. Video is fake.
    -its probably edited, tweaked, and masked in places. Neither fake nor unaltered.

    USGS is reliable vs. USGS is unreliable.
    -its probably reliable, except the parts that have planted nuclear evidence.

    Earth is Flat vs. Earth is Round
    -its mostly flat with rounded corners

    1. Planted nuclear evidence? What possible reason could there be to plant evidence of the use of nukes?

      Boringly small number? I'm sorry, but even one MURDER is still a crime and that is what we are talking about, murders of innocent people.

      You are right about absolutes, and Jim has clearly stated many times that we are not dealing with absolutes or certainties.

    2. I have no idea, Ian. I have no idea why they would plant nuclear evidence, to throw people "off the case" of video fakery and on to "nuclear demolition." That was a bit of a joke on my part.

      It couldn't make less sense.

      Obviously I'm not being insensitive about people dying...what I meant by "boringly small number" is an interpretation of public reaction. When a couple people die in train derailment...people change the channel and go about their day. They don't glaze over with outrage and demand legislation and war against trains.

    3. It's all good my friend, sorry if my reply sounded a bit harsh.

      Good point you make, people have become very desensitised and apathetic, sadly. I think that has been done deliberately.

    4. Which has to make you think, of course...
      The 9/11 perps knew beyond a doubt that death toll, or at least the reported death toll, had to be catastrophic. In fact, I think they accomplished that well enough by telling people on the day of, through the media, that the death toll was "likely" in the tens of thousands.
      Do we even realize how many people tuned out after that? Do we have any concept of how many people are really even aware of the 3000 number?
      I bet if we pulled a Jimmy Kimmel or Luke Rudowski and went on the streets to poll random people as to how many people they believe died on 9/11...the answers would stagger.
      I'm sure more than half of the U.S. is under the impression that more than 10,000 people died that day.

    5. Great point, I bet very few would have much of a clue. Rewind to the 1950s and do the same about Pearl Harbour and I bet half or more would know how many died.

      We have dumbed down to an alarming extent.

  16. PM said: "Well, this place is a shit storm."

    Yup. Oh for the good ole days when Fetzer alone talked down from on high to polite guests [eg myself] then used ad hominems against the same in other threads both here and elsewhere :-)

    Yeah, the good ole days. [closes eyes] zzzzzzzzzzz..............

    Regards, obf

  17. PM said : "I feel too many of you deal in absolutes. "

    Please re-read my re-worded comment near the current end of the previous Kuehn/Fox thread.

    Regards, obf.

  18. PM said "Then what dustified the towers?"

    May seem like a stupid question, but seriously, how do you know the towers were "dustified" for certain?

    Regards, obf.

    1. Dust covering everything in Manhattan on 9/11:

    2. Agreed on this aspect, Ian.

      Radical doubt skepticism only works if the person remembers that it is usually unnecessary and checks that other lines of evidence have to be fake too.

      Shack and other groups of media fakery emphasize many great things, but a lack of strange amounts and types of dust as a result of the towers is not one of their accurate ideas.

    3. Shack's methods are shoddy at best, his video analyses are, in many cases, so flawed that they are likely deliberately misleading, here is a clear example:

      He makes no effort whatsoever to do proper research, proper in the sense of looking at multiple sources of data and info and cross-checking them against each other.

      Shack makes no attempt at all to follow any kind of scientific method, he merely comes up with outlandish theories based on some extremely shoddy 'analysis'.

      Whether Shack is a disinfo agent or not, his work is misleading. Maybe he is just a smug, self-important incompetent, but I still maintain, he's working to a hidden agenda and his work is deliberately misleading and intended to obfuscate. Add to that his behaviour and that of his cronies which is designed to distract and disrupt and he really has no credibility whatsoever.

      I don't think video/photo analysis is of much importance in solving the 9/11 crime, it does have some importance, but far, far less than Shack et al place on it. If you don't cross-check the videos with other data, then you render any analysis you do of the video worthless. Therefore, we can dismiss Shack's work as being deeply flawed and invalid due to lack of any crosschecking with other data.

      We've already wasted enough time on this guy, even if we consider video analysis to be of importance, then there are far better pieces of analysis than anything Shack has done.

      Honestly, Shack's work is misleading and fatally flawed, therefore, regardless of whether it is his intention to mislead or not, we should ignore it as it is of next to no value.

    4. OBF,

      Dustification of the towers is about the only thing I AM certain of.

  19. Simon Shack is exactly right here in defining the true enemy as those "who have hijacked the fine art of film & photography to use it as a weapon of mass deception."

    It's not just Sandy Hook, Boston and 9/11, but it goes much further back in time: Once you see what the pattern is, you can easily see through these deceptions.


    The major threat we are facing on this planet has NOTHING to do with "nuclear bombs". It has to do with the devastating arrogance of the psychopathic, rogue and power-obsessed goons who have hijacked the fine art of film & photography to use it as a weapon of mass deception. This sorry bunch of low-life individuals keep using their 'magic', Hollywood-honed visual tricks to stage fake terror attacks, fake h-bombs, fake space travels, fake school shootings - and fake popular uprisings which they use as pretexts to invade very real and peaceful sovereign countries. NO nukes are needed to achieve all this - only phony imagery which, most unfortunately, most people still reckon to be real and legit!

    As long as the masses will keep falling for this visual trickery, the afore-mentioned goons will keep ripping off the fine inhabitants of this planet. Therefore, there can be no over-estimating the POWER OF IMAGERY and its crucial role in allowing the PTB to keep ruling and regulating our lives. One may rightly wonder: will they get away with this wretched tomfoolery forever and ever? Highly doubtful. I - for one - do not think so.

    1. 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 to devote to serious research that might lead to answers they don't want us to have.

      Yes, control of the media has played a significant role in covering up various things in the last few decades, but the fatal flaw in all of the theories of Shack and his cronies is their refusal to consider the other info sources and complete lack of cross-referencing from multiple sources, therefore it is pretty clear to 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 is invalid and can't be taken seriously.

    2. Ian,

      They had to upgrade the nuke scare because it was rather old and not so very credible and scary after Soviet Union imploded, with this more modern War on Terror scare. But nukes are about as credible as this Osama bin Laden threat.

      We have never had any nuclear wars, to really get an demonstration of this reported 1945 invention, and they simulated the ObL attack too - even you must agree with that.

      What are all these other sources of yours? And why should they be trustworthy? After all, they faked the attack on "live" news, on all networks, so what should the problem be for the international jew mafia to have some of their scriptwriters to create some reports much later?

      Gov at the highest level was complicit too, for sure. So for USGS, they only need their agent at the top there, and then one or two guys in an office to claim that they have written the report. Probably told what they should write too. Any Hollywood producer know how to set this up.

      There has never been an investigation of this 911 event. What they did was that they had a committee (not a real or typical or conventional investigation) to look into this.

      People can lie as much as they have too to that body. Was just another cover-up I guess. (not entirely sure about this investigation part)

    3. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

      You are using the same flawed invalid 'analysis' method as Shack - look a a few pictures then dream up an outlandish theory.

      Just because you can find a few pictures of Hiuroshima that look like Tokyo after the firebombings means nothing.

      You must examine ALL available data about Hiroshima, ALL OF IT, not just some pictures.

      The bomb exploded at a height of 600m, the fireball was 200m in diameter, the blast wave was around 1400m in effect. That is why concrete structures were left standing.

      Until you actually bother to try to form a cogent argument, then your Hiroshima BS should be ignored.

    4. Joan,
      How do we know that the invasion of peaceful sovereign nations aren't fake too?

    5. Hi Ian,

      I wish you wouldn't use terms like "bullshit" or similar, here at Jim Fetzer's place. Some older or more conservative people may object to its use. Please consider "dumbfounding", "confound", "astound", instead.

      Just because the reported bomb exploded at a height of 600m, shouldn't imply that there shouldn't be any traces of any Ground Zero at Ground Zero. It is not just the concrete structures that were left standing, but the very clean streets, no damage to the riverfront, brick chimneys standing, the flat roof on BoJ building protected those guys, and is still standing on the same spot today. That mega explosion should have blasted rubble outwards from the epicenter, but we cannot detect that either. And no crater either of course.

      Here is another official photo of the Trinity crater. That nuke went of 100 feet above the ground: - Looks like there are still sand and mud in that crater. Not really very impressing if you ask me. Looks like about 10kg dynamite went off there. Shouldn't the ground turn into glass?

      And where did all that material in the smoke plume that rose to 60000 feet come from? Must have been something else than just hot air.

      Over 1100 photos were taken by the Physical Damage Division of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) in 1945. I have just ordered this book with 750 of them: - Also ordered this book: Japan 1945: A U.S. Marine's Photographs from Ground Zero

      Lets wait and see if any Ground Zero turns up in any of those books. Impossible to find any Ground Zero, or epicenter, or crater in Google Images.

      You do understand the significance of this question, don't you? Would be terrible for the nuke bomb huggers if Hiroshima turned out to have been firebombed like Tokyo and Yokohama instead.

    6. Okay, let's just say I consider this entire thing about Hiroshima and the fakery of nukes to be pure, unadulterated bovine fecal matter and not worth discussing.

    7. Hi Ian,

      Technically, Hiroshima isn't the topic here. Nuclear Neutron Demolitions is. And if you promote that idea, we have stated some problems with the beginning of that story or invention. Something isn't quite right.

      As JF told us, we need to start reading the science philosophers. Have done so, and here is what Aristotle advised us:

      "If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development".

      This is really important and an extremely simple strategy for revealing all the Big Lies we have been exposed to.

      Example: If I told you that I shot down a pig that was flying above my head yesterday, you would instantly smell that there was something fishy with that story, and you wouldn't have to cross check with other sources, because there are something wrong with the basis in that story - pigs don't have wings.

      And when you promote these really fancy mini nukes, and the by far most famous story on nukes, and the first public demonstration isn't credible, these fancy mini nukes cant be so very credible either.

    8. You're either extremely stupid or a disinfo agent, I really don't know which.

      There is nothing worth discussing when it comes to this insane theory of nukes being fake.

      But you keep bringing it up, therefore, you're either dumb as a post or deliberately spreading disinfo.

    9. I would love an answer re. sand not turning to glass after nukes and any kind of structures standing at or near ground zero at Hiroshima.

    10. Clarie, the explanation is that Hiroshima was firebombed with these M-69 firebombs:

      Alle the historivals films and photos of yjie event is consistent with firebombibg, just like Tokyo and Yokohama, and not any big mega explosion. There are no specific signs of this in the footage, like no crater, no epicenter, no Ground Zero. We have basically clean streets, no damage to the riverfront, all bridges intact, flimsy brick chimneys standing while house gone - all this is also consistent with firebombing. No EMP damages in Hiroshima either:

      Not at all hard for anyone to check this for themselves in Google Images. But they don't want to, and behave just like typical deniers.

      So when did they stopp faking it then, and when was the first real nuclear bomb?

      If you go trough the story from the beginning, you will see that is basically just like a plot in a movie. Heroes, and struggles and luck and a fantastic spectacular ending, and just in time! IT ALL WENT SO WELL!

      And this reported tragedy in Hiroshima may have been the top news story of the 20th century.

  20. I this show, among other things, they ducked the question on the missing Ground Zero in Hiroshima. And that is understandable, for how should they have explained that?

    Ground Zero in Hiroshima is a really big deal. After all, this reported tragedy in Hiroshima may have been the top news story of the 20th century:

    And then, to not have a Ground Zero, is about as suspicious and significant for the rest of the story as this plane that penetrated a solid reinforced concrete slab supported steel façade without making any hole:

    It is simply not possible to build a case for any Ground Zero in Hiroshima in any of the published photos or films of the event. Or maybe as credible as this Pentagon crash video.

    JF: ...if depending on any one source, then the argument would have merit. Then we need to go about to make sure that source was impeccable.

    The only source we have for this Hiroshima nuke bombing is the US Military TopSecret Operations et al. According to the link above, the censorship in Japan late 1945 was even more severe than N Korea today. The Japanese Army et al also depended on this story to not lose face. They couldn't have foreseen this new monster weapon and couldn't really be blamed for the surrender - impossible to continue the fight faced with this new threat.

    The case for the Nuke Bomb Hoax was mind boggling terrible stated in this show. The very eminent Fakologist himself have interviewed two guys that are far more familiar with the issues, and I suggest you listening to one of his shows to become familiar with some of the problems in the reported story on nukes. Pick the version you will be most comfortable with:

    Rerevisionist of (very jew wise):

    Edmund Matthews ("jews are cute"):

    1. Edmund Matthews:

    2. Maybe the Hiroshima nuke bombing was a Hologram? Who knows?

  21. Note to the logic impaired: a simple "no brainer" [one would think :-) ] - the presence of large amounts of dust in Manhattan, post demolition, does _not_ mean that the towers were definitely, without question, "dustified" [ie turned to dust] , as Wood and others here claim.

    regards, obf.

    1. Exactly OBF. A standard "regular" demolition would produce the same dust. Concrete and asbestos etc.

    2. Gonna have to disagree with you on this point. This is an absurdly inaccurate assessment of "regular" controlled demolition. I'm unaware of even ONE example that supports this claim.

      And my-oh-my is a reach to say that the fact that Manhattan was covered in dust does not mean it was the towers themselves were turned to dust. I get what you're trying to say, and WOW is that ridiculous. How hard you must have to try to make the preposterous seem likely, in order to fit with the idea of a little bit of CGI.

    3. Well said PM, preposterous really sums it up.

  22. Aral Sea said : "A standard "regular" demolition would produce the same dust. Concrete and asbestos etc."


    The whole alleged "dustification" of steel and concrete idea rests firmly on the false foundation of the faked 911 imagery; both the original, as archived, MSM network imagery, and the later released higher res. , faked videos and still imagery, with their spectacular views of towers exploding upwards and outwards, just like in a "real" Hollywood movie [ :-) ].

    Regards, obf.

    1. Unbelievable, you criticise others for a lack of scientific method and faulty reasoning then you spout utter crap like this, how ironic...

      Again, you focus solely on the 'fakery' of images and ignore all other possible sources of data, that means you are guilty of flawed and therefore invalid method.

      There are many other pieces of data you could consider, not least f which is the fact that there was no pile of debris, just two smoking holes in the ground surrounded by a trifling amount of steel.

      Half a million tonnes of concrete and steel would make a huge debris pile, and there would be two such piles, there would be no missing a million tonnes of debris but no, there were no such debris piles.

      Why? because a large portion of the towers was dustified, there is no denying that, there are multiple, verifiable data sources which can be cross-checked and therefore constitute proof.

      As for the claim that a 'normal' demolition wold also created the same amount of dust, that is utter BS, laughable, ludicrous.

      Show me even one example of a demolition where half of the steel and concrete was turned into dust? You can't, because that is not what happens. Cutter charges break apart the key supporting parts of the structure causing the structure to collapse and you are left with a large pile of debris and only a very small amount of dust.

      A HUGE amount of energy is required to dustify half a million tonnes of material (half of both towers = 0.5 million tonnes) far more energy than can be produced by conventional explosives, thermite or anything else short of a nuclear bomb. I'm not even going to consider sci-fi BS like Judy Wood's DEW, let's stick to things we know exist, regardless of your BS about nukes not existing.

      Honestly, itmust be blatantly obvious to all sane, rational people that when OBF writes laughable crap like this about dustification that he is nothing more than a clown, someone who revels in spreading misinformation and BS, as he himself said, a sick mind.

    2. Here are some examples of the debris left after a controlled demolition:

      A tower block in Glasgow, nice neat pile of rubble, many recognisable pieces, entire roof structure sat intact on top of pile:

      A papermill in Scottish Highlands prepared for explosive demolition:

      During the demolition:

      The resulting large pile of rubble:

      Demolition of a factory in Yorkshire:

      The resulting pile of rubble, notice the bricks are all intact, no signs whatsoever of dustification:

      Demolition of Red Road Flats in Glasgow:

      Notice how the crowds of people stood within 300m are not covered in dust, how there are no huge clouds of dust like 9/11. All that was left was this pile of rubble:

      Notice how there is zero dust on the surrounding vegetation.

    3. Ian hit this thing out of the park. Jim and I have been harping on the lack of debris in the Towers demolition for years but Ian sums it up very succinctly and provides excellent examples of what should have been observed.

      Conventional explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. But they were not the primary force involved - it was thermonuclear weapons. Non-explosive nanothermite and non-existent DEWs can also be ruled out.

      The USGS dust samples and the DOE water sample evidence merely confirms what was observed - thermonuclear bombs converted the Towers into dust which then covered Lower Manhattan. The USGS and DOE reports fit in nicely with all of the other data that we have. Those reports were not faked.

    4. Technically speaking, Don, the radical doubt position would point out that you do not have exact surety about the USGS reports, and their doubt about the video (because the dustification just "has" to be wrong, they think) and some think nuke bombs don't exist, all support (to them) that the USGS was under control, too.

      Now, I have every doubt in mind about gov't agency independence, but also a realism about how controlled everyone is, or not, as you do. And I have a realism, as you do, about the nuke bomb reality as being so highly likely that claims about spallation (dustification) can maybe account for the lack of much of the building material. And so, I do not go to radical doubt in the final analysis.

      But one can always go to radical doubt.

      What you DO forget is that DEWs in the weird sense, not just EMF weaponry of the ordinary sense or Lasers, is an hypothesis for weaponry which is truly "weird, nearly sci-fi", and that we do not know if it exists in some new form.

  23. dust bags were probably placed throughout the mostly hollowed out towers to lend support to the dustification theories they designed the conspiracy narratives around. simples.

    1. Bullshit. What evidence is there to support this?

    2. Is it possible to trace who manufactured the dust bags?

      What companies produce dust bags?
      Check out the Yellow Pages and start with vacuum cleaners.
      What name screams at you from the Yellow Pages immediately? Hoover!!?? Got it!!

      See!? Hoover = CIA.

      Case closed right there!!

    3. LOL

      Didn't Bill Colby say the CIA owned everyone of consequence in the vacuum cleaning industry?

    4. Was any evidence of dustified dust bags ever found? Also was the dust in the dust bags dustified too? What justification do you offer for this secondary or double dustification of the dust bags and their dust content? How many times can dust be dustified before it loses its flavor and/or texture? When does dustified dust cease to justify being referred to as "dust"?

    5. You're on the ball, Ian!!!
      Keep digging the dust/dustified dust/dustified dust bags and dust contents.

    6. pshea's interesting idea is not so interesting. The metal is mostly missing and what there is of it is sometimes bizarrely micro-holed; the filing cabinet was mostly disintegrating; the concrete was not in chunks, piles. The damned things turned to dust enough to say they dustified.

  24. Clare is in the same camp as Ed Charini aka DallasGoldBug and his Jimmy Carter is JFK and LBJ was John B. Connally bullshit. It's all in the ears and in your mind, Clare.

    1. No, Goldbug is horrible at facial recognition.

      PID has nothing to do with that.

  25. so paul died in a car crash and the rest of the band advertised the fact, all with the backing of their tavistock developers/paymasters? either that or we are all ensconced in a vast social engineering experiment, designed to suck out energy and to distract and divide genuine investigators/truthseekers! paul was replaced and rumours of his death were greatly and deliberately exaggerated. (very similar to jfk, eh?-and didn't the beatles make their American appearance very shortly after the 'death' of jfk? hmmm.-as jim has said previously, they consoled the broken hearts of a traumatised American public.)

    (why does your left eye and nose look weird when the picture accompanying your posts is enlarged clare?)

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up.

    (with the help of a few persuasive and well chosen plants, of course).

    Aye Aye Captain!

    1. pshea:-

      I am firmly of the belief that Clare Kuehn IS Paul McCartney.
      The similarities are uncanny. I have recently discovered a video buried deep on YouTube. Check out YouTube " Clare Kuehn Message from Paul McCartney ". Clare aka Paul is obviously an agent provocateur.
      What better way to divert everybody's attention from her true identity than by pushing this PID bullshit? An amazing double bluff!
      Check out the YouTube video!

      There can no longer be any doubt;

      Clare Kuehn IS Paul McCartney!!

      Can someone do voice analysis?

      P.S. Clare Kuehn is left-handed just like Paul McCartney although she did undergo electric shock therapy to change to being right-handed. She is now ambidextrous.

      Watch the YouTube video! Pay close attention to the eyes, nose and mouth!!

    2. This is stupid.

      Forensic analysis of Paul is not. Nor is the fact that history actually allows the replacement and the "clues" are multiform and mostly obvious, neither of which are formal proof, but are proof in the tentative sense enough to ASK: is there forensic analysis, and why, if it shows he is different, do you not SEE it when some do?

      Those are the questions.


    3. "Proof in the tentative sense"??!!

      What utter DRIVEL!!!!

    4. No, Mike. Proof, clue, evidence, theory, case are all terms which we use in the tentative, side-building sense along the way AND in the sense of items fully finished with and decided upon in a final analysis.

      YOU are drivel and uncareful (so far). Work harder.

  26. Why do you keep bringing up Paul? Please, leave that one alone unless Jim chooses to do a show about it. It's of minimal import compared to the serious subjects like 9/11, JFK, Sandy Hook etc.

    1. Wrong: it is not directly about politics but it likely involves cultic-intel motivations, spook mind/propaganda control, and certainly raises the question of how much we will question and be accurate about.

  27. After wading though all the noxious detrius spread on this thread by trolls and msm-huggers, I'm definitely gaining more sympathy (but still not outright approval) for the hair-trigger banning reflexes of the moderators at Clues Forum and Let's Roll.

    The old cliche' that "you draw more and more flack the closer you get to the target" seems proven once again.

    If it's true that the original Paul was a relative innocent and the Faul entity is either a devotee or creation of the Crowley/OTO crowd, that would open some doors and brighten some dark corners, now wouldn't it?

    1. Actually, Don Yates, you SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND the PID situation enough to comment. It is far from unproven, and also is not SO weird, after all.

      Andy Tyme: it is likely that with Sir Paul's known interest in Crowley, that one thing he brought to the band and its circles was greater affiliation with (to some degree) the ideas of "positive magick" and the darker circles around as well. In fact, it does have cultic-intel overtones -- the date, the rapidity with which Sir Paul was brought up and in, and the general sea-change from grief and psychedelic New Age Crowley admiration, in the Beatles' repertoire.

      But in NO WAY is that the whole reason for the changes and growth in the group, their art and music.

    2. Clare,
      Why do you continue to pump your inane PID nonsense into this thread? Wait until Professor Fetzer invites you back for a reprise of your PID horseshit. Until such time, please cease and desist from soiling this worthy thread with your constant and lunatic PID ramblings and asinine rubbish.

    3. Frank,

      Clare is doing a PID show in a couple of days. If you think that the Paul McCartney onstage these days is the same as pre-1966 Paul then you are sadly mistaken.

      Really all it takes to become a PIDer as it were is the ability to differentiate between a before and after photo. The James Paul McCartney (JPM) from 1942-1966 is a different guy than the one up there now. Faul has a different jaw, nose, mouth and ears than JPM. It's really not even that close if you give it more than 15-20 minutes of study. Eric Hufschmid has a good post on this.

      Tina Foster does as well.

      Clare is hardly the only one in the PID camp. Fetzer is starting to lean that way as well.

      I spend most of my time on JFK and 9/11 but I can tell the difference between the before and after photos so count me amongst the PIDers.

    4. Don,

      A load of subjective, unscientific guesswork, rumor, hearsay, surmise and unsubstantiated voodoo claptrap and codswallop..... in other words?

    5. Mike,

      Paul and Faul have different jaws "The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error."

      Two forensic pathologists share my opinion. What evidence do you have to back yours up?

    6. Don -
      You have had the reputation for a long time of being one of Clare Kuehn's most fanatical and deluded disciples as regards the PID charade. Stop pushing Clare Kuehn's PID bullshit on this blog. You have now joined the ranks of the Flat Earthers with your misguided support for Clare Kuehn and her PID balderdash. Another good man falls prey to Clare Kuehn's delusional PID rantings and ravings.

      Another good man bites the dust(ified).

    7. "Two forensic pathologists share my opinion"


      "Two sets of PHOTOS" !!!?? WOW

      Evidence?? LOL

      You're kidding. Right??

      Evidence!!?? LMFAO

    8. Okay, resistant doofuses:

      there IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE and some of it is ABSOLUTE, even if you do not have the impression yourself.


      PID is not a matter of opinion alone.

      However, of COURSE I UNDERSTAND why you resist this. I know how "odd" this sounds, like 100% all-fake Sandy Hook, no-planes, and all-fake video evidence; but the first two are REAL faking, the latter an OVERSTATEMENT of SOME REAL fakes.

      Paul's death is perfectly provable.
      It is also real faking.

      And as a matter of fact, it explains a lot about the history; not everything changes in explanation, but many things do.

      Finally, it is sad. Very sad. And it does link to intel.

      So manybe, John Gant, stop laughing in self-assured silliness (which I UNDERSTAND, since I was there once), and actually open your mind to it. Really try it on, just in case.

      If it is so, it is so. (And it is.)

  28. Excellent points Andy.

    I agree very much about the flak, you don't catch flak unless you're approaching the target. This very point is a large part of my rationale for suspecting strongly that the people who post here claiming everything about 9/11 including the victims is fakery and nukes are fake are doing so because Jim Fetzer, Don Fox and others are on track towards the truth.

    If Israel/Mossad in collusion with neocons and Zionists nuked the WTC, which seems to be what happened, then the disinfo agents employed by the perpetrators would aim their flak guns at those who posit that nuclear weapons were used and point the finger at Israel/Mossad and their US collaborators.

    Therefore, you have to question very strongly the motivations of those who attack Jim and Don such as OBF and Simon 'Shack' Hytten. Those who question the existence of nukes like El Buggo must also fall under suspicion.

    As for Paul, I don't see any rationale for replacing him. If he died in a car crash or some other way, then why replace him? It wouldn't necessarily have been the end of the Beatles, Brian Jones died but the Stones rocked on. Personally, I don't believe the theory that Paul died, and further, don't even think it has enough basis to even bother refuting it, and finally, I don't think it is important enough to spend time researching, it wouldn't appear on a list of the 100 most significant conspiracies to investigate imho.

    1. Careful, Ian.

      1. Many of the victims are patently fake. Learn the proofs. NOT ALL have to be, but many must be.

      2. There are many reasons Paul might have been killed. But if it was a pure accident, there were also reasons for replacing AND not telling (though the latter was likely suggested to them, not their own idea, and probably took some convincing).

      You have no idea if THEY would have felt it would likely be the end of the band. Likely THEY would have felt it would be.

      The Beatles were far more a tight group in the public mind than the Stones ever were.

      As to the basis: it has been both formally proven and circumstantially argued (tentative-proven) for some time now.

      As to importance: it shows the level we get fooled and by our own beloveds, if their lives feel on the line. It shows also how to argue a point which people disparage -- one which, unlike a flat Earth, actually turns out to be true.

  29. To comment on this show, which I found excellent and informative.

    1. I am very disappointed that M C Piper backed out, I suspect as Jim also did, that he just didn't want to engage in a debate.

    2. The caller Linda made excellent points, not least of which was to liken Piper's stance on Boston and Sandy Hook with that of Alex Jones. Jones is a disinfo agent financed by Israeli/Zionist interests , which is why he refuses to mention Israel in connection with 9/11 or any other event and instead talks endlessly about 'The Illuminati' and other spurious guff. If Piper is taking the same stance on Boston and Sandy Hook as Jones, then we also have to suspect Piper of being a disinfo agent. This is very strange as he wrote a book about how Israel played a significant role in the assassination of JFK (Final Judgment).

    3. The point about how the alternative media largely fails to question the way the MSM presents outright fake news was one that I myself have pondered before. The simple and disturbing answer is that the alternative media is very much infiltrated by agents of the same people who control the MSM. Primary is the aforementioned Alex Jones, I suspect that not only are their many others,but that there are now so many disinfo agents operating that you have to be very suspicious of all the players until you can establish with a fair degree of certitude that they are on the level. Perhaps the primary indicator for me that someone is a disinfo agent is that they ignore the role of Israel and the Zionists and instead point the finger elsewhere.

    4. I am working my way through M C Piper's new book False Flags and I have to concur with Jim Fetzer that it is not at all an impressive piece of work and that it displays little in the way of critical thinking or proper research. I find this very disappointing coming from a writer that I previously held in quite high regard due to his previous work, especially Final Judgment. Jim has extended to Piper the opportunity to debate and appear on his show to defend and discuss his work, but sadly it seems that Piper is not willing to do so.

    Sadly, I am now strongly questioning just what agenda M C Piper is following and who may be directing his work from behind the scenes. I suppose this just serves as a timely reminder that we must remain sceptical and suspicious of all info sources until they have been thoroughly vetted.

    1. Ian, I think you are being too strident about some things here.

      1. Israel/Zionists are not the only players, or always the big ones.

      2. Piper is a very imperfect thinker and yet has done some good work.

      3. It is quite natural that, like many here about the 9/11 100% fake-imagery claim (which does not stand up to scrutiny, but that is not what is mostly being done here: proper scrutiny, which would discover much fake as well), Piper would feel people are going too far with their Sandy Hook claims, even when faced with evidence that most about it was fake (the images themselves, including the younger kids and Lanza and green screens for interviews, but the drills were real footage, yet a lie).

      4. Jones is a fanatic and has some of the same blind spots as others. He is as concerned with over-talking up Israel as you are in seeming to want to talk it up. He also is blind to the all-fake claims for Boeings and Sandy Hook. It does not sit well with him. It is clear what his general take is: he is careful in some ways (collecting much evidence for false flags) and uncareful in others (times when something sounds just too weird to him). He also plays up stuff that will make him money (over-playing the fearmongering), but he is genuinely concerned and afraid and upset, too. He is perhaps convenient to the establishment (harping on Ron Paul, whose anti-government economics would gut the country, and staying away from the "weird" in 9/11, Sandy Hook, etc., and the constant mention of the little country Israel, which is given not enough emphasis by him, but overemphasis here), and many people do feel that way, too. Piper is one who stays away from what SOUNDS weird. That is all.

    2. AJ is protecting the basis for the War on Terror, namely the victims and planes part, and he is also silent on the complicity of the media or the Weapon on Mass Deception in that operation. This is characteristic for disinfo agents 911, but not specific. "The Arabs own Hollywood" - that was a good one. He is definitely protecting the tribe.

      "Disinfo must ALWAYS hide itself within a thick cloak of truth. Otherwise no one would swallow the poison." -nameofthepen.

    3. "Piper is a very imperfect thinker and yet has done some good work..."

      By definition if you are a human being you are an imperfect thinker. In that respect Piper isn't any different than the rest of us. He has done some good work but none of us bat 1.000. Hopefully his takes on Sandy Hook and Boston will improve over time. While us humans are imperfect we have the ability to improve.

      And I'll be damned if I don't agree with a lot of El Buggo's post for a change.

      But 9/11 was not a total media creation. Buildings were nuked with real people in them. Did 3,000 people die? That number is up for debate but they did identify pieces of 1,634 people and more chunks are getting unearthed all of the time so expect that number to up.

    4. I agree with you Don.

      One point about Alex Jones though - his op is quite sophisticated, in that the way it works is that he releases a lot of good info but throws in just a little bit of misleading stuff so that you will never get to the heart of the matter from following him. i.e. Israel and the Zionist global crime network.

      Churchill wrote that the truth is best protected by a bodyguard of lies, well Jones is using that principle but taken one stage further - the key truth is hidden behind a bodyguard of lies but there is also an overlaid obfuscating layer of truth.

      Jones will give you the truth then veer off into his Illuminati guff so that you never reach the key truth.

    5. Yeah Alex Jones is a piece of work. He forever bemoans the collapse of society yet shills hard for policies that would do just that.

      Make no mistake Austrian economics is an attack on human civilization. No surprise that the majority of its proponents are Jewish. Or that most of Alex' sponsors are Jewish. Or that most of his guests are Jewish. No surprise that Alex fails to "name the Jews" involved in 9/11 or any of these other big events.

      How can Alex be regarded as a major figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement? He won't tell you what happened on 9/11. He doesn't talk about the Twin Towers getting nuked. Or that the planes were never hijacked. He just says he doesn't know what happened.

      With no budget over here at radiofetzer we've answered most of those questions and given the public the most complete accounting for what occurred on 9/11.

    6. Don, typical modern rightwingers do not tend to see that the kinds of economics they push (i.e., no gov't central vision for a country working with but not massively lobbied by businesses) would ruin the country.

      Alex clearly falls into the radical skepticism the other way than OBF, which is the idea that, for example, Piper and many who are not conspiracy thinkers (theorists, thinkers, unofficial detectives) fall into: that what sounds like replacements (no planes for 9/11, no children for Sandy Hook, unconventional demolitions by nuke for 9/11, or, for that matter, a switch, without announcement, into using a new bandmate, a "double" for Paul McCartney) are just too silly.

      They get that coups occur, lies occur, military poseurs get used (say, in Boston at the drill), but not that switches, slights of hand of other kinds are quite in evidence.

      I do not think Alex is anything more than a very aware person who has convenient blind spots. His unwillingness to delve into Israel's possible complicity on 9/11 is typical -- of most I meet, too. And same with Shack and Jayhan: anything Israel sounds like a person may be a fanatic non-thinker, because of the impression most people have that Israel is over-blamed and only those are fanatics of the types who call anyone bad an honourary "Jew", i.e., making mistake after mistake about real motivations, which vary over many groups.

      Please re-read this several times.
      Best wishes,

  30. Clare, please don't be so adamantly opposed to the POSSIBILITY that the 103 minutes of "live coverage" was entirely CGI-fabricated. The "instant replay"-style recurrence of identical camera angles and footage, but with differing or totally absent logos/banners, directly contradicts how the rival networks were wired/configured in their respective master-control rooms in 2001. As for the much later-appearing 9/11 imagery, I agree some of it may well be genuine, but quite a bit of it nevertheless does NOT really "hang together,", thanks to various missing or incorrectly placed/rendered buildings, crowds, smoke, sunlight angles and sight lines. And... Simon's scepticism to the contrary, nukes are NOT ruled out by the substantial evidence of fraudulent photos and video. If all the other vital data (seismic records, USGS dust samples, cancer statistics, etc.) have not been comparably tampered with, then there still IS plenty of credible evidence for nukes APART from those bizarre-and-spectacular, Independence Day-reminiscent, tower-explosion videos and stills.

    1. I'm not opposed to the possibility in principle;

      I am opposed to the possibility with countering reasons.

      The kinds of mistakes covered up partly are embarrassing, fitting together in a very natural way for real embarrassment; and the dustification itself fits the debris status after.

      Most imagery was CONTROLLED, as in, viewpoints, put through processing in the computer. Planning every error to seed it for researchers is technically possible but counter to human nature. The errors hang together for real errors. Real f-ups.

      At that point, it is an argument against radical skepticism -- it is not an argument against radical testing wherever possible.

  31. Andy Tyme said : "...If all the other vital data (seismic records, USGS dust samples, cancer statistics, etc.) have not been comparably tampered with......."

    "If" Andy, "if". :-) .

    Regards, obf

    1. Too radical, OBF. These are multiple sources and from groups which were not complying with the official story.

    2. Andy's points are well-taken. Clare goes out of her way to be kind to others, even when they are abusing the privilege of posting here.

      If we were to follow his extreme skepticism, there would be no basis for rational study of 9/11 because of the absence of evidence.

      Which may be the position he is promoting. If there were any GOOD REASONS to doubt these sources of information, he ought to have offered them.

      He not only wants something for nothing but has nothing to offer to support his bizarre claims. I have reluctantly been forced to conclude that he is a sham.

    3. Who are you calling a "sham," Dr. Fetzer?
      Who are you calling a "sham," Dr. Fetzer?
      Who are you calling a "sham," Dr. Fetzer?

      (catching, isn't it?) ;)

      Seriously, I have yet to encounter any plausible, detailed debunking of the NON-photographic evidence for 9/11 nukes -- just a blanket, generalised suspicion of ALL government-provided data of ANY kind.

      (Now THAT's radical scepticism for you!)

      But I certainly HAVE been impressed by the very intricately detailed and plausible case, sourced image by sourced image, that Shack has made for widespread fraud in how the tower hits and collapses were media-depicted.

      So please try to understand, Jim, (even if you are still unwilling to devote the time to studying Shack's painstaking, post-September Clues analyses) that accepting the premise that a great deal of the 9/11 imagery is not reliable DOES NOT therefore leave us with, as you put it, "no basis for rational study of 9/11 because of the absence of evidence".

    4. Being impressed by Shack's misleading and amateurish work but refusing to acknowledge other, more scientifically sound analysis of other data is such a highly irrational viewpoint that how can we conclude that you are any other than a sham?

    5. Pray tell, Ian, what "other, more scientifically sound analysis of other data" are you accusing me of refusing to acknowledge?

    6. Or how about this, Ian:

      to what specific amateurish work are you referring?

      To the conclusion of "all-fake" and "nothing can be known", or actual work itself, such as that the videos and sound were co-ordinated, controlled, layered, and most victims were false identities (8 of the same head on different bodies, for one set of images is a prime example)?

    7. How many times do I have to say it, Shack's work on video fakery, victim fakery, nuke fakery, all of it is amateurish, deeply flawed, largely invalid and worst of all, is purposefully designed to deliberately mislead people.

      Shack is running a psyop, he is programming people into a 'fakery' mindset so that whenever anyone brings up a topic that the people employing him don't want researched, he labels it 'fakery'.

      Prime example, they don't want people to research the nuclear aspect of 9/11 so Shack has labelled nukes 'fakery'.

    8. Scientifically sound analysis of data, I am primarily referring to the study of physical evidence such as the USGS dust samples, the tritiated water samples from WTC6, the incidence of statistically improbably numbers of rare cancers and other diseases among responders.

      Those are all highly valid areas of study.

      Simon 'Shack' Hytten's amateur hour bullshit is not valid, is not 'great' or 'excellent' as Clare has called it, it is barely even relevant.

      Shack is a gatekeeper, he exists purely to mislead people, to disrupt real researchers, to distract people from the valid areas of enquiry.

      Jim Fetzer and Don Fox are two of the researchers who are doing valuable work, that are investigating in areas that are likely to lead to uncovering the truth, that is why Shack, OBF and the rest of the gatekeeper gang keep attacking them.

      OBF is most transparent of all, he even stated on live radio that Israel and nukes don't frickin matter and that fakery of videos and victims was most important. If you can't see what a clear and obvious indicator that is of his true agenda then you must be blind.

      They don't want people researching the role of Israel, they don't want people researching the use of nuclear WMDs, hence they employ disinfo agents like OBF.

      Fetzer and Fox were making valuable contributions to our understanding of 9/11, that is why the likes of OBF and Shack have attacked them.

    9. Ian, Don, Jim, you really need to get out of the virtual reality they created for us 911, or you will be spinning your wheels forever. You are just like the prisoners in Platons cave.

      And I find it really mind boggling that Jim hasn't watched September Clues Addendums yet. That is also some heavy criticism of the Hollywood horror movie they aired on "live" news 911. All compiled here (1h55m):

    10. Ian, you were asked to provide examples of sham studies by Shack --

      and you did not.

      But even if you found mistakes,
      or it were a psyop in its extreme form ("100% media faking"),
      there is PLENTY of good work, as Andy pointed out to you and I have.

      I do not see you handling ANY of that.

      And El Buggo:
      there is some "wrong reality" or "virtual" reality to 9/11 story and footage, but NOT ALL OF IT.

  32. Andy Tyme said : "The old cliche' that "you draw more and more flack the closer you get to the target" seems proven once again."

    For example, Fetzer's [and others] response to my assertions. Oh what fun . ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

    regards, obf.

    1. Sometimes, OBF. But sometimes one draws flak because of misunderstandings.

      Your extreme position on the video evidence (fine, if warranted, but in this case not quite right) only aggresses others who might have understood a lesser point, lesser position; and since not only are you not entirely correct, but also understanding is important, flak in this case works against you -- AND against them.


  33. Jayhan and Shack are GATEKEEPERS. Plain and simple. There's nothing more to know. They are the definition of "gatekeeping".

    It's well established that Noam Chompsky is a gatekeeper. Has Chompsky contributed valid insight on the subject of corrupt governments? Yes, absolutely! Of course, a gatekeeper must say something relevant to draw the moths to the flame. It's a necessary ingredient for ANY gatekeeper. Likewise, Shack and Jayhan have made REAL contributions.

    What else? A gatekeeper LIMITS THE DISCUSSION. Chompsky has zones where the discussion NEVER goes. Chompsky waves off 911 and JFK as "not important", "uninteresting" and "insignificant". What about Jayhan and Shack? Shack limits the discussion by BANNING YOU FROM HIS FORUM!

    Here's an experiment. Register at the September Clues forum as a new member. Now, start writing factual posts regarding Jewish and Israeli ties to 911. You will be forever banished from Shack's forum within one week. Jayhan is a little more subtle about controlling the discussion but control the discussion he does! That's it. They meet all the requirements.

    1. If they are gatekeepers for Israel, they are also quite right about most victims (at least 40 percent or so) and many of the videos as being fake/controlled at least.

    2. Wonderful Allison, you succinctly summed it up!

      I've been trying to explain this and failing.

      Clare, please re-read what Allison wrote and take it to heart, it is the key to understanding these people and how they work.

      Why so Shack et al focus so much on video fakery? Because they want to limit the discussion to that level which, as I have stated several times before, is pretty pedantic and will never lead you to any understanding of what happened.

      Why do Shack,OBF etc keep saying the USGS data is suspect and probably faked? Because they don't want anyone to look further than the video fakery.

      As I keep telling you Clare, Shack's work is fundamentally flawed and largely invalid for the simple reason that he doesn't do anything more than make up theories based on looking at the videos and photos, he doesn't look at other data sources like the USGS dust samples, the seismic data etc.

      They don't want people to dig any deeper than the superficial level, that's why they constantly bang on about the video fakery, it's superficial, it won't lead to any worthwhile discovery.

      Why do Shack, OBF etc keep attacking Don and Jim? Simple, because they are talking about Israel, the Mossad, the Zionist US Jews and the use of nuclear weapons. They are trying to disrupt anyone who tries to research in those areas.

      Clare, until you can grasp that Shack, OBF and their cronies are gatekeepers spreading disinfo and disruption, you can't understand them at all. They are using the 'analysis' of videos as a smoke screen, they want people to spend their time and energies looking at these faked videos rather than at other data that is far more valuable. They want to convince people that the videos are faked (which some of them are) and once they have hooked people on that fakery line, they then want to convince them that everything else is probably fake. Once trapped in this fake mindset, you can be manipulated easily, they can mislead you simply by pressing the fake button. A person discovers the USGS data - Shack simply presses the fake button.

      You must grasp this Clare - Shack, OBF etc are trying to programme people into a state of mind were they can easily be convinced that anything is fake. That is the key to their psyop.

      Once they have programmed a person with this fakery mindset, thy can simply mislead them away from anything potentially sensitive by labelling it fake.

      They don't want people to realise that nuclear weapons were used n 9/11, hence they are pushing that nukes are fake.

      They don't want people to realise that mass murder was committed on 9/11 hence they are pushing that the victims were fake.

      Gatekeepers Clare, nothing more, nothing less.

      Every time they call something fake, you should take that as an indicator that it is anything but fake.

    3. Some of the 9/11 videos were faked, yes, but that is level 1 of understanding the events of that day. It is sufficient to accept that there was fakery in the videos and move on, all the vast volume of crap put out by Shack about this fakery is next to worthless, it is nothing more than a smoke screen they are trying to use to mislead people so that they never find out anything really significant.

      Nuclear weapons are 100% real, they exist and have been used to commit horrific acts of mass murder, starting in 1945 over Japan. Ignore every single word counter to this that issues from Shack, OBF, El Buggo and the rest of the gatekeeper gang because they are spouting that fakery nonsense purely to mislead people away from the fact that nuclear weapons were used on 9/11.

      Clare, I know you have good intentions, that's why I'm taking the time to explain these things to you. Until you grasp what is really going on with these gatekeepers, you're doing more harm than good. You are giving them the benefit of the doubt and trying to rationalise and explain their views, that is doing harm, not good, I'm sorry to say. You simply have to grasp the truth about them being gatekeepers if you are to get past the traps they have set and you have fallen into.

    4. Tactical nukes that could destroy the WTC are much easier to conceive of than utterly massive nukes that could, allegedly, destroy whole nations in a single blast and rapidly wipe out all life on earth. And since, in retrospect, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki "evidence" IS quite problematic, why not consider the possibility that (like the Apollo "landings" and the six million-sized "Holocaust") it was "politically necessary" to bend, stretch, and ultimately DEFORM the truth, in order to achieve the ruling elite's goals of the moment.

    5. Hi Ian,

      You still talk about nukes as if they should be as real as dynamite, and not questioned at all.

      I think you sound exactly like the Emperor after that boy, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, had gone up to the carriage and noticed the Emperor was nude:

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

    6. Allison hit it out of the park!

      THIS is why I keep posting here and pointing out the BS of the Simon Shills, OBFs etc. I know that there are people like Allison out there that care about events like 9/11 and JFK and are tired of the run around. There are undoubtedly a lot of people who listen to the shows, read the comments here and never post. They don't want to be attacked. Those are the people I'm trying to reach.

      Most of the public is in a deep slumber. But not everyone. The info is starting to get out there after 12+ years. 9/11 was a NUCLEAR EVENT!

      The Simon Shacks, Judy Woods and Steve Jones' of the world can keep denying nukes until they are blue in the face. We see right through them. The Nuclear Truth of 9/11 WILL get out one way or the other. The genie is out of the bottle.

      Thanks for listening Allison and exposing how the Clues forum really works.

    7. Well said Don! I agree with all the points you made.

      Truth will out!

    8. Don, you sound like Saddam, the day before he was invaded, or maybe more like his Information Minister, Bagdad Bob?

  34. In case some of you strongly opinionated folks missed it, several threads and many rants ago, my take on the "blame Israel" idee fixe is that it is just too simple, tidy and narrow to be precise -- just as the "absolutely nobody died and everything is fake" mantra is an overreach that is also lacking in precision.

    Rather, I maintain that there's a GREAT DEAL of fakery involved in 9/11, WAY too many "victims" memorialised who didn't even exist, and ISRAEL couldn't have "acted alone"!

    Please remember that the the earliest reports of "high-fiving dancers," "suspicious art students," and "explosives-laden moving vans," etc. were given their biggest play by... FOX NEWS!!!

    ...and then oh-so-incriminatingly "scrubbed" from the Fox Archives, but not before "alarm bells" must have gone off in the consciousness of a vast array of media-alert (news-junkie type) American Jews who personally had absolutely nothing to do with the war-enabling, occultism-drenched scam, but who suddenly began to fear that their beloved little (primary-loyalty) Mideastern nation-state MUST have had at least a few "fingers in the pie". (Or perhaps the whole fist!) And therefore, it became their solemn, racial/ethnic/religious/secular DUTY to vehemently OPPOSE, RIDICULE or UNDERMINE literally ANY subsequent, sincere and serious doubt or criticism of the hastily promulgated "Muslims did it" official story.

    Get it?

    Those early Fox News stories were a clever INNOCULATION device, functioning by design, in the minds of legions of NON-complicit Jews, to construct a rock-solid, psychological wall of resistance to ANY subsequent questioning of the official 9/11 myth.

    OF COURSE there was a cabal of powerful Israel-firsters involved in the 9/11 false-flag scheme, but to successfully pull it off they needed, and enthusiastically received, the assistance of quite a few comparably evil, highly placed Goyim -- who ALSO stood to profit immeasurably and multifacetedly from the plot's execution.

    I'm sure you've noticed, over this past decade of deception, that there is an enormous Jewish contingent in BOTH camps of our opponents: the official-story defenders AND the limited-hangout GATEKEEPERS of the (often foundation-funded) "alternative" news media and blogosphere. While I strongly doubt that many, if any, of them were initially in on the plot, the skillfully disseminated INNOCULATIONS of Fox News have ultimately transformed THESE Jews into highly useful and effective ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT.

    1. I have greatly underestimated the Jew as a well oiled cooperative group. If you were to describe such a thing to a square, he would dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic.

      I just read a story about a Jew cashier who overheard a woman say "I can't stand Jews". This led the Jew woman to quit her job and win a court judgement for $37,000.

      In the story's comment section, many whites were amused. This led a Jewish man to comment, "For all those who think anti-semitism is funny, F*CK YOU!". It's not remotely possible that a Jew could sincerely feel that kind of outrage for something so inoquous. It's just an everyday Jew doing what Jews do... supporting the corrupt Jew agenda in any manner they can. I see stuff like this everyday, all over the Internet.

    2. You have to understand what Israel really is - it is not a Jewish state, it is a Zionist criminal enterprise.

      Further, that Zionist criminal organisation that is based in Israel has fully infiltrated the US government, banking system and corporations.

      Just look at how many joint US-Israeli citizens held positions of power at the time of 9/11, people like Dov Zakheim and Michael Chertoff.

      As well as these US-Israeli joint citizens you have many US Jews who are Zionists and closely tied to Israel, men like Ronald Lauder, Ken Feinberg, Alvin Hilverstein, Larry Silverstein.

      It's not as simple as 'Israel did it' but as a rough approximation, that is really, what happened.

      The operation itself was carried out by the Israeli Mossad, the WTC was owned by Zionists, the security company protecting the WTC was owned by Zionists, the company carrying out 'asbestos abatement' work in the WTC prior to 9/11 was owned by Zionists. The company that carried out the clean up of the site afterwards was owned by Zionists. The man appointed to run the investigation was a Zionist (Chertoff), the man appointed to compensate the victim's families and prevent legal action was a Zionist (Feinberg). The Federal Judge appointed to deal with legal actions was a Zionist (Hilverstein).

      Wherever you turn in 9/11 research you find Zionists, some are Israelis, some are joint US-Israelis, some are US citizens with close ties to Israeli.

      Israel is one of only four countries known to have developed and built neutron bombs; (US, USSR, China being the others) we know this due to the whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu back in the late1980s. Israel has a top secret facility at Dimona in the Negev Desert where these bombs are constructed. Therefore we know that Israel possesses the means to carry out 9/11 and that only 3 other countries share that capability.

      There is more to link Israel and Zionism to 9/11, so much that when taken as a whole, it becomes clear that there could be no other suspect.

    3. Hold on there, Allison. Assuming all Jews are just as corrupt and evil-minded as the worst of their lot is both simple minded and wrong. That Talmud-based, sociopathic mindset (of "WE ARE SO SPECIAL WE ARE BORN TO CRUSH AND RULE ALL OTHERS") is most definitely NOT shared by ALL people of Jewish descent and Torah-based faith, thank God. And something very similar to that horrific, Talmudic outlook of privilege and plunder also is present in the minds and behaviour of plenty of Gentiles. While psychologists and criminologists would likely call it pathology, Christians might call it "the sinful nature of fallen mankind" unrestrained by either conscience or the rules of civilised society. In any case, it's what brought us the labyrinthian, occultic deceptions of 9/11 AND the ghastly carnage and human sacrifice of the wholly unjustified invasions and wars that followed.

    4. Very excellent post, Allison. I will call that the "tribe" effect - it is a tribe.

    5. Ian, it isn't the Zionists, you are missing the target. Deliberately?

    6. Andy, you may learn something by watching the video When Israel Is Mighty with Yossi Gurvitz. Darkei Shalom is an interesting term.(rather technical and boring video I guess)

    7. What Andy wrote is significant - not all Jews are bad, it is the Talmudic Zionist Jews that are the ones we have to be concerned about. There are very few good Jews left in Israel, they all left in the 70s and 80s, those that could afford to get out got out because Israel isn't a Jewish state, it's a Zionist criminal base with horrible, repressive facist police and terrible racism, not only to non-Jews but to Sephardic Jews and any Jews that don't wish to follow the Zionist agenda. I talked about this when I was on the show with Jim. A useful analogy is the Italian mafia, it would be wrong to hate all Italians because of the mafia and their crime activities. Same with the Jews, you can't hate all Jews because of the Talmudic Zionists and their criminal activities.

  35. Allison said :"Did you have a nice Hanukka?"

    I have no religion, as far as I'm aware, possibly agnostic, but I probably feel closest to the principles of Taoism [if anything].

    I don't even know what "Hanukka" is, nor do I care.

    I am a radical individualist/anarchist who believes that _all_ states, _everywhere_ , both past, present and future, are ALWAYS 100% corrupt, criminal organizations, and entirely unreformable.

    I even wrote a song about my views [I'm a performing/recording musician]: " Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]:

    As I said in a post at the site where I was recently interviewed on radio:

    "More about “Onebornfree” : Onebornfree”, or “O.B.F”. is the generic, 15+ year online business name for my internet persona and various entrepreneurial activities].

    Onebornfree is a radical individualist/anarchist who lives entirely outside the system/off the grid.

    I represent no organizations. I join no organizations .

    I am not a forum member at , and in no way represent Simon Shack, nor can I, nor do I wish to...."

    [link: ]

    so no, you ignorant, assumptive little twat, I did not "have a nice Hanukka".

    No regards, obf.

    1. Onebornfree is, by his own admission, a sick-minded individual who gets his kicks from attacking good, honest people like Jim Fetzer and on Fox. This sick mind clearly stated that he deliberately disrupts discussions because it is how he gets his sick entertainment.

      Also, take note of his uncalled for, misplaced and disgusting anger and aggression towards a lady.

      OBF is nothing more than a sick ,twisted individual who gets his entertainment from attacking people and disrupting any discussions that might enlighten people about the truth that the nefarious powers he is gatekeeping for don't want to be known.

    2. OBF:

      Per Wikipedia "Hanukkah (/ˈhɑːnəkə/ HAH-nə-kə; Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה, Tiberian: Ḥănukkāh, usually spelled חנוכה, pronounced [χanuˈka] in Modern Hebrew; a transliteration also romanized as Chanukah or Chanukkah), also known as the Festival of Lights, Feast of Dedication, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire of the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar.

      The festival is observed by the kindling of the lights of a unique candelabrum, the nine-branched menorah or hanukiah, one additional light on each night of the holiday, progressing to eight on the final night. The typical menorah consists of eight branches with an additional raised branch. The extra light is called a shamash (Hebrew: שמש‎, "attendant") and is given a distinct location, usually above or below the rest. The purpose of the shamash is to have a light available for practical use, as using the Hanukkah lights themselves for purposes other than publicizing and meditating upon Hanukkah is forbidden."

      How can someone have "various entrepreneurial activities" and live entirely off the grid/outside the system?

      Not to mention your internet connection seems conspicuously reliable for someone who is off the grid...

    3. I tried one of those Hanukkah things. But no matter how I hard I inhaled, I couldn't keep the fucking thing lit. I smoke Lucky Strikes now. A cleaner, drier smoke. No splashing and no fucking bubbles.

  36. Everyone take note of how OBF is losing his temper now that people are realising what he's really about. Note how he tries to belittle the whole concept of Israel being guilty of carrying out 9/11.

    This is a gatekeper realising the game is up and as a result getting angry.

    Notice how he tries to misdierct people off into his 'scientific analysis BS' and away from the truth. He's clutching at straws now because he's been exposed as an agent of disinfo and disruption.

  37. Don Fox said : "OBF:Per Wikipedia "Hanukkah ......"

    Can you actually read/comprehend, or are you proud to display your apparent inability to do so?

    I had said: " I don't even know what "Hanukka" is, NOR DO I CARE " [ emphasis added].

    To put it in ,perhaps,for you, more easy to understand terms:

    I don't know what Hanukka is or is not supposed to be, NOR DO I GIVE A FLYING RATS ASS what its supposed to be.

    All organized religions [including the worship of the state], are a scam as far as I'm concerned.

    Are we there yet ?

    [To answer my own question, speaking as a pessimist, probably not :-) ]


    1. I was just having some fun pulling your chain OBF.

  38. OBF

    You should try the Hanukkah.
    You never know - you might like
    the taste and flavor of water filtered tobacco smoke.
    It makes a change from cigarettes.
    Didn't work for me but maybe it would work for you. Give it a try!!

    1. One of my friends used to have a 4 person Hanukkah. He may have put something besides tobacco in there though.....

  39. PM wrote:

    "I'm sure more than half of the U.S. is under the impression that more than 10,000 people died that day."

    Dear PM,

    That's a most interesting statement - and you may actually be quite right. Personally, over the years I've met a few persons here in Italy who adamantly insisted that around 20.000 people died on 9/11. The reason for this is quite simple: on September 12, 2001 - at least two major Italian newspapers came out with the front page headline "20.000 DEAD IN MANHATTAN". This figure was presented as absolute fact - with no question marks whatsoever. Not "20.000 FEARED dead" - just "20.000 dead". Period.


    As hard as I try, I cannot find a valid justification for this to have been an "innocent mistake" on the part of these major news outlets - a "mistake" for 60 million Italians to read with their Sept 12, 2001 morning coffee. Whoever issued that "20.000 dead" figure had an agenda: to generate as much public outrage and anger as possible against the "evil arabic terrorists".

    As an aside, it is quite superbly ironic that some nuke huggers here accuse me of shilling for the jews - when my own historical research of the alleged making of "The Bomb" points out that it was all very much just another silly jewish joke...

    THE NUKE HOAX - some historical background:


    Simon Shack

  40. Jack Dunn said : "OBF You should try the Hanukkah.
    You never know - you might like
    the taste and flavor of water filtered tobacco smoke.
    It makes a change from cigarettes."

    No thanks, I gave up torturing my lungs with legal or illegal crap years ago- these days at this time of year at least, Im more inclined to maybe try this :

    ... but only to try to get in the true spirit of the season, you understand :-)

    Regards, obf

  41. Oooooo! Simon Shack, aka The Italian Gatekeeper! The one who forever banished me from his forum and did so without explanation! Gotta keep that Jew-talk to minimum, right Shack? I mean, what's a gatekeeper without gatekeeping? Can't have one without the other! What would be the point?

  42. Anyone who still thinks Shack's work has validity or is of any kind of quality, go take a look at that Nuke Hoax link he posted. It's a shining example of the level of BS he perpetrates, it's ludicrous, laughable, pathetic.

    When Shack perpetrates BS of that level, there really are only two possibilities:

    1. He's a hopelessly arrogant, deluded idiot who is totally incompetent and lives in a la-la land of fakery.

    2. He's a gatekeeping agent of disinfo deliberately misleading people.


  43. Is it my imagination or does Ian say the same thing over and over again? What is the fallacy when a person keeps stating "so and so IS this or that"? Based on what--his opinion? Some examples:
    "Simon 'Shack' Hytten' not valid, is barely even relevant... a gatekeeper, he exists purely to mislead people, to disrupt real researchers, to distract people from the valid areas of enquiry...Jim Fetzer and Don Fox are doing valuable work,investigating in areas likely to lead to uncovering the truth, that is why Shack, OBF and the rest of the gatekeeper gang keep attacking them......OBF is most transparent of all, ....."

    "They don't want people researching the role of Israel, they don't want people researching the use of nuclear WMDs, hence they employ disinfo agents like OBF.....Fetzer and Fox were making valuable contributions to our understanding of 9/11, that is why the likes of OBF and Shack have attacked them"
    Ian and Don, we get your point. You needn't keep repeating yourselves. People like you are so bereft of ideas and real thoughts. Must you bore us with these endless tirades which ironically ARE the hallmarks of the gatekeeper as well as the troll and the shill.

    Are you guys sure you're not what is impeding research into 9/11 by your constant nagging diversions?

    As El Buggo said so elegantly:

    "Ian, Don, Jim, you really need to get out of the virtual reality they created for us 911, or you will be spinning your wheels forever. You are just like the prisoners in Plato's cave... And I find it really mind boggling that Jim hasn't watched September Clues Addendums yet."

  44. PS, You know you are getting "warm" when they send out the troops to denounce you over and over again.

    I really like the new term "they've" labeled us: RADICALS AND EXTREMISTS!

    I would think the fact that we are advocating looking at the evidence more closely is a good thing and to be commended.

  45. Joan:



    The discussion could be easily resolved.

  46. Joan Edwards said : "I would think the fact that we are advocating looking at the evidence more closely is a good thing and to be commended."

    Well Joan, you'd be wrong on that count . We are supposed to sink to their level and just accept as genuine any evidence that just "feels" as if it might be true, regardless of source, or, to use J. Fetzer's favorite phrase " hangs together" .

    You see, in J. Fetzer's world, you can "validate" one piece of unauthenticated "evidence" [eg a video] via another piece of unauthenticated "evidence" [ eg another video, or a photo, or an "eyewitness testimony"] . 'Seasy, this science stuff, y'know.

    Fakeologist did a to the point and funny graphic illustration of what he calls "Fetzel Logic"[ "Fetzel" = a cross between Fetzer and pretzel- as in pretzel logic] on his site :

    Regards, obf.

  47. obf has nothing of value to contribute. He does not have the remotest understanding of scientific method. And he does appear to be trying to focus our attention on only one part of the evidence as though it were the key rather than one piece of the puzzle.

    I like most of Andy and Ian's comments and Don's, too, of course. I am really fed up with obf. I did watch some of those videos with the double (or repeated) smoke and all that, the shifting backgrounds and such. These are things that, in all probability, could be made up after the event to attempt to discredit research on 9/11.

    The fact is that all the videos in general hang together in the right way. I have made this point too many times. obf and SS have never offered the least indication of what they think we should have seen, had they been real. Their position, based on allegations of fakery, is itself a fraud.

  48. Dr. Fetzer Said:
    The fact is that all the videos in general hang together in the right way. I have made this point too many times
    Yes, we've heard you say that, but what does it mean?

    I understand your predicament. You are involved in so many projects and your attention has been divided. Also, you have to think of your professional connections. Universities don't like to be associated with conspiracy theories, especially hot ones like 9/11.

    Since the only thing we know about 9/11 is that the WTC--actually all the buildings 1 through 7--were demolished, I would start from the end and interview demolition experts on the podcast. Forget the videos and the stills,

    I want to know from experts if the WTC towers could have been demolished by a classic demolition process. What are the steps necessary to a successful demolition? What would be the rationale for a nuclear demolition? Nothing this as high as the towers had been demolished before. How is a CD done? Do the contents of the buildings have to be removed?

    Could the buildings have been made with a built in demolition system. (One of your guests, Lewis Howard talked about this fact.) i read up on Kaselov's atomic demolitions and saw a bit there that NYC building codes were being revised to include a plan to demolish the building just in case due to the proliferation of tall steel buildings built.

    Also is the fact that the WTC towers were mostly steel affect the way they were taken down?

    By working from the end or the result desired by the perps, you can see the photographic record reflects the cover story, the NIST findings of a "pancake collapse," from the top floors and the buildings spewing volcanic dust simulating what the public would infer happened because of planes.

    I, for one, would welcome such discussions. We can leave personalities out of the equation and concentrate on science.

    1. I am retired, Joan, since 2006. And I have never worried about what the universities where I taught thought about my research. I only care about the truth of JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, and the rest. If you are going to slam me, at least make an effort to get it right.

      The photographic record does NOT "reflect the cover story", which was of a pancake collapse. After all this time, you don't even know this? I think the problem is that you have never read the article after article we have published about this. Here's are some where you can begin:

      "An analysis of the WTC on 9/11",

      “New 9/11 Photos Released”

      “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”,.,keismic-proof-video-fakery-inside.html

      “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”

      "Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?"

      “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

      “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 9/11 was Nuked on 9/11” by Don Fox, Dr. Ed Ward, and Jeff Prager

      "2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11"

      "Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs"

      “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”

      Your posts read like those of an English prof who wandered in here by mistake. If you have an argument to make about what we have wrong, then cite what we claim, why we say it and explain what we have wrong and how you know. Otherwise, you are wasting our time.

    2. Joan, in going through this thread and deleting the old previously-deleted posts and 3 repeats of a post of mine, which were unintentional, I see some of yours ARE scientific and of value. My final comment above is therefore too harsh. But why did you stray from your accurate observation about avoiding ad hominems to launch a completely unwarranted attack on me?

      I have spent the past 20 years doing research to expose the complicity of the government in a host of events (from JFK to 9/11 and Wellstone) while I was a professor at UMD. So where are you coming off with this trash attack?

      Go to and at the bottom of the menu bar you will find three one-hour presentations (which were given as a three-part 3-hour public lecture) at UMD in November 2005 prior to retirement as an illustration.

      And for one who has been posting for some time, you really DO need to catch up with my position about the planes and the gashes and such, which I deal with many places, but where you should track down Part 2 of "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference" for my most recent. You need to know what you are talking about to be more effective.

    3. But you are especially weak about the nature of the nukes we are positing, which are mirco or mini neutron bombs, which can be directed (in this case, upward), to produce a sequence of explosions that destroy those buildings from the top down.

      These are not old-fashioned nukes of the kind you seem to have in mind, but ones where you can "dial-the-radius" to control their effects. The towers were 208' on a side and, with these little beauties located on the core columns with a destruction radius of 100', are idea for performing the feats that we see in the videos and which are supported by the other forms of evidence I have cited.

      So just get up-to-speed on a few aspects of these things. You are otherwise attacking a straw man as an exaggerated version of the real thing, which makes it easier to debunk. We might be wrong and you might be right, but you cannot prove that unless you have the right target in your sights.

  49. the videos hang together like you, don , ian and clare (the buffer) hang together jim - precariously! that you have not researched cluesforum's and letsrolforum's extensive findings after all these years that clearly show that they don't hang together at all roars volumes about you. I understand you have a role to play but understand that the professor cannot hope to fool all of the people all of the time.

    clare, please do us the kindness of indicating how you came to concluding that 40% of the victims were faked and 60% or roughly 1,700 were real victims on 9/11. can you please list the names of say 10 victims whom you believed really perished on 9/11 and your reasons for believing this 'reality'. did you know that absolutely no remains (bone fragments, dna etc.) of 1,200 people were reported found at 'ground zero'. it is either nukes (selective little buggers vapourising 1,200 completely out of all existence but leaving bone fragments, dna evidence for the rest) or these 'victims' weren't there in the first place. I know the ground where I solidly stand.

    and any comment on the question I asked you regarding the Jesuits and patrician family roles in world affairs. it is not that difficult a question, shirely.

    1. "Shirely", the question is difficult for Jim, who does not follow the (very narrow) version of perpdom which names Jesuits as the hated group of the hour.

      Israel is as narrow a perp group, too, though Jim and Don do not see that.

      In 9/11, there was likely two main groups of beneficiaries and contributors: Israel and USA cabals, but it is never so narrow in big events such as this, you are right.

      As to the victims:

      There are people in the towers in live shots; CGI does not cut it for them, though the names are not likely Cintron, etc., since there are fake (doctored) photos of her. However, it is possible to fake photos and not be noticed by a family member.

      There is DNA from many people. It is possible that some of that was planted, but there are legitimate people who end up working on a case such as this; there is no way to know formally one way or another, but radical doubt must cede to a prima facie case of normal cover-up, where many things do slip through the barriers.

      As to vapourizing and DNA fragments as different:

      It is quite possible that whatever nukes could be used would vapourize most in the upper regions but people caught on the edges or around the building were not harmed that way.

      I have been no "buffer" by request, as you imply, but rather HAVE LOOKED extensively at cluesforum and letsrollforums.

      There is much nonsense in both, but it is the kind of nonsense which builds up on the Internet, a feature of modern research which I respect entirely, so when I say there is a type of nonsense which builds up, I mean in no way to suggest that that is all that is there.

      There is a TYPE of everything-goes thinking which happens in those places. Some ends up good, some not so good, and it strings along for pages and pages.

      It is the nature of such "places".

      I am used to it. Jim is not.

      He is used to journal articles, comments pages, etc.

      He does not always do his best when faced with mountains of idiotic stuff mixed with good stuff mixed with unknowns.


      That is the nature of Jim on this material.

      It is why I comment in between these passages (and act as a "buffer", you think). In fact, my purpose is to remind people of the value AMONG THE DROSS, and the ordinariness (average brainstroming) of the wild thoughts which spout on such forum pages,

      and which produce SOME nuggets.

    2. pshea:

      Clare the buffer??
      Surely you mean Clare the BLUFFER??

      In what sense are you using the the word buffer? "old fart"
      or perhaps "apple polisher" (as regards Professor James Fetzer)? Either sense will cover Clare and her PID pap. I still prefer "bluffer" as in "waffler, con artist etc., etc.).

  50. J.Fetzer said : "obf and SS have never offered the least indication of what they think we should have seen, had they been real. Their position, based on allegations of fakery, is itself a fraud. "

    So there we have it my friends, in black and white from "the top", i.e. the esteemed Mr Fetzer.

    In sum:

    1] there is never any need or requirement for the investigating "scientist" to ever closely scrutinize/compare even one of the 911 videos or photos, both with other 911 photos/videos, nor with pre-911 imagery, before accepting those videos/photos as indisputably genuine evidence.

    2] there is never any need/requirement for the investigating "scientist" to ever try to authenticate even one of the alleged authors of any of the videos/photos before accepting their videos/photos as indisputably genuine evidence.

    3] there is never any need/requirement for the investigating "scientist" to ever do extensive background checks on any/all alleged eyewitnesses and their out of court, not under oath testimony before accepting their testimony as indisputably genuine evidence.

    The investigating "scientist" is perfectly free to claim anything that he/she feels is real is in fact real evidence, based on nothing more than personal bias/whim.

    If , dear reader, any of the above 3 points even remotely apply within the general world of scientific research, [i.e. outside of 911 research] , and Mr Fetzer's "scientific methodology" [ i.e. "if it looks good without closely checking/cross-checking then its genuine"], is simply par for the course, then I would suggest that the whole field of scientific research is in very, very deep trouble.

    But hopefully dear reader you will see that if there are any frauds around here, that it appears to be Mr Fetzer himself .

    J.Fetzer said : "obf has nothing of value to contribute. He does not have the remotest understanding of scientific method."

    And yet, when I outlined/proposed in considerable detail what I thought that methodology was on his show :

    - he agreed with me. Funny , that :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Jim was perfectly correct, OBF has nothing whatsoever to contribute that is worthwhile or valuable.

      As he clearly stated, he is nothing more or less than a sick individual who attacks and disrupts for entertainment.

      Personally, I find him to be the most disgusting individual I have ever come across. He is doing his level best to prevent proper scientific study of one of the worst incidents of mass murder and terrorism the world has seen in recent times, truly a sick, callous, uncaring and disgusting individual.

    2. obf, true to form, distorts my position (again), even though I have explained it dozens of times. 1), 2) and 3) are appropriate if there are good reasons to doubt the photographic and video record. We know there are in the case of the plane videos--and we have taken them apart. But for all of his nasty posts, he and SS have really not given us any good reasons to doubt that the voluminous record of destruction videos and photos are fake.

      There are too many from too many directions of enormous variation in quality, including of high definition, to take their claims seriously. At one point I looked at the wavy clouds of smoke with their repetition and changes in the background and color and tint variations, all of which appear to be post-production (or after-the-fact) in messing with those photos and films--not necessarily for evil purposes. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NOTHING THERE.

      SS and obf can chase their own tails all they want, but that is no good reason for others to play their pointless game. Because instead of contributing to SOLVING THE PROBLEM of what actually happened in New York City on 9/11, THEY DECLARE THE PROBLEM TO BE UNSOLVABLE.

      That is completely unscientific, where ofb's complete lack of understanding of scientific method is no where more manifest than in his disregard for the rest of the evidence, which I have enumerated (1) through (12). It is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that it must be based upon all the evidence available. Failing to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading, which is common with politicians, editorial writers and used-car salesmen. That is where he stands.

      That SS and obf even deny the existence of nuclear weapons tells me we are not dealing simply with persons of diminished capacity for serious research but demonstrable fakes and frauds. And while Clare will continue to treat them with kindness, it has become all too clear that they are shilling for Israel by doing their best to conceal that the towers were nukes and they must have been Israeli.

      The US nuclear arsenal is under very tight but not perfect control, while Israeli nukes are not. Israel has not even admitted that it has a vast stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons--though it is common knowledge in the Middle East and among experts. The denial of nukes is, for me, the last straw. These are phonies and frauds who are using the pretense of science to attack those of us who are exposing the truth about 9/11. They deserve to be ignored.

    3. I do not merely treat them with kindness.

      I know that people can become utterly deluded, due to some extreme position. It is fraudulent reasoning, but not based on nothing.

      Jim, you remain ignorant of the extensive points about media fakery on the day of; it is not merely a face in the smoke.

      GET REAL!

      There is much NOT to ignore; if you keep ignoring it, you will remain ignorant of the extent of media complicity in the day.

      HOW MANY TIMES do I have to act as peacemaker intellectually to get you to grapple with the perspective problems, layering, cover-ups ON THE DAY OF.

      Those planes are CGI overlays in most images. If there are holograms as well, so be it, but most of them are CGI black blobs.

      The towers are controlled view and fake backgrounds and foregrounds in almost all clips.

      Many were not done in post-production, but set up at the time (done in real time -- rather, close to, would be more accurate).

      And most or 1/2 victims were false. Not all, no, and these people FORGET CAUTION when dealing with faking.

      I am not merely being nice.

      But if your mental picture of 9/11 does not include MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF MEDIA IMAGE/SOUND FRAUD, then you are missing the point.

      And will sink into more name-calling (ADL, CIA) for people who are mostly overeager but right about part of it.

      They are bad, in the end, about science; it is radical doubt where they make their error.

      But they have done scientific reasoning up to that point.

      They deserve to be listened to ASIDE from their doubts about nukes and their doubts about the earth and their doubts about ALL images.

      GET IT?
      Thank you.

    4. Clare, you are a dear, but you need to give me some specific examples of fakery--other than involving the planes--that I or anyone else ought to be taking seriously.

      The double-waves in the smoke, changes in tint and color or even background are not significant. So which of the alleged oddities is sufficient to justify your outrage at me for not being impressed? I am NOT impressed.

      So if you want to be more persuasive, you are going to have to be more specific! GET IT? You need to enumerate in detail which of the alleged fake images of the destruction of the Twin Towers is fake and how you know. I have had one too many lectures from you to take this one lying down.

      And cease the rubbish about vicsims. That is interesting and important by itself, but not the focus of this exchange with SS and obf. And surely you know better than to ignore the rest of the evidence. I have enumerated a dozen sources of information that bears upon the question, but they only consider one--the video, which they attack again and again, as everyone here is well aware.

      That is not only a violation of the canons of science but grossly irrational--unless your motive is to sidetrack research that is getting too close to the truth to not attack. Ian, Don, Andy and others are making valuable posts here, but yours have less and less value for their lack of specificity. So keep fighting the good fight but DO IT MORE EFFECTIVELY.

    5. I have done so SEVERAL TIMES.

      I am sick of it.

      1. The mostly controlled views of the towers indicate complicity. This is fakery, piped in, controlled imagery.

      2. The smoke is masked off in those images, i.e., stays consistent over all "different shots" of the towers when they are those far-off ones, with a black area for the masking, in the upper part of the tower. This means the background and foreground are fake.

      3. The planes are added in in many "live" shots, hence there is layering.

      4. The Varazzano bridge moves with no movement in the proportions of the towers; objects in front move, but not the tower perspective. It is on a layer.

      5. Beeps and co-ordinating soundtracks show there is co-ordination of feeds much of the time.

      6. Amateur videos coming out later and many post-live shots got reworked on rebroadcast. (An argument, by the way, AGAINST nothing live at all that day, but showing control of imagery to massage it into an impressional "movie" over the day, as one of your guests talked of the storyboard for the basic events physically as well, with fancy plane-daredevil, comic-book emotions generated.)

      7. Cock-ups in the announcer scripting and statements on the day.

      8. Fake street interviews, i.e., actors and agents (though likely done on the street, which the radical doubters posit was not the case), including men going by who seem to be agents telling "witnesses" (again fake) what to say.

      9. Backwards and forwards loops of the same helicopters.

      10. Leaning tower layer.

      11. Rainbow colours for footage -- feeds made to look individual -- and false skies (oily, unreal for the perfect Manhattan day).

      12. Almost all media-related first witnesses interviewed about the "hit"s.

      13. Immediate discussion of "collapse" dynamics and "Bin Laden".

      14. "Postcard shot" with helicopter piece hanging in front of it; this must be a shot of someone holding a piece of helicopter leg in front of a screen with the tower faraway shot. A) it simply looks fake, B), zoom lenses cannot focus on near and far at the same time.

      And much else.

    6. The vicsims are a) not rubbish of themselves and b) are part of the objections raised by Ian, Allison, Don, etc.

      So there.

    7. Jim, thankyou for laying out your position, I am in complete agreement with you on all the points you made.

      Clare, I realise you have good intentions, but you are doing more harm than good. You have fallen into the trap set by Shack and OBF of focusing far too much on the fakery of the videos. As I have tried to explain more than once, the fakery of the videos is not important, it is only one of the 12 data sources Jim listed and as Jim notes, they are trying to make people think the case in unsolvable by getting people too caught up in the fakery aspects.

      Studying the videos and their fakery is not a productive area of research , it will not lead to any useful revelations other than the obvious point that the media were complicit.

      Please Clare, it is time to stop harping on about the video fakery, it is counter-productive, there are many other areas of research that are far more productive to study.

      Also, please stop harping on about the fakery of victims,it is distasteful and disrespectful to the very many people who died on 9/11 and the very many who have subsequently died from diseases caused by that horrific day.

      Don't you realise that the whole reason why Shack and his cronies have come up with their Vicsims BS is to try to diminish the scale of the crime? They want to convince people that the buildings were empty when they were demolished with dynamite so that people don't demand justice for the mass murder of thousands of people with nuclear weapons.

      Shack et al do not deserve to be listened to, they are disgusting shills working to aid the perpetrators of mass murder.

      They are not merely over enthusiastic promoters of radical doubt, they are agents working on behalf of mass murderers, they are trying to absolve the perpetrators of the use of WMDs to murder thousands of people, whether the victims died in the WTC or died slowly over succeeding years, they are all murder victims and they number in the thousands, of that there can be no doubt, there were over 1,500 hearings with survivors and families of victims, over 3.5 billion USD were payed out in hush money, Feinberg had a team of 30 people working for over 2 years on bribing the survivors and families not to seek legal action.

      Honestly Clare, I don't want to hear any more BS about Vicsims, it disgusts me quite frankly and the whole thing is purely to try to diminish the scale of the crime. Would you dare to talk about fake victims in front of the families of those who died? I doubt you could be so cold and callous. Please bear in mind that it is very likely that some relatives of victims listen to Jim's show and read these comments, just think of the pain your defence of the Vicsims BS must cause them/

      I know you mean well Clare, but you really should rethink your position on video fakery and victim fakery and your support of Shack and others who are aiding and abetting the perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes of recent times.

    8. No, Ian, or Jim (original Jim comment, not the 2nd one):

      you two often fall into the idea I am "BEING NICE" --

      I am being a peacemaker FOR POSITIONS, not just being nice.

      There is no major "trap" here with the material on these forums;

      the only trap comes in in the way those (and other) forums draw in any and everyone's momentary thoughts and egos.

      As such, they DO become a bunch of nonsense as much as a positive result.

      There is tons of good work done on them, but one must WADE THROUGH the brainstorming muck of -- sometimes -- utter idiocy with other -- sometimes -- much better work.


      In fact, much of the tower might have been emptied already. Not all, for sure: Stairwell B is one indication, and also the people in the gashes and the reports, in shock, of the "raining people" jumpers.

      But not all footage may be accurate, and definitely NOT ALL VICTIM PHOTOS OR NAMES.

    9. Clare, Thank you for laying out these points, even if you have done it dozens of times before. Which of those indicate that ALL OF THE FOOTAGE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS IS FAKE?

      You have given an assortment of reasons to think that certain aspects of this footage was fake, but none for believing that ALL OF IT WAS FAKED. And when I have explained how well the footage hangs together overall, WHERE IS THE DISPROOF OF THAT ARGUMENT OF MINE?

    10. And Mike:

      you remain IGNORANT AS FUCK about Paul is Dead as a hoax or real item.

      Even if it were only a hoax, it is complex and you lack the willingness to know that.

      Beyond that: he has different jaws, eyes, temple, bottom of nose measurements in all frontal photos after 1967 compared to all frontal photos before.

      So it was done. But if it had been a mere hoax, it would still behoove you (do you know the word, asshole?) to know ABOUT it. As with ANYTHING, even Unicorns (which are false).

      You are pissing me off with your emotional ignorance. Get informed.

    11. Jim,








      LOVE YOU.

    12. Clare, both Don and I agree that there is proof that a substitution was made and that Paul appears to have died around 1966. So I am in agreement that, however counterintuitive it may seem to some, when you get into the evidence, Clare appears to be on the right track regarding PID.

      But let us not become sidetracked. She has enumerated a number of points which deserve consideration. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 strike me as beside the point with regard to faking the destruction footage. But please address my key question: Is there anything there that leads to questioning that ALL THE FOOTAGE OF THE TOWERS IS FAKE?

    13. My opinion on the fakery of the footage and the study of that footage is simple - it is largely pointless because there is very little to be learnt from such study.

      What exactly can be learnt from studying the footage?

      The main thing is to determine whether it is fake or not. Once that has been determined, what have we learnt?

      That the media was complicit in the crime.

      But what else?

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't see how much of any great value can be learnt from studying the videos.

    14. Clare, I am also not quite certain how 1-6 work to support the fakery of the destruction footage. I take it 10--the leaning-South-Tower imagery--is important. How is that fake? And how does it support the official account of a collapse? It does, after all, turn into dust in mid-air. Is that also fakery?

  51. Cease the rubbish...
    Be specific...
    Rethink your PID crud...
    Get a life.

    1. Mike, ENOUGH. You have bashed Clare. I don't appreciate pilling on with the ad hominems. OK?