Wednesday, January 8, 2014

John Friend, Jim Fetzer

 The Great Sandy Hook Non-Debate


  1. John Friend talked really well about the significance of the totally controlled media complex or the Weapon of Mass Deception.

    1. Rightly so. Not that all imagery was outright fake for Sandy Hook or 9/11, but on 9/11 the controls included some fake layers and green-screen people crowd scenes. Green-screen interviews were used for Sandy Hook. Fake victims were used in both (and some 7/7 victims, too); but in 9/11 and 7/7 there were some real deaths by collateral damage, too.

  2. Heh! I don't think JF knows that John Friend is a HUGE Simon Shack/ supporter ......yet.

    Oh the irony! :-)

    Regards, obf

    1. No, some things ARE all-fake in some way (not the imagery of Sandy Hook, but the meaning), and some are not all-fake (but are controlled, with fake elements mixed in, as in 9/11).

      So in fact rather than irony, this is openminded caring on Jim Fetzer's part. He's trying to see it all, as do I -- with care, not overmuch credulity or incredulity at a time.

  3. Simon Shack interviewed on John Friend's Realist Report here:

    Obf interviewed on John Frinds Realist Report here:


  4. Ever notice how all sandy hook threads get subverted to 911 micro management?

  5. It's "Sieg heil!"

    German for "Hail (to) victory!"

    Sometimes written as "Sieg Heil" with a capitalized "H" which is, strictly speaking, incorrect since German verbs do not have an initial capitalized letter - as nouns always do - unless the verb begins a sentence.

  6. I was an avid reader of both the Spotlight and its successor, The American Free Press, for many years. (Before you start imagining me with a swastika on my lapel, I should mention that I also used to devour each new issue of In These Times, Covert Action, Mother Jones, Lobster, The Realist, etc.) However, after the very public feud erupted between the MC Piper faction and Christopher Bollyn, I began to lose confidence that I could really learn anything new from AFP and Mr. Piper (or Mark Glenn).

    I strongly suggest that Dr. Fetzer now interview Bollyn for an INTERESTING alternate take on the Willis Carto-founded organisation that used to be Bollyn's home base -- but later expelled him with great gusto.

    1. Interesting. Maybe e-mail Jim to make sure he sees this comment of yours.

    2. Bollyn wrote an article about Piper and the shady ownership of The Spotlight and the American Free Press:

      It's very disturbing, he makes a case for M C Piper working for Mark Lane and by extension, the CIA. He also makes the case that The Spotlight and the AFP are controlled opposition run by Lane for the CIA.

    3. I have written for American Free Press for just over 6 months now, and I have nothing but positive experiences and good things to say about all of the people I work with (I don't work with Piper at all really, I've interviewed him on my personal radio program which is not affiliated with AFP, but other than that I rarely even talk or communicate with him, aside from all this Sandy Hook drama as of late).

      To be quite frank, I am a bit mystified with the entire Bollyn-AFP situation myself. I have read Bollyn's article re: Mark Lane and AFP, but I am not convinced Lane (and the CIA) run or manipulate AFP behind the scenes. From my own experience and first hand knowledge, I know that to be false. From what I understand, Mark Lane has no connection with AFP at all.

      It's still not clear to me what happened with Bollyn, why he got fired, and why Piper continues to go on and on about him. It's bizarre to me. I have read Bollyn's book on 9/11, and find it a very well researched and written book, although I do not agree with all of his conclusions and assertions. His main point, that Israel's Mossad and a wider network of Jewish criminals with direct ties to Israel were the primary conspirators behind 9/11, is 100% correct though.

    4. Thanks for the info John. I haven't got a clue about this internecine relationship between Piper, Bollyn, AFP, Lane etc,it all seems very murky to me and I simply don't have much info to even be able to hazard a guess at what I really going on.

      I do agree with you that the Mossad and a network of Jewish criminals in the US are behind 9/11, tat seems obvious just by looking at a list of all the key figures in the events, almost every one of them is a Jew with ties to Israel.

    5. John F(r)iend-

      "Good things to say about all the people I work with..."

      It may interest you to know that they call you "the fucking Munchkin" when you leave the room.

    6. when Friend made this comment, he was working at AFP so he is not going to go out on a limb with any analysis there. Also, it's well known about Friend that he hands out cudos to people as they are throwing tomatoes at him and I have to assume he does that cause he's trying to work with that group of, IMO, co-opted operations and folks (not saying Friend knows that) I think there's a need to get our goy not to be so trusting to what I call Jew agents in our midst. I have seen great quotes who perceive much of what is going on and prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. Time to stop doing that.

    7. this sort of infiltration has to be pushed into public awareness, hard!

    8. I know I am late to the party but the whole AFP network that includes the john Glenn network and the Spingola Network makes psyops by these folks and co-option a done deal. This is huge considering the cloudt of this network! Back to trusting goys, this is a wonderful quote and hits the nail on the head-from Patty "What disturbs me more than Sandy Hook, however, is the reaction of Mark Glenn and the entire crew at the Ugly Truth, regarding this event. I really need to get this off my chest. How is it that every single radio host affiliated with TUT believed the official story? Why did they viciously attack those who did not believe it? The name-calling, ridicule, and smearing of all of us in the "Sandy Hook cult" was akin to Mark waging psychological warfare against his audience. According to Mark and his posse, we are "mental cases, kooks, nuts, crazies,the lunatic fringe, irrational, mentally deficient, a cult". He said " We don't have enough proof to even theorize" which is like saying give yourself a lobotomy. The natural flow of our minds is to speculate and theorize about events, whether personal or political. Mark said "people who are emotionally invested in a Sandy Hook conspiracy, it's like dealing with a 5 yr. old child." He said "We have to deal with unstable people who let their paranoia get the best of them".

      I could go on and on listing the over-the-top condemnations against truthers simply for not believing the official story. The unexpected, bizarre behavior by Mark Glenn is what I cannot understand and am still reeling from. These are people I respected, admired, considered friends until I realized I never knew Mark Glenn at all.

      Mark performed his own little psy-op against his audience and now tries to make the victims of his tirade into the victimizers. When he uses the term "Sandy Hook cult" I wonder whether TUT has become a cult with all participants orbiting around the messiah-god, Mark Glenn.

      Unlike Mark's prediction that the truth movement will never get its credibility back due to us lunatics, I believe the truth movement is alive and well, stronger than ever.

      I have to admit, I am still traumatized by all of this." then she says this: "
      Patty said...
      Hi Amanda!! Thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate it. I don't think TUT is a sleeper cell or the people involved, shills, but the fact that people are thinking this way is very significant. It means there has been a complete breakdown of trust between many people and TUT, a trust that can never be restored for many of us.

      Personally, I don't care if Mark and his posse believe the official story. We are human and prone to mistakes. It is Mark's seething contempt for people with a different viewpoint that shocked me. That contempt continues to this very day. He cannot even temper his derisive ridicule. It just flows out of him uncontrollably. Some may have concluded he was a shill because of his bizarre behavior. I wondered whether he suffered from multiple personalities or an undiagnosed brain tumor or parasite."
      Overwhelming evidence and she gives him a pass. I wonder if she realizes how many others were parroting the same line in this fake alternative news network

  7. Mark Lane has reportedly served as legal counsel for Willis Carto (Spotlight/Liberty Lobby founder) for many years and is also said to be married to Carto's daughter. (Interestingly, Carto is now 87 and Lane is 86!) Bollyn, who used to be a star reporter for Carto, is now a severe critic of Carto & Co. and has in recent years functioned as an "independent journalist," supposedly supported by voluntary contributions from his web followers. Hmmm...

    Michael Collins Piper, who at one time employed Bollyn as a substitute host on "The Piper Report" radio show, remains an associate of Carto and writes for The Spotlight's successor publication, American Free Press. Perhaps Bollyn was fired for just cause, and perhaps he was bounced because he discovered some inconvenient truths about his employers. (Or maybe the whole brouhaha was a covertly scripted piece of psy-op theatre.) Of course, each side's version of the bust-up is radically different from the other.

    In any case, the longtime presence of Mark Lane in the midst of the Carto sphere of influence is curious at best (since Lane is Jewish and Carto has a lifetime record of intense opposition to Zionism) and highly suspicious at worst (because of Lane's VERY ODD involvement in, and survival of, the CIA's MKUltra-fied, 1978 "death carnival" also known as Jonestown).

    If anyone knows what Mr. Lane's current take is on the actual occurrences of 9/11 (or Boston, or Sandy Hook), particularly in regard to the degrees and types of FAKERY involved, PLEASE let us know.

    1. Agreed. It seems strange Lane was there, unless he was asked along so he would be discreditable.

      Some claim they know "for sure" he is an operative.

      I think he's too dedicated to be one, but in a case such as his, it would be hard to know for sure.

  8. I would love to hear many of the old guard JFK researcher's take on sandy hook.

    1. Most won't be able to conceptualize a non-event like Sandy Hook.

  9. David Lifton recently wrote in Education Forum some disparaging remarks about Fetzer, by claiming he thinks 911 is an inside job! He then adds the Moon landing, and faked planes to heighten his point. But it was interesting, because every point he used to try to make Fetzer seem wacky I believe in. Most JFK researchers are an incredibly conservative bunch of inside the box thinkers. They rarely discuss 911 at all, let alone entertain speculations of the kind that are needed -- the mass cultural consensus mind control mechanism facilitated by the major media that keeps all of our sacred myths intact. Only be tearing these down one by one can we reclaim a rational civilization again.

    I disagree with Fetzer's animosity toward the skepticism of many in the September Clues forum, and I am equally skeptical of Fetzer's hologram theory. But even Fetzer, raised in the academic community for so long, is particularly out of character in his denouncements recently of those that would question nuclear weapons or other hypothetical thought experiments. He cites Ptolemy, without noting the irony that most of the western world at that time had what they believed was an accurate cosmology of the universe with their many epicycles and so forth, only to be unraveled by innovative Copernican revolutions that "shift the paradigm" as Kuhn would say. And since Fetzer is on the vanguard of the no planes hypothesis -- which is correct -- he should be more indebted to those minds at September clues that had that knowledge in the bag years before Fetzer came around to it. Perhaps he might have Simon Shack or someone equivalent to talk of these controversial issues instead of having hearsay conversations about what they think those people might believe. After all, a forum is a forum, full of diverse views. Now September Clues may be a psychological operation, taking the truth of no planes and nukes, and discrediting those elements by poisoning their own well with all of the other nonsense, but it seems unlikely. I don't know of anyone else out there who is dealing with the lack of victims and other critical issues.

    1. I am sure Sept Clues is a psyop.

      The real gratitude for the no planes disclosure should probably go to Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others who explained that a Boeing can't possibly fly at the speed claimed.

      I don't for one second believe that Shack or Sept Clues introduced anything of any worth to the research of 9/11, most of what they claim was already being researched by others, that which is original to them is pure disinfo designed to mislead.

      It's a psyop, their method is to programme people into a 'fakery' mindset so that once they have people hooked with their fakery thesis, they can apply it to anything they want to cover up. They don't want people to discover that nuclear weapons were used on 9/11 so they came up with their 'nukes are fake' BS, thy don't want people to realise that 9/11 was a mass murder so they came up with their 'Vicsims' BS.

      It's a psyop, a fairly sophisticated one but still pretty transparent if you take the time to think about it and look at other research by honest people.

    2. This "Are you a Jew" stuff really discredits those who wish to point out flaws in Israel's foreign attitude (Mossad), El Buggo.

      Ian, THERE HAVE TO BE MOSTLY OR ALMOST HALF FAKE VICTIMS. Study the evidence. They boosted the numbers. No matter WHAT else, the Vicsims idea rests on solid ground -- though not the all-fake claim, or the all-morph claim. There are lots of simple Photoshopped victims, and problem names and houses and phone numbers and SSDI records (lack thereof).

      As to Solfeggio, he is more on the point, since Lifton cannot conceive of more than one conspiracy, it seems, i.e., JFK, which is "reasonable" to him because it involves simple spookery and gunfire.

      This is the same problem that faces Piper and other conspiracy-aware types (including Alex Jones, who conceives of many things but not "replacements" and "fakery" such as no planes, Photoshopped victims, etc., missing child victims for Sandy Hook). It is not uncommon for people who grasp one set of lies not to conceive of another.

      And then we have the OBFs and Simon Shacks and Phil Jayhans who, probably not agents, fit into the type who conceive of so many lies that the lies overpower the ORDINARY SIDE of a coup.

    3. Clare, the fakery in records of the victims is of marginal importance, and you again have fallen into one of the traps set by Shack's psyop. By claiming fakery an suggesting there were no victims they are again, trying to mislead and distract from the sensitive information that proves that 9/11 was a mass murder event.

      So what if there is some fakery in the records, there are multiple possible reasons why that would have been done, and the lack of victims is only one of them.

      What about the over 1,600 body parts already found, what abut the 2 years spent by Feinberg and Hilverstein fighting the survivors and relatives, paying them off so they didn't take legal action, Feinberg attended more than 1,500 hearings.

      Alex Jones is a proven gatekeeper for Israel, he has a Jewish wife and he is financed by Zionists.

      Shack is clearly a gatekeeper too, it is obvious, why can't you see it?

      You simply have to move past the fakery programming otherwise you will never be able to get anywhere with research that is actually meaningful and contributes towards uncovering the truth.

      Right now Clare, you're ensnared in the traps they have set, you need to learn to sidestep the traps.

    4. Ian, I am well aware one must not get STUCK in the fakery aspects,

      but Don and Jim and usually you, have tended to downplay the importance of finding fakery (doctoring, pre-planned, controlled media documents).

      As such:

      you attack OBF, Shack, Jayhan for not merely overstating their cases; you end up attempting to drown them out.

      If drowning them out, we miss a MAJOR element in the 9/11 issue set.

  10. I think Fetzer's temper is quick to boil because he has devoted so much time and intellectual capital analyzing the video of the controlled demolitions that he finds it very difficult to entertain thoughts of those images being manipulated. But I think is a kind of hypocrisy, or a pick and choose of what he deems real or fake. It is a completely valid argument to challenge any theory about 911 that relies on the government's own evidence in any way, be that the geological surveys or whatever. This is still the case with so many people denying the alteration of the Zapruder film in the JFK community. In fact, Fetzer makes the very mistake he criticizes Josiah Thompson of making in not accepting alteration of the Zapruder film by stating: well if it was faked, why would they fake it in such a way that makes it seem like a conspiracy? This is fallacious reasoning, as ironically, Fetzer points out by the simple answer: they can't fool all the people all of the time. Kudos to anyone who challenges paradigms. How do you think the Nazi's could build electro-gravitic devices and a million other innovations ahead of any other country? They thought outside the box of accepted paradigms.

    There was an intensely creative period in science between the two world wars where a kind of "anything goes" attitude allowed thinkers to bring up the issue of ancient Atlantis, etc. Compare that to the current scientific group think with its false but widely accepted dogmas, such as global climate change due to carbon emissions. As cutting edge as Fetzer is on 911 and JFK, I bet he laps up all the climate change stuff because it aligns with his democratic values, and has that official stamp of our current priesthood of tenured professors. But any deep inquiry will dissolve such superficial propaganda that every scientist believes in man made global warming. Did Michael Crichton die for combatting this?

    I am beginning to figure out who the good guys are in this world. But the bad guys are a tougher issue. Far from being the oil and bank carters, and globalist free trade feudal lords, I think the ultimate bad guys are the people all around us who wallow in intellectual apathy and refuse to engage in a gnostic quest to overcome all the assumptions that have been implanted in us. Those people that are often in our own families, you know, the ones that still think we are crazy for brining up 911 as a false flag because, you know, if it were true, the New York Times would write about it. That is the enemy, my friends. In other words, it is a kind of ignorance; but a nasty strain, an ignorance refusing to enlighten like a lighter that is out of fluid. You can spark it and spark it and spark it, but no illumination comes. We, this alternative community are so often just preaching to each other. I wonder how we can engage or gauge what effect all our work, comments, blogs, podcasts, and research is having in terms of awakening a critical threshold of humanity, enough to tip the test tube we all live in over so we can escape this contrive reality and discover the world anew. In every culture and one ver time there have been two fraternities: one based on oligarchical collectivism (see 1984) or those of the Rosy Cross. The pharisees and the Essenes, the Vatican and the Cathars, and onward, ever onward, the constant battle between the two pillars...

    1. Solfeggio:

      OBF, Shack, etc., question paradigms,

      and Fetzer does not question enough paradigms sometimes,

      but OBF and Shack are becoming UNCAREFUL ABOUT ORDINARY SIDES of these events.

      Fetzer falls for the climate change thing, yes (as do many), because it seems to be mere gas-guzzling selfish gun-totin' types (gun owning is different) who say no to climate change science claims. But as I have tried to point out to him, this is not true and it IS likely a deflection with carbon as the whipping boy, to make the good-hearted left types fall for an apocalyptic solution which suits the upper-right (i.e., top crony left-right capitalists). It is very clever.

      It is also hard to separate what is knowable about the climate from what is not; it is also true we must be doing damage not only to some climate effects (at least regionally) but also to toxic detritus, due to our burning of fossil fuels at such a rate. But, given all the cloud opening and closing (proved in the rainforest) to let OUT heat, it is unlikely to be causing global warming overall, and there is no evidence aside from Sun patterns of global warming trends. And most don't know that the main way the Sun has this effect is not in how hot the Sun is, but what effects its electromagnetic changes have on OCEANIC UNDERSEA VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, which releases most of the CO2 to our atmosphere in a year.

      Also, as to Atlantis and alternative energy ("alien" or "ours"), these are entirely different types of inquiries and have their own serious lines of reasoning. Jim would not tend to be looking into the coastlines of the world to know that there are plenty of undersea cities last above sea at about the last "ice age", almost certainly, when all the evidence about them is taken into account. Nor would Jim tend to know that the Great Pyramid stones are not only cut, but placed in rows up to 1/1000 of an inch in accuracy over long distances -- "heave ho"? I don't think so.

      Naming such a worldwide unmentioned civilization as a postulate proves difficult; call it Atlantean, fine, but Atlantis, no, since it would be limited to one locale then. Naming it Ancient Aliens (even if such beings existed and were part of it) is also misleading, since it might have been human or any number of combinations with lost terrestrial beings and/or alien. We really do not have enough to know, though of course most of us try to say we would "know" that it could not be at all, or it could not be by "aliens", at least.

      And he would not tend to look into the religious push-pull ---- and indeed, these questions of Vatican gun-running cultist Jesuit subgroups, vs Israeli (a country) Mossad are often beyond a researcher such as he.

      Religious aspects are not his strong suit. And indeed, some of the religion-emphasizing types of researchers do go into flights of speculation while forgetting they are speculating; if one is speculating, it is good to say so!

      Like Lifton in denying Jim's work on no-planes because it seems too "out there" for a conspiracy to do that, so, too, Jim does not tend to look beyond the country-to-country foreign policy issues in his work, and religion becomes only some pseudo-rationalization for coups, in his mind, it seems.

      Just because OBF, etc., have become uncareful in what they argue like, does not mean they should be blasted for questioning.

    2. Clare,

      "alien" or "ours"??!!

      So "Paul McCartney" flew off in a UFO??!!


    3. Ian,

      Clare has played her Aliens-UFO
      card. This must tell us something about where exactly Clare is coming from with her PID rubbish.



    4. There is only instance of the word 'antigravity' on this thread, Clare and it was written by you.
      Name the 'other person' on this blog who "talked" about 'antigravity'. Yours is the ONLY reference.

      Name your "other person", Clare.

    5. Solfeggio. They raised the issue of " Kudos to anyone who challenges paradigms. How do you think the Nazi's could build electro-gravitic devices and a million other innovations ahead of any other country?"

      If you could read and think without reacting so quickly, you would realize that as always I am cautioning here between "questioning paradigms" and falling for all things uncarefully --- getting into the quagmire of unprovability (where the Knights of the Rosy Cross do or don't fit into this discussion, etc.) or disproven things outright (such as Flat Earth, properly understood as an idea).

      As to aliens and antigravity and electro-gravitic items:

      the discussion of such a topic goes way beyond Nazis, I was pointing out, and one must be careful not to be too narrow or too open.

      What makes you so angry at PID that you have to misunderstand other words of mine out of context?

      Wow. You just can't "dig it" that Johnnie and the rest lied. Well, they did. And were compromised and sad for it. Mal Evans died for his tell-all book (including it, by all indications). And it is very sad. So what? So your world ends to know Sir Paul is good but not bluesy little boppy Paulie?

      Get a life. They lied. Deal with it.

    6. Y El Sol Mi Canta:

      I guess you now realized you missed that antigravity is only another name for electro-gravitic (unless there are other types of proposed ways to do antigravity).

      Have a good day.

    7. Antigravity, shmantigravity.

      Name the "other person" who talked about "antigravity", "electrogravitics" or "electrogravitic (propulsion)" on THIS thread and, to whom, you claim that you replied.

      Name that "other person", Clare.


    8. PID, Aliens, UFOs, Antigravity...............


    9. Solfeggio raised the issue.

      And that of the Rosy Cross, Atlantis, etc. (I only replied using Atlantis and the Nazi/non-Nazi postulate about postulated antigravity.)

      You cannot read. When you can, come back.

      PID is true. The others are questionable; however the others have some case which can be made, even strongly, according to some. The issue here was Solfeggio's use of these others to talk of openmindedness. I showed one can be openminded, know the issues, and still say 9/11 TV fakery is partial (and elsewhere I have pointed out Sandy Hook was total fakery, almost certainly).


      Y El Sol Mi Canta:

      PID, Bin Laden double, Stalin double, and impersonator musician acts.

      Not PID, Aliens, UFOs, Antigravity, Nazis.

      Silly bugger, Trix are for Kids!

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    12. Y El Sol Mi Canta:

      I suppose you never read the original post to which you are pressing reply. LOL!

      Solfeggio, above, raised the antigravity (electro-gravitic) and Atlantis issues.

      Solfeggio didn't mention PID and you did, but yes, Paulie died and Sir Paul lives.

      Here is what Solfeggio said:

      "SolfeggioJanuary 13, 2014 at 10:59 PM

      [...] Kudos to anyone who challenges paradigms. How do you think the Nazi's could build electro-gravitic devices and a million other innovations ahead of any other country? They thought outside the box of accepted paradigms.

      There was an intensely creative period in science between the two world wars where a kind of "anything goes" attitude allowed thinkers to bring up the issue of ancient Atlantis, etc.

      [...] In every culture and one ver time there have been two fraternities: one based on oligarchical collectivism (see 1984) or those of the Rosy Cross. The pharisees and the Essenes, the Vatican and the Cathars, and onward, ever onward, the constant battle between the two pillars...

  11. Told you! Sandy hook thread taken over by pointless 911 bickering AGAIN!

  12. Larry, you may have a point. Shouldn't be like that.

    1. True, but some cases (Sandy Hook's great non-event) and parts of the case for another item (9/11) overlap. It is bound to be that here, on Fetzer's forum, where people know of many cases, that some overlap in discussion will occur.

    2. Right, and obf really believes this no buildings crap, give me a break. The same thing happens on james Tracy's blog, the same thing happens on sites like yahoo, etc. micro bullshit, not about who's responsible

    3. Exactly Larry, OBF, Shack, El Buggo and others set traps and Clare walks right into them.

      The best way to avoid their traps is simply to ignore them. They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute and a large part of their game is to cause disruption by leading the discussion off into blind alleys.

    4. It's not traps, Ian and Larry. It's crusading defensiveness.

      I answer so that you all will have the balanced position, instead of being so righteously indignant that "All Victims" are fake in their mind that this is a travesty to even one victim, etc., etc.

      The FACT IS that about half the victims ARE likely fake, or close to that number.

      And I have dealt with people as diverse as OBF and Shack are to you people, on so many different issues, that I KNOW THEY HAVE OVERREACHED but are NOT entirely wrong and keep saying so.

      There is not a "blind alley" to them; they are CONVINCED.

      They hate my contributions because I remind them that caution is ALWAYS important, even when dealing with faking.

      Larry, you are worried about WHODUNNIT?
      Fine. It is one line of reasoning.

      WHATDUNNIT is another line (with many lines within it). That is not "micro bullshit".

      Funny, if you know there is a crime and what it is, then you can concentrate only on the whodunnit, and why.

      But MOST CRIMES must themselves be proved, as to what happened -- even on micro levels, but you mislabelled proof of media and victim fakery as micro.

  13. Solfeggio said : " I think is a kind of hypocrisy, or a pick and choose of what he deems real or fake."

    In Fetzer's case, it is _exactly_ that [hypocrisy].

    Why only him? Because he is the only one here with "scientific" credentials, [as far as I am aware].

    Non- scientists have the luxury of being able to "pick and choose" "what they deem " real or fake", scientists do not.

    Fetzer demands that same non-scientists luxury in order to somehow elevate entirely unauthenticated video, photos,and alleged eyewitness testimony, and USG "studies" etc. to the level of trustworthy evidence, and yet out of the other side of his mouth he pontificates about his "scientific objectivity" and "critical thinking" abilities; and then, despite being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time[ quite a feat, I'll admit], still has room within that large mouth to dismiss anyone who challenges his entirely non scientific methodology, as an "idiot", a "crackpot", and now "a sham" :-).

    It's so transparent, and flat out intellectually dishonest.

    Solfeggio said :" It is a completely valid argument to challenge any theory about 911 that relies on the government's own evidence in any way, be that the geological surveys or whatever."

    Tell that to the naive, still government -trusting automatons who, along with Fetzer, inhabit these boards!

    Every single one of them has been told hundreds, if not 1000's of lies by the government about 911 [ repeated by the MSM of course] , yet all they need to see is "official USG study" or similar somewhere, and somehow that magically makes the "study" accurate, genuine, or both, without ever the need to cross check it or deeply research it and the agency producing it.

    This hilarious gullibility on their part beautifully demonstrates the reason the perps were/are so confidant, they know that most will believe them, regardless of how many bare-faced lies they continue tell.

    All they have to do is claim that the latest scientific study is "USG certified" [or whatever] and the silly fools fall over themselves to accept it as absolute, unquestionable truth. Highly amusing , or downright pathetic[ take your pick] :-)

    Solfeggio said :" ..the bad guys are a tougher issue. Far from being the oil and bank carters, and globalist free trade feudal lords, I think the ultimate bad guys are the people all around us who wallow in intellectual apathy "


    Regards, obf.

    1. No, OBF, as has been pointed out many times: legitimate things come from less-controlled or inconvenient members of other branches of corporations or gov't, during a conspiracy.

      And these results match the type of odd lack of debris and intensely thick, fine dust seen after by hundreds of thousands of people.

      After a big lie, in plain sight, there have to be some uncontrollables for the coup artists; in the JFK situation, much was seen and inconvenient -- just less known by the general public for a while.

      For 9/11, the general public and ordinary photographers also rushed around. This meant much less control even than at Dealey Plaza, where shots fired could be denied to a few hundred people in the direct area of the end of the motorcade route, a few key witnesses killed, and so on.

    2. Just ignore him Clare, he's nothing more than a troublemaker who only posts in order to derive entertainment from the disruption he causes. By engaging him you're walking straight into his trap. Nothing he writes is worth responding to and the best way to deal with him is not to respond then his sick mind does get entertained and he will have to go elsewhere to find his sick entertainment.

    3. Ian, I replied for the public, really.

      And some things he writes make a point, but it actually undoes some of the great work by Shack/forum and Jayhan/forum. (He does not think he is a discredit to the findings, because he is convinced of the full idea they take from the findings, which is unnecessary.)


      You are uncareful to claim all these people are agents. Not only that, you are uncareful about the MATERIAL THEY AMASS.

      Shack may well have had Bin Laden on his bumper sticker as a rebellion, hating "America" (as I did in many ways), for its excesses, as you now hate "Israel". His father might well have been a mafia apologist, trying to subvert a guy in Sicily who was trying to clean up the mafia and so and Shack then be an agent or NOT, i.e., a rebellious kid.

      You don't know. So whatever is the case on that (grant you, let us say for now), you are NOT CAREFUL about the victims of the towers -- which, by the way, could not have had 3,000 in the upper floors before the observation deck was even added as open -- and you are NOT CAREFUL about the media fakery.

      1,600 pieces of DNA overall, plus maybe 1,000 people vaporized (or not so many), still means many fakes. In fact, probably 1000 vaporized and 1,600 pieces of DNA but from 800 people, means still about half fake, to boost numbers.

      And they are right that Ace Baker did not go far enough; there were not only fake plane images; there were plenty of continuity errors in the footages which show that the overarching sets of images were being created elsewhere.

      But they are not right that all of it has to be CGI.

      Here is an argument against pure CGI: those stupid-looking towers from the same vantage point, if CGI, would not REQUIRE ONE VIEWPOINT.

      Also, the smoke would not have to be MASKED, and you can see the mask layer where the dark line of smoke is consistent and unmoving on the right side of the righthand tower; the computer could create the smoke in overlay from any view onto any other view, if it were rendering it.

      BUT the foregrounds and backgrounds not only LOOK WRONG (too simple, too flat, unnatural photography), they seem to have problems which layering from different sources (computer generation would be included here), would indicate.

      However, the masking may also include some views of the tower bodies themselves; there is no shadow on one layered tower; there is also white areas for the upper-mid decorative change on the towers (you know, where the design changes, for the A/C and maintenance tall floor).


      They are being uncareful, Shack, etc. But it is driven by something you do not recognize -- even if a few are agents, most of it is not -- again it is driven by the fact that they have discovered things AND they do not conceive the kinds of nukes you talk about.

      Nor did I for a long time.

      I am more able to understand both sides constantly, with both in this case having points and having some errors, because I am open to understanding both fully. It took me some time on the nukes; others glommed on. It took me some time with the CGI additions and layering and real all mixed in with errors and remaking, for video evidence; these Shack people glommed on.

      The victims don't have to be all fake; but it is likely many many were.

    4. Not careful, blah blah blah. The fakery in the videos is not very important at all, it is a minor part of the overall event and study of the faked videos is not going to reveal anything about who perpetrated the event or how they perpetrated it. All you can learn from the study of the videos is that the media was complicit.

      Shack's Vicsims Report is one of the most disgusting pieces of crap I have ever come across, it's laughably bad, it fails to consider many data sources and the 'analysis' it contains is ludicrous.

      How careful do you need to be when dealing with work of that standard? Not careful at all, once read, it can be dismissed as the rubbish it clearly is.

      Where we should be careful is in the proper scientific analysis of data such as the dust and water samples and the study of the post 9/11 legal huxtering to ensure the survivors ad relatives didn't seek justice through the courts.

      Where we don't need to be careful is in dealing with clowns like OBF, Shack etc, they deserve nothing more than scorn and derision.

  14. Hey, OBF, it seems pretty apparent that Dr. Fetzer is never going to scour the Clues Forum archives for all the individual analyses done (of various 9/11 fakeries) that were discovered AFTER the current version of the SC movie was edited. And because he trusts Clare so intensely, and she still clings to the outmoded, Ace Baker-ish concept of "live" 9/11 video feeds being "layered" or "controlled" in REAL TIME (obviously, Clare, you lack professional TV experience and have no idea how difficult and risky that would actually be) the "case is closed" for Jim (and Clare) regarding total fakery during the 103-minute TV spectacular.

    OK, I can live with that -- and so should you, OBF. Neither of them are shills and both are fine investigators, albeit with a few blind spots -- just as we all have.

    So how about laying off on all the hectoring of this forum and instead try spending more time with your pal Ab on his forum, where virtually the whole world is an illusion. It should be a lot less stressful there, and maybe I'll drop by from time to time and soak up some of that "Maya" atmosphere too. Peace.

    1. Good points Andy.

      Two points I would like to add:

      1. It would be a waste of time to study Shack's work for the simple reason that Shack is a gatekeeper and his work is designed to mislead and cause people to waste their time and energies on it.

      2. The attacks from OBF are due to his being a troublemaker and disinfo agent, his job is to disrupt, cause arguments and attack those who do serious research into areas that are sensitive such as the involvement of Israel and the use of nuclear weapons.

    2. Nonsense. OBF is convinced that radical doubt means radical acceptance of all outre ideas.

      And Shack's work overall is VERY GOOD.

      There are tons of victim fakes; this does not mean all are, but tons of them are.

      Lots of video evidence does not match; doctoring and pre-planning have to have been part of this event, for post-production as well. This would be expected.

      THE ONLY MISTAKE WITH SHACK AND OBF AND JAYHAN is that in going so far as to ASK if all was fake, they gain a confirmation bias, which forgets that most coups involve a lot of mistakes, sloppiness, embarrassment, oversights which are used to out the perps. Instead, they think all was PLANTED to make us think it was mistakes. This is formally unprovable or provable as a position, and does not fit the prima facie part of human nature, which is that they think simply of covering up what they pre-conceive to be the biggest problems and all the rest is ad hoc. Prima facie, here, does not mean that one does not wonder, test, doubt where one can.

      And OBF sees himself (smug, in a way) as a crusader. So do some here. So let's be fair, please.

    3. Andy: The idea of PIPED-IN imagery is hardly difficult. And the use of TOP MEDIA PERSONS as most of the "witnesses", indicates complicity.

      The BBC feed indicates complicity.

      The planes being grey and glinting vs black blobs indicates complicity.

      The blackout and whiteout indicate complicity.

      The cell towers and newsfeeds down for most indicates possible complicity.

      The military name for a helicopter indicates complicity.

      The beeps of co-ordination indicates complicity.

      Let's get your points correct:

      there are PLENTY of indications of media CONTROL AND LAYERING, aka fakery,

      but not 100% and not ALL CGI either.

    4. Clare, I really don't know what else I can say to you, you really are wrong about Shack's work being very good. Shack and his work is a psyop and you have fallen for it, until you grasp that I really can't see how you can understand what's really going on.

      The 'everything if fakery' is a psyop to program people into a mindset where they can be convinced that almost anything is fake, thus misleading them away from sensitive area of research.

      The 'nukes are fake' is the most obvious example of this, the only reason why Shack and his cronies are pushing this insane theory is because they don't want people to come to the realisation that nuclear WMDs were used against the American people to commit mass murder.

      Please Clare, don't dismiss this as 'nonsense' and please do some study into psyops and programing of mindsets, it is crucial knowledge in gaining an understanding of the intentions of people who work against the search for truth.

      The truth movement is heavily infiltrated with gatekeepers and disinfo agents, there are many psyops being carried out, therefore everyone needs to be on guard against them and learn how to recognise them.

  15. I have explained my position many times on these pages. I do not believe there was video fakery with regard to the destruction footage because there are no good reasons to believe it and many reasons to not.

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

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

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

    (3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.

    (4) They were destroyed below ground level.

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

    (6) And massive parts blown great distances

    (7) There were videos and there were photos.

    (8) There were many witnesses observing.

    (9) We have cancer rates among responders.

    (10) We have USGS dust samples and more.

    (11) Seismic readings from Lamont Laboratory;

    (12) Audio recordings from some of the footage.

    There are various alternative possibilities:

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

    (h2) collapse due to plane crashes and fires.

    (h3) classic controlled demolitions (a pair).

    (h4) non-conventional mode of destruction;

    (h4a) lasers, masers or plasmoids;

    (h4b) directed energy weaponry;

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

    So far the evidence most strongly supports (h4c), which we have explained repeatedly. It is indefensible to claim that we place excessive dependence on the video or photo evidence, which appears to be consistent with many of the alternatives cited above.

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

    It seems to me that solfiggiio adopts the lazy stance of ignoring my actual position and attributing to me one I do not hold. If there were good reason to believe the destruction videos were faked, then I would consider it. But I have seen no good reasons to believe that.

    We have to base our reasoning on all of the available relevant evidence, which includes the video footage. The towers were there, then they were not. We have millions of cubic yards of very find dust. The videos document their conversion. It's not that tough a call.

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

    1. For some reason we are supposed to question the veracity of the USGS dust samples and the DOE water samples as well.

      Yet the mere fact that the Twin Towers (a million tons of skyscrapers) were converted into dust in seconds flat could lead one to conclude that they were demolished by nuclear weapons.

      We shouldn't be surprised that evidence of U-235 fission turns up in the dust samples. That's what one would expect to find in the dust. If the government was going to fake it they wouldn't have left all of those fission products in the dust.

      Then you have tritiated water in the basement of building 6. A building with a massive crater left in it and temperatures so high that "cement flowed like lava around anything in it's path." Tritiated water + massive crater = thermonuclear detonation.

  16. In relation to Solfeggio on January 13, 2014 at 10:56 PM, I agree with most if not all of what he writes here, except that there are no good reasons to accept the position of video fakery regarding the destruction footage on the grounds that I have just elaborated.

    I am all for speculation as an indispensable stage in scientific reasoning. But while that the video footage was faked is an alternative hypothesis, it does not fare well in relation to the rest of the available evidence.

    So I am perplexed as to what I am supposed to be doing wrong. The third stage of scientific reasoning, which follows PUZZLEMENT and SPECULATION, is the adaptation of the hypothesis to the evidence. On this ground, this hypothesis fares so poorly as to not deserve further consideration--unless new evidence in its support should emerge. That's where things stand.

    1. I don't think you're doing much f anything wrong Jim.

      As I've already written a couple of times if not more, I firmly believe that the reason why you and Don are being attacked is because you are researching in areas that are sensitive, namely the use of nuclear weapons and the involvement of Israel and it's Zionist cohorts in the US.

      As someone else wrote, you start to catch flak as you approach the target, which is a truism, so Jim, I think you can consider the attacks you are getting from the likes of OBF and Shack as indicators that you are heading in the right direction.

      Further, I really wouldn't worry too much at all about the fakery of the videos of the destruction, Shack and OBF want you to waste time and energy on the fakery aspect because it mean you have less time and energy to devote to more meaningful areas of research such as the study of the USGS dust samples and other indicators of nuclear fusion and fission having taken place.

      Keep going as you are Jim and don't let the likes of OBF and Shack distract or mislead you, as that is their intention.

  17. Andy Tyme said : "....So how about laying off on all the hectoring of this forum .."

    Request denied :-).

    Andy, I'm having way too much fun simply pointing out that with regards to 911 research and the authentication procedures for deemed "evidence" , Mr. J. Fetzer is consistently in complete denial of standard scientific methodology.

    As poster Solfeggio pointed out: " ... it is a kind of hypocrisy, or a pick and choose of what he deems real or fake."

    This is as true of him as it is for any/all of the "scientific" researchers he routinely promotes, and of those who mostly agree with him here but are not actual researchers [as far as I can make out].

    When I get bored, perhaps I'll stop, but not before. Promise :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Or when the ADL reassigns you

    2. Silly. Maybe Shack has some assignment in overdoing the faking emphasis, since his family was friends with the Bin Ladens, maybe -- but OBF overdoes it as a true believer.


      "Even just one real one" being lumped in with massive fakes is not an outrage as you seem to feel; if 40-50% ARE FAKE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE CASE, THEN THIS IS IMPORTANT -- AND THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE OVERSTATE THE CASE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, DON.

      Please stop throwing off the discussion of the real levels of faking/manipulation, just as they end up doing with their overstatements the other way!

    3. Even one murder on 9/11 is an outrage. The use WMDs on 9/11 was an outrage. 9/11 was an outrage in every aspect.

      The fakery of videos is only a minor part of the event, in fact, I would cal it a very minor part because once you have determined that there was some fakery in the videos there really is nothing you can learn from analysing the videos.

      The whole reason why Shack focuses purely on fakery in videos and victims is because nothing can be learnt from that work about the perpetrators or how the crime was perpetrated - it's a blind alley they want to lead people down.

    4. Re: Even one murder on 9/11 is an outrage.

      Exactly. Therefor it was really important for the 911 operation management to avoid anything like that so that no one in the operation should be involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statutes of limitation. Gov at the highest level was also involved in this stunt - should they get them involved in a conspiracy to murder too? If they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up, there shouldn't have been any murders that day.

      Re: use WMDs on 9/11 was an outrage.
      Why WMDs? Old fashion dynamite is hard and dangerous enough. Here is a training video on dynamite safety from Dyno Nobel:

      Re: I would cal it a very minor part because once you have determined that there was some fakery in the videos there really is nothing you can learn from analysing the videos.

      Basically agree - not much to learn from a potential Hollywood movie.

      If we didn't see, we didn't see it. Doesn't mean that we cannot deduce anything from this simulated "live" news reports.

      First of all, the media and the gang who control the media were definitely complicit in this operation. Gov at the highest level too. Not credible at all that the Gov wouldn't have discovered this deception sooner or later.

      And this is a really big deal. Much, much bigger than 911 itself. US (and much of the world) is a media occupied territory.

    5. Nuclear weapons for the same reasons you've been told a dozen or more times and keep ignoring.

      Only nuclear weapons could dustify half a million tonnes of concrete and dust.

      The USGS dust samples, the water samples from WTC6 provide proof of both fission and fusion.

      The high temperatures and molten concrete and steel below ground level, the persistence of high temperatures for at least 6 months after the event.

      The banning of geiger counters in NYC is a huge red flag.

      The statistically highly improbably incidence of rare cancers and other diseases among responders.

      The toasting of cars in adjacent parking lots and streets.

      I'm probably forgetting some other pieces of data but those mentioned more than prove that dynamite or any other conventional explosive could not have been responsible.

  18. Well, John, they did think they were doing that, but of course, the conception was based in a misunderstanding that one group (Jews of all stripes) were like the Rothschilds and others in London who were their formal undoing at Versailles, and not seeing their own inept austerity hounds such as Hjalmar Schacht who helped ruin them, and that brutish fanaticism as "getting things done" with no consideration of subtlety always refuses balanced approaches, and history that should be manipulated away from truths into pure myth as they wished to do, just to justify empire. They also delved deeply into Satanic/Odd blood-brother nonsense.

    So let's not emphasize the righteous indignation so far that we forget the insanity, or of course vice versa either as most do.

  19. The MOST important reason for faking the video depiction of the tower collapses was to provide a spectacular-and-memorable, SUBSTITUTE version (for the uber-credentialed NIST hacks to later analyse via bogus video recordings and phoney stills) of the pattern of destruction, one that did NOT start at the BOTTOM (where it likely DID begin) but which was a location much too far removed from the purported upper-level spots where there were alleged to be (and were also video-faked) big-Boeing crashes.

  20. Andy Tyme wrote:
    If anyone knows what Mr. Lane's current take is on the actual occurrences of 9/11 (or Boston, or Sandy Hook), particularly in regard to the degrees and types of FAKERY involved, PLEASE let us know.
    Lane is my favorite JFK researcher and all around great person, champion of justice and
    the Constitution--The Bill of Rights. I used to subcribe to the Spotlight--my subscription had lapsed but I renewed when I heard Lane was defending Liberty Lobby against E. Howard Hunt, the case on which "Plausible Denial" was based and which solved the JFK case and fingered the CIA back in the 80's. (Like you, I was also an avid reader of the Progressive, the Nation, Zed Magazine, In These Times and Covert Action Quarter--all the left gatekeepers.)

    I have looked for Lane's opinions on the net but never find anything. (I was surprised that Lane is married to Carto's daughter. How strange! Is there a source for this? I couldn't find a thing.) I think Lane devotes himself to JFK and other matters. He's done another book blaming the CIA for the murder. He also spoke at an event on the 50th anniversary of JFK which appeared on C-SPAN. It's as if he's still back there with Jim Garrison and reminding us what "makes us Americans different"--due process as granted in the Bill of Rights.

    Some years ago, after the OJ trial, I spoke with Donald Freed, a partner of Lanes on some projects like the movie "Executive Action," on a radio call in show. Freed was pushing his new book "Killing Time," about the OJ case. I asked Freed what Lane's take was on the case and Freed said he had none, to which I asked why not, and he said Lane was not "familiar with the case." Since that time, I've felt Lane chooses his battles carefully.

    I did find this early piece by Lane which The Nation would not publish nor would the NYT, so it ended up in The Guardian--a left publication. It's a lawyer's brief defending Oswald.
    Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief, by Mark Lane, National Guardian, 12/19/63

    As to Michael Collins Piper and Christopher Bollyn--I never even read their columns. They were always squabbling about some minor problem or other. Bollyn-- I'm not surprised to hear the latest on him. I think he is ill--always paranoid and in hiding. I wouldn't give those two rabble rousers a second thought.

  21. Fake planes, hoaxes, multiple shooters, how many clowns can actually fit in that small car.
    None of it matters, the issue is this in a nutshell :

    Piper is arguing that no one will know what is real and what is fake. Their perception of reality will be compromised to the point they will not believe anything.

    John Friends argument if I understand correctly and agree with is, it is all manipulated in some way to shape your perceived reality, and this has been going on in America since before any of us were born.
    It's a friggin science.

    The conclusion and proper reaction should be is to shut them right out, turn mainstream media off it for good.
    Drive a stake in it's heart, they have absolutely no right nor place in forming any of your world view.

    You are better off talking to your neighbor, family, friends. You would be of utmost value by becoming citizen reporters in your local domain.
    A true revolution and new uncontrolled, stream of information would flow, from there no matter how tainted, imperfect that can be, the truth can eventually be gleaned from such an open system as opposed to the now closed loop.

    Todays technology allows this, and places like the internet is at worst a two way platform as opposed to a one way information pipeline with no dissent or accountability pumping god knows what via memes and subliminals in to your subconscious.

    That is a true revolution, a path to a independent media that you may choose to participate in.

    Bottom line :
    Shut that one eyed, blue glowing kryptonite, psyop, magic wand, vanilla sky, baby sitter off, once and for all.
    They had their chance, they proved who they really are ansd their worth(lessness).

    With the money you save, send to me at P.O. Box, lol.
    Take your kids, wife, girl, parents or best friends out for a healthy meal and real human interaction.

  22. So can somebody please clarify in a nutshell. What would be the motive for faking the twin tower collapse videos? What is to be gained?

    Humor me as I haven't been following these recent posts on the topic.

    1. Re: What would be the motive for faking the twin tower collapse videos?

      Better control and predictability, no guessing on what it would look like. Also the opportunity to make it look SPECTACULAR, just like in a Hollywood horror movie. They had to hide the real demolition because it didn't happen as shown on "live" TV. That was Hollywood physics. They also had to simulate other stuff, like the jumpers, so maybe they also hade to make the footage similar to their other fake parts? Wouldn't look credible if they had some dirt poor Hollywood animations side by side with a real broadcast camera.

      Here is what the broadcast quality at least should have been like - amateur on top of WTC pre 911: - no problems with the color balance there, and lots of details and moving object on the ground.

    2. And if they faked the collapse videos, they could show it from any camera angle they wanted, and put up as many cameras as they needed. In reality, the area was evacuated and deserted when they blew up the buildings, so that no one should be killed and no one get hurt in this operation. Could make it much more thrilling in these Hollywood animations, you know.They could also make new and revised animations later if they had to. You can add all kinds of other objects to these Hollywood animations too, like escaping crowds, burning cars and lots and lots of other stuff to make it really scary, and so that we definitely had to chase this bin Laded for ever.

      Excellent overview: Simon Shack interviewed on John Friend's Realist Report here:

    3. That is an excellent question, especially since, if they had faked it (which I regard as rubbish), then surely they would have shown them to have COLLAPSED, not blown apart in every direction from the top down and be converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust--where there is no stack of floors (or "pancakes") when it was done.

      I have repeatedly asked SS and obf what in the world they think we would have seen if these videos had not been faked--and they haven't a clue! NOT A CLUE! Since there are many other sources of information on how it was done, including especially the USGS dust samples, where obf even wants to discount them, I am now convinced this is a massive distraction op to deprive those of us doing serious research into an endless chase after our own tails.

      El Buggo does not acknowledge that we have photos and films from every angle and perspective, some from the air, some from the ground, others in high def, no matter whether from across the river or not. These events were very complicated with complex details--yet the photos all hang-together in the right way. They have not shown the existence of any serious problems with the photographic and film record, but they have turned up some minor anomalies that could easily have been done post-broadcast.

      The frosting on the cake is when ofb and SS DENY THE EXISTENCE OF NUKES. That has to be the dumbest denial of the use of nukes at the World Trade Center of all time. I am sorry, but such a profound degree of scientific illiteracy and blatant irrationality does not deserve serious consideration. We have been over this ground before and I do not want these threads to be repetitions of more of the same, on and on forever.

    4. I am in full agreement Jim. I am guilty of going over and over my reasons for not thinking highly of Shacks work and why I think Shack, OBF and El Buggo are gatekeepers/shill. But in my defence, I have done it in response to their repeatedly spouting the same rubbish over and over. It's felt a bit like a loop and been rather tiresome and annoying.

      I believe they are running a psyop and it has several elements:

      1. By spouting rubbish, they are able to derail the discussions and turn them in a direction where nothing useful or valuable is discussed.

      2. By claiming fakery everywhere, in pictures, videos, USGS data, nuclear weapons etc they are trying to program people with a FAKERY MINDSET. Once this mindset has been programmed, they can then use the FAKE label to mislead, i.e. people start to discuss nukes - FAKE! Or people start to discuss the satellite images showing suspicious things - FAKE!

      3. They talk about the videos and the fakery of the TV broadcasts so much, to the exclusion of all other data, this is deliberate because studying the videos and images will not lead to the discovery of anything useful, whereas studying other data may well lead to important discoveries.

      4. They attack anyone who talks about nukes or Israel or the Zionist collaborators in the US govt. This shows that these three things are highly sensitive.

      5. No victims, this is to diminish the magnitude of the crime that was perpetrated. They want people to think the towers were empty and all that happened was the demolition of the towers with dynamite while fake videos were played and military grade smoke screens employed. This would be a far lesser crime than the use of nuclear WMDs that vapourised thousands of people.

      All in all, it's a fairly sophisticated psyop, but not so sophisticated that it's not possible to figure out what they are doing and why they are doing it.

      I am working on an article where I lay out my opinions on this psyop, how to recognise other psyops and how to counteract hem.

    5. Thank you for stepping down to us Jim, and for sharing you brilliant observations with us. Unfortunately, I will dispute or refute most of them here, but I will have to be very brief:

      That they had actors or extras and some photographers and cameramen running around close to the WTC when it came down, I will regard that as rubbish. They needed some really good close ups, and to send people in there when the towers came down could get them killed, and get everyone in this operation involved in a conspiracy to murder, with no statutes of limitations. And what if the shots weren’t good enough? If they filmed it in situ, they wouldn’t get any more chances. If they animated the collapse sequence with conventional Hollywood tools, they could render or create new footage later if needed. After all, they also had every news network involved in this operation, and could air whatever they had or needed. This part of the 911 movie was very crucial. Here they had to create the extremely important victims part of the story, and the basis for WoT, etc. Had to look spectacular etc, so that they could make the people really mad. Also, animating it gave them total control on the footage , and could approve it before it was aired. Obvious lower risk to the operation when they could know what would be aired, and even have the possibility to create more footage, etc. And no killed kamikaze-photographers and suicide-cameramen, and still spectacular footage.

      We don’t know how the towers were brought down, because we haven’t seen it – not for real. Same with the rubble pile – we haven’t seen the real thing there either. So we really don’t know, but that we know.

      If this gang could air a Hollywood horror movie on “live” news, on all networks, and the Gov at the highest level was complicit, how hard would it be for this gang to fake some simple reports much later? I fail to see what their problem possibly could be.

      It was absolutely no problem for fancy Hollywood animations tools 2001 to create related images from other angles. They also have spun 1 video into 3 shots, and sometimes more -> simple example: - 1000 other examples here:

      So is it your statement Jim, that they could not have faked 1 image, and then fake another one to prove or confirm this first image? I find it mind boggling that this should be a problem.

      Regarding these high def videos: we do not have a single example of similar HQ videos before 2010. It is almost as if they all were invented that year. They had time to re-render their original animations on better computers? What else could it be?


    6. >cont:

      The problem for the nuke hoax DENIERS is that they simply refuse to look into the story and are deliberately unable to understand the issues. First of all, there isn’t any traces of any Ground Zero in Hiroshima in any of the historical photos or films of the event. That’s like claiming the hijackers caused the WTC towers to collapse without any planes. Why cant all these nuke hoax deniers simply locate this reported Ground Zero in Hiroshima then, so that we can move on? Because they cannot – they are unable to, because there isn’t any Ground Zero in Hiroshima. And there are much more to the story than this, much, much more. The very eminent Fakeologist himself made two shows on the problems with these nuke reports - check them out: - – put those guys on you own show Jim?

      The Hiroshima nuke reports are really important for any other nuke reports, because this was the place where nukes supposedly were born. This could also be the biggest news story in the 20th century. We need to be able to follow a process here, just as Aristotle told us; “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”. We cannot jump from nothing and right into fancy neutron demolitions and mini-nukes before we can verify the basis for this invention. That would be like someone claim that they had created a marvelous machine in Unobtanium – a material with such amazing properties that it doesn't even exist. Not very credible story, as you may understand. If Pentagon faked the Hiroshima nuke reports, when was the first real nuke then? You tell me.

      I’m not making up stuff here Jim, because I don’t have to – we do have a case. And you too should look into it. You talk about Holograms as if they should be real as dynamite, but you refuse to look into the nuke scare because that is TOO wild? I simply don’t get it (well I do, but I wont tell).

      Lets end here for now with “It’s My Party And I'll Cry If I Want to” with Leslie Gore 1963:

  23. Jim Fetzer said:
    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?
    Temporary insanity? Or maybe it was the polar vortex that engulfed me last week which knocked out my DSL and left me without the Internet for days.

    This blog needs to be read daily to keep up. Besides, I certainly didn't "attack" you. I thought I was being nice by saying we understand that you have your mind on so many projects and activities that it must be hard to focus on any one topic like the maddening riddle of fakeness and lies which is 9/11.

    As to the problem of 9/11: My mind is still open as to what really happened. We know the government lied about everything that day and we have Elias Davidsson's excellent analysis. Now we know the "live" television news was altered and might have been entirely simulated--not just the CGI planes inserted into the scene as originally thought.

    Most of all, the question is how were the towers demolished? Since all of the evidence provided by the media and the government has been fake, one can assume the pictures of the towers collapsing as well as the images depicting the size of the debris piles, the cleanup and aftermath in general, have also been faked.

    Suddenly, the possibility of mini-nukes being used has come to the fore. Nukes would explain the murder of the 3,000 the government said were killed or rather, disappeared without a trace except for some bone fragments which were later identified by DNA in the samples. Nukes also explain the disappearance of office furniture, plumbing, bathroom fixtures, room partitions, etc. Everything was vaporized in the process. Easy answer, I think.

    There has been research on the so-called victims which indicates that these victims might be fictional as well. We have discovered two research sites which claim the WTC was empty on 9/11: Lets Roll Forums and September Clues. Now, The Real Deal had Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams on as guests. Also OneBornFree was a guest representing September Clues on the show but unfortunately didn't get to complete his case.

    We have been debating whether or not the latter guests were closer to the truth and that the buildings had been gutted and of course, there were no thousands of people in the WTC.

    Could a standard demolition have been done on the WTC? What explosives would have been used tp bring down the mostly steel buildings? Was the WTC designed with a built-in demolition system as per building codes in NYC (according to Kazelov)? How did they keep the employees away from the site. If all was on tape, including the plane-shaped gashes in the buildings, how did they keep the public from noticing? .

    1. Lots of questions there, Joan. Here is another version on how they blew up the WTC:

      Could this be how the WTC towers collapsed?

    2. Joan, I have explained their differences many times, where WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition, while the Twin Towers were not:

      WTC-7 was bottom up, the towers top down.

      WTC-7 floors fell together, towers stationary.

      WTC-7 controlled demo, towers blown apart

      WTC-7 5.5 floors of pancakes, towers none

      WTC-7 implosion, Twin Towers explosion

      If you need more (because you should have put this together a long time ago), then try

      "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II", "Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle", "Mystery Solved" The WTC was Nuked o 9/11", "2 + 2 = Israel Nuked the WTC on 9/11", "Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs" for openers.

      The answer is, "No, it cannot have been a classic controlled demolition, for reasons we have explained many times."

  24. it is done jim. please don't persist in this charade. there is no need to any further. we made it and the time is now. the game is well played and the lesson is well learned. we walk in light and truth from here on in.

    life is beautiful. we are beautiful, one and all.

    1. Peter the days are getting longer, life is good. You baffled the boys with your defence of Jim as a 'good' man. I understood cos I've seen Dunphy use the word with a few jars in, on late night telly. Fair dues to you for listening to five million Beatles songs, or was it five songs a million times, either way it softened you up to embrace Mr Slowtalk from Toronto. That lad would clear any pub, owners would beg him to park outside the competition. Have you ever met anyone who spoke so slow? New on the scene, flashy website, cool theories. Nuke power a hoax? France is 80% nuke for power. They finished the Tour under lights last year, how? Who are these masters he believes in who can use the billionaires of arms,finance and media as disposable cover. The Jesuits could barely get a pothole filled in Kilmaley. Come on Peter

  25. im starting to lean towards jim and away from jones everyday

  26. El Buggo said:
    Could this be how the WTC towers collapsed?
    Good link to fakeologist YouTube presentation. A few questions, though.

    What happened to the people?
    What happened to the furniture and fixtures? Wouldn't a traditional CD be impossible unless all of these items were removed?
    How long did it take to rig the building?
    What would dynamite do to the mostly steel building?
    (Unlike the steel beamed and reinforced concrete Biltmore, the WTC was mostly steel--thousands of assemblies of steel beams and spandrels on the exterior, thousands of steel pans, steel trusses and then the 47 steel core columns. What would the debris pile look like?)

    The nuke theory solves all the above problems.

    1. Excellent observations Joan.

      If the official story of a pancake collapse had occurred, you should see a pile of debris approximately 12% of the height of the building, the WTC was 110 storeys so there should have been a roughly 13 storey tall pile of debris.

      The amount of energy needed to produce the results we saw - very little debris, smoking holes in the ground with molten concrete and steel, pieces blasted outwards hundreds of feet to land upto a block away, half the material pulverised into dust; is colossal, far beyond what any amount of conventional explosives could produce. Therefore the answer to what caused the destruction we saw has to be one which accounts for this colossal amount of energy. I am only aware of two possibilites and one is too far-fetched to be credible, the first is nuclear bomb(s) the second is Judy Wood's directed energy weapon. Therefore, we are left with nuclear bomb(s) as the overriding possibility. When we then take into account the evidence of both nuclear fusion and fission such as the USGS dust samples, the tritiated water samples, the high incidence of rare cancers in responders and others, then the case for the use of nuclear bomb(s) becomes rather strong and difficult to dispute.

      You will have noted that the way that OBF and El Buggo try to dispute the care for nukes is not to present ANY contrary evidence or make ANY attempt at an alternative hypothesis supported by multiple sources of data, which would be the correct, scientific and rational way. No, instead they simply cry 'FAKERY' which is not making a case at all. OBF is pushing fakery in the data that provides evidence of nuclear fission and fusion, Buggo is pushing fakery of nuclear weapons, both are examples of straw men I believe and have no validity.

    2. Thanks Joan,

      Re: What happened to the people?

      Well, how would they have made this illusion of these victims in a movie? They would have made up some people I guess, faked it some way, and REPORTED that they had been killed. It is the perception of the victims that is crucial, and is part of the basis for the War on Terror, etc.

      Re: What happened to the furniture and fixtures?

      Don't know. Also missing several thousands stainless steel elevators doors and 250 acres of carpeting in the rubble pile. Cant see any.

      Oliver Stone made a 9/11 movie ("World Trade Center") and filmed it in a "rubble field" in Los Angeles. What else could have been made there? He talks about it here, 1:30 - 1:43:

      RE: How long did it take to rig the building?

      Don't know. They could get the access they needed after this Silverstein took over. I believe it is uncontroversial that WTC were horrible office buildings. So many or most of the floors were very likely empty anyway. I guess it is possible to demolish buildings without stripping them first, but it might add risk to the operation, or make it more expensive or something. Not sure.

      Re: What would dynamite do to the mostly steel building?

      Watch this spectacular dynamite blasting video, and use your own imagination to get and idea how it could be used:

      If you add more of it, it will become louder and stronger. Just add as much as you need. Quite cheap and available stuff, and there are millions of competent operators out there too. Maybe add some sandbags here and there? Or in really tuff materials, maybe shaped charges or maybe some EFP like stuff?

      Not so very good with these explosives and exactly how to do it. You can ask the DynoConsult guys at Dyno Nobel? They are really good with dynamite and stuff:

      Re: The nuke theory solves all the above problems.

      The nuke theory isn't even clear on how and when they got in the air for the very first time and is maybe undemonstrated. 911 isn't to only Big Lie™ in history, you know. Why mess with nukes when you can do it with dynamite instead?

    3. Dynamite would not leave the material in dust, in the way it did (in footage, air and on ground), and they're using such nukes elsewhere (per testimonials about disintegration of tanks when radioactive stuff in bombs is dropped, some testimonial I have heard myself), plus the nukes make sure the material blasts far away. The amount of TNT to get the effects seen would be ludicrous.

  27. Ian Greenhaigh said:
    Excellent observations Joan.

    If the official story of a pancake collapse had occurred, YOU SHOULD SEE a pile of debris approximately 12% of the height of the building, the WTC was 110 storeys so there should have been a roughly 13 storey tall pile of debris. The amount of energy needed TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS WE SAW--very little debris, smoking holes in the ground with molten concrete and steel, pieces blasted outwards hundreds of feet to land upto a block away, half the material pulverised into dust; is colossal, far beyond what any........


    Ian, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't believe they had to use nuclear to level the towers.

    The only reason you all support nuclear is that it solves the problem of the people--all 3,000 were vaporized along with the furniture and fixtures. Are you sure the pictures of the debris pile were authentic? Are you sure that any of the images are authentic?

    The US government lied about the hijackers, the planes, the crashes. the phone calls from the planes. They have not one shred of evidence supporting their terrorist attack allegations. Tell me why we should believe the video and other photographic images provided by the government through an obedient media?

    1. I recognise the fakery of the images, but regardless, I don't think there is another explanation that can account for the destruction that occurred, the dustification of half of the material in the towers, the molten steel and concrete, the high temperatures persisting underground for at least6 months, the high incidence of cancers, plus the other indicators like the dust samples, tritiated water and toasted cars.

      If anyone comes up with something else other than nukes that can account for all those things then I'll listen, but I don't see how there is another possibility.

    2. Thank you, Ian.

      You agree with me, then, for the general value of many findings on the CluesForum and LetsRollForums, then, with the overeager stuff ignored.

  28. Don't you think it incredible the thousands of images from 9/11 that exist for an event that lasted 103 minutes? Most of those pictures were taken at just the right moment of the plane hits as well as the nine-second demolishment of the towers. How did so many photographers converge on the scene in such short notice as if they knew something big was up. If you were told "America is under attack," wouldn't you be heading for cover?

  29. "Spingola Jumps Shark, Supports's Official Sandy Hook Story"

    It *kills me* to have to post this criticism of Deanna Spingola [henceforth "DS"], as I've seen her as a fountain of high quality 'Truthy' information ever since I first discovered her a couple years ago. [...] So it was crushing for me to listen to yesterday's (15 Jan 2014) DS show, which she did solo, discussing her [proclaimed...] view of the Sandy Hoax controversy.

    read more:

    1. Just remember what network Ms. Spingola broadcasts on. Perhaps a memo came across her desk advising her to "get on board" the Piper train -- or else try talking into a tin can with string instead.

    2. Hi Pat

      Thanks for that info, very interesting bu also disturbing. I found the thread you linked to very good reading, but it also upsets me. There were several points made there that were upsetting, such as how many have sold out to the Zionists and how no-one has tried to oppose them since 1945.

      Sandy Hook really seems to have brought out the worst in some people, perhaps what has happened is coercion has been used against people like Piper and Spingola, certainly it is difficult to see why else they would follow the official story on SH as it's just as transparent an event as Boston.

      The thought occurs to me that SH might be really important to the shadow govt, a really key event in their agenda and therefore they have gone all out to threaten and coerce people into not speaking out against it.

      If I'm guessing right and Sh really is very important and key to their agenda then it's a deeply troubling line of thought. It suggests their agenda is reliant on the disarming of the US population and that leads to further very disturbing thoughts about how they will reshape things after disarmament, the FEMA camps, the DHS, the militarised police etc.

    3. It is not difficult AT ALL Ian to understand why Piper, etc., find SH counterintuitive, or Lifton finds 9/11 (esp. no Boeings) too strange a conspiracy;

      most people cannot "replace" children, planes, brain of JFK, whole Paul McCartney, etc., in their minds -- without feeling they are nuts ...

      AND some people who do replace / doubt things do get excessive (such as Shack, OBF, Jayhan, Irato, for 9/11, and Tina Foster for the other Beatles not only Paul, etc.) and some people are outright wrong (that JFK didn't die, or Dallas Goldbug -- Ed Chiarini) ...

      So one is not to be shocked that EVIDENCE ITSELF is not the whole point.

      Part of the point is being able to "replace" an impression of one thing AND check if it is going too far or not far enough. This takes wild willingness (counterintuitive work), as well as caution.

      If both don't interplay, people do not "see/hear/think" the right replacing of impressions of things, or any at all.

      Get it?

      Your failure to replace your impression that "evidence does it all" is also similar, or your impression that Shack, etc., have to be agents because they replace a lot in their minds (starting with evidence) then go too far (and think they're smart for doubting the strange concept of nukes on 9/11 which actually I agree with them sound counterintuitive on one level, but seem to be technically able to leave a building not only in smithereens but also much in dust).

      Best wishes.

  30. Clare, please moderate your tone, it is overly aggressive and is liable to annoy and get people's backs up. You are far too strident in how you present your OPINIONS as facts.

    Of course I 'GET IT' and I don't appreciate being lectured in such a way, it makes it hard to remain patient with you.

    1. I happen not to be fanatically for or against anybody here, so I can certainly present my facts as not mere opinions.

      You have been uncareful, Ian, as has Shack. That's all.

  31. You're so sweet, Mrs Clare - with your scholarly appraisals of our respective attitudes and skills - and all with such admirable patience! Brings me back to my good'ol school days - although none of my teachers ever called me 'an extremist'. As it is, my main 'problem' was being every teachers' sweetheart - and having to hide my report cards so as not to get mobbed by my classmates for my constant high marks - and those almost embarrassingly affectionate teachers' comments. Anyhow, I'm eagerly awaiting your end of term school reports - hoping my orderly conduct will help make up for my 'extremist' behavior. Say, Miss Clare, do you use numbers or letters to rate your pupils' performance?

    A typical day in Madam Kuehn's classroom:

    Mrs Kuehn: "Sooo, how many children were killed in Sandy Hook? Anyone?"

    student Simon: "No one, madam. Zero. Zilch. Nada!"

    Mrs Kuehn: "Ooh Simon... that is such an extreme, flippant statement! Anyone else cares to have a go at this question?"

    student Ian: "I would say maybe between 5 or 11 - or perhaps as many as 13 or 15.5 were killed in Sandy Hook, madam - uh - that is, more or less approximately speaking, of course - and with all due caution. The rest were probably fabricated - but we cannot be quite sure about that, madam!"

    Mrs Kuehn: "That's my boy! Bravo, Ian - you are showing admirable care and restraint in balancing your mental processes - so as not to jump to hasty conclusions! You'll make a great lawyer one fine day! Step up to the blackboard now - and illustrate your thesis to your classmates."

    Best wishes to you, Clare my dear, teacher of care! :-)

    Simon Shack

    1. I don't think anyone died at Sandy Hook, I think it was purely a drill.

      But apart from that, I actually found that rather humourous and poignant.

      First thing by Simon I actually enjoyed reading.

      Only took 6 years or so...

    2. Simon Shack:

      It happens to be true that you go too far and actually forget your request for NATURAL PHOTOGRAPHIC QUALITY to an image. Not specifically definable, nevertheless Natural Camera Work has a quality, and the destruction layer in otherwise altered faraway scenes DOES have that quality, as to the matching (hanging together) photo work, and subsequent findings of persons at the scene (massive dust), and USGS (possibly but unlikely controlled, given their work confirms, unrecognized by them, much which is knowable about nukes).

      By the way, someone in the Commanders from West Point told a friend of mine he watches tanks DISINTEGRATE below him when he drops his bombs, which are radioactive of some kind. I did not ask; he shared, unasked.

      Let us not wonder whether, then, Simon, you may not like that I actually field both positions with equanimity, rather than that you fear I might be "a teacher" in tone.

      Ian would like the piece by Simon, of course, because if the two of you can duke it out about me, you at least get to duke it out:

      two "agents", one from the "ADL" (Simon) and one from the "perps" (Ian, with Don), eh?

      Ha ha.

      Evidence is the point here. Hence I sound teacher-like.

    3. And Simon:

      there is no positive evidence for students dead at Sandy Hook AND only negative evidence.

      It is a different case than 9/11 footage.

    4. I'm not interested in duking it out with anyone Clare, quite the opposite, I abhor the way sensible, rational debate has been sidetracked.

      I hope you realise you have playeda part n that and will try, in future to be less disruptive and not push your opinons as facts until it gets to the point where people are annoyed at you and make nasty remarks.

      Personally, I am on the verge of deciding to ignore anything you say because I'm so sick of your preacher/teacher attitude and unpleasant manner.

    5. Really. How interesting.

      You want to radicalize the discussion into accusations, and I pull you and others back and you label me.


      Anyway, Simon is missing the point here about me:

      9/11 fakery is not partly fake in my estimation because it is merely a more cautious approach on my part ...

      and he shows he thinks that is the only reason I speak of it that way, when he accuses me of not holding that Sandy Hook is all-fake deaths ...

      but rather that 9/11 fakery has counter-evidence for all-fake pre-made as an hypothesis,

      and Sandy Hook does not.

      I am right and less belligerent. Hence it peeves you, Ian, that I am more respectful in general, and sure of what I say. So now it's preaching and unpleasant. It is simply neutral, careful and complex and correct.

    6. What peeves me Clare is the way you think you know everything and are always right. I'm sick of being talked down to, of being told what to think. You're even telling me what peeves me now, like you know more about what I think that I do myself!

      Get a grip, you're not right about everything and you don't know everything. I'm far from the only one that you have rubbed up the wrong way, you might have good intentions but your demeanor is damaging to the group discussion.

  32. Clare said:
    "By the way, someone in the Commanders from West Point told a friend of mine he watches tanks DISINTEGRATE below him when he drops his bombs, which are radioactive of some kind. I did not ask; he shared, unasked."
    He must have been bombing in Iraq or elsewhere. DU bombs have become the answer to America's radioactive waste problem:

    Depleted Uranium - The Real Dirty Bombs

    DU is used in many forms of ammunition as an armor penetrator because of its extreme weight and density......

    Rather than disposing of the radioactive waste, it is shaped into penetrator rods used in the billions of rounds being fired in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

    "A flying rod of solid uranium 18-inches long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter," is what becomes of a DU tank round after it is fired, .... Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.

    1. Point is: disintegration is a feature of some nuclear/radioactive weapons.

  33. Clare said:
    Point is: disintegration is a feature of some nuclear/radioactive weapons........
    I know that is your point. Where is your evidence to prove "disintegration"? You are assuming that to be a fact based on videos and belief in government reports that thousands of people died without leaving behind any physical evidence other than a few bones and that furniture and fixtures were "vaporized."

    The interior effects of the buildings could have been removed over a period of time through chutes in the elevator shafts and people could have been told to evacuate as part of a drill.

    I would think that you, Clare, who has put so much study into Sandy Hook, would see 9/11 in a different light.

    Would the perps really want to cause the land they planned to immediately rebuild on to be contaminated with radioactivity?

  34. Regarding "disintegration": One of the easiest special effects to do on a computer is the dissolve effect. We use it a lot when we do slide shows with scanned pictures on the computer. It is one of several options, The so-called "spire" shot looks like a computer dissolve to me as co other shots where solids "turn to dust."

  35. Check out this demolition. It looks like building turns to dust in mid air.
    U? 31 Story Building Imploded! - YouTube

    ploaded on Dec 13, 2009

    Due to geotechnical engineering problems, this brand new 32 story high-rise had to be imploded. This is the tallest reinforced concrete structure to ever be imploded. HD Footage!

  36. The mega-blast of Clues Forum that just appeared over at VT will likely introduce a much larger audience to Shack & Co. than they have enjoyed in some time -- as suggested by the fact that the postings at CF have been far less frequent than they were a few years ago.

    And it certainly is a shame that the parallel, and potentially complimentary fakery-detection campaigns of Shack and Fetzer have had to messily collide (on a much higher-profile forum) in such a nasty fight.

    But the battle lines had been firmly drawn, the uncivil insults and ad hominem attacts only served to harden each side's unwavering position, and so the squabbling continues, but now under even more glaring lights and many more pairs of curious eyes.

    Were it possible to do over and start afresh, one wonders how things could have been more beneficent (to the search for truth) if Simon's boys had just continued with their initial, victim-by-victim, image-by-image regimen of dissection and discovery:

    "Hey, I've found another fireman/passenger/office worker who simply CANNOT be verified as a real person!"

    "Hey, I've found another plane/collapse/rubble image that is rife with compositing/perspective errors/impossible geography!"

    But instead, their supremely confident leader, relaxing in the shadow of the Vatican, pushed the disciples to espouse a brand-new creed:

    "NOBODY died and ALL the images are fake!!!"

    Well, he did say it was only his personal BELIEF, but history has shown us how easily a charismatic leader's fluid musings can soon be jelled into a firm and desperately defended BELIEF SYSTEM by ardent followers.

    And for every belief system that has its deeply passionate, aggressive promoters -- opposing cadres of AGNOSTICS and CONTRADICTORS will arise, armed to the teeth with fierce determination to vanquish their "rivals" for approval by interested parties.

    (And Cass Sunstein laughs and smirks, all the way back from his seedy White House lair to his tenured Harvard professorship, while Philip Zelikow rests assured that the essential "public myths" of 9/11 are still inviolate -- in the cluttered and pop culture-besotted minds of Joe Sixpacks from coast to coast.)

  37. why do you think they appointed zelikow (with his public myths in tow) to head the 9/11 commission? do you think we might have been meant to come to the 9/11 fakery conclusion eventually? (nose out, anyone?)

    I too believe that no one died in the making of the 9/11 production. it makes the most sense, all things considered.

    I also don't think it by chance that the cluesforum research is to the front and fore now.
    realisation time for all is now.
    a sparkling crystal clear glass of water goes down so much better after a three day trek when stranded and gasping in the desert than the one you had from the comfort of your comfortable home this morning.

    we made it.

  38. Honestly to assume that Piper and Spingola have been coerced regarding Sandy Hook is a huge stretch considering the extremely taboo subjects they have and still do cover such as the Holocaust, WWII, Hitler, etc....

    They are in agreement about Sandy Hook due to Cass Sunstein's urging of infiltrating the truth movement.

    My issue is with some sites that claim to show proof Sandy Hook was faked using grainy and inconclusive photos. is one such site ran by Dr K.

    Last but not least, it was in poor taste that Fetzer chose to attack Piper for not showing up for this debate without verifying MCP's health issues. John writes for AFP so it shouldn't have been too hard for John to verify MCP's health condition. He had a heart attack. In addition, he is planning on doing this debate according to Dave Gahary. It clearly showed Fetzer's lack of maturity.

    1. Lol,the important thing for the JWO is to infiltrate the movement by any means necessary, then you misdirect where you can. The whole AFP network was involved in this thing using the same tactics. If it was random, there would be more approaches to their argument and there would be folks from both sides arguing. The most I noticed was an appointed AFP person as the designated opposition offering weak arguments to give their main message a chance to be expanded upon, a typical JWO tactic mentioned in the protocols.Then it was the "holocaust denial demonizing tactics" that the MSM typically used for challenges to the holocaust that these AFP affiliates used on dissenters of Sandy Hook OCT such as Glenn, Spingola and Rodney Martin, etc basically demonizing scrutiny- then the orchestration of many folks, the lack of difference of opinion from within the AFP fake dissent op over a very controversial issue makes cooption and cointel pro operatives a done deal

  39. Regardless of Sunstein, any examination of the facts about Sandy Hook reveals it is a very transparent false flag. To not see this, it means MCP has either not researched Sandy Hook at all or is deliberately ignoring the facts.

    1. which means they are ops, and Piper's brains removes the 1st option

  40. I too believe that no one died in the making of the 9/11 production. it makes the most sense, all things considered.........pshea.
    I agree. I've spent the past 12 years wondering how they did it. Sandy Hook and Boston make it clear how they did it. I wouldn't have figured it out otherwise.

    I wonder if scholars and others with vested interests in conspiracy theory really want to know the truth. The truth seems to anger them. Contrary to logic and validity, they don't want to know the facts.

    Evaluating Logic and Validity--Guide to Critical Thinking--Academic Support
    Critically Evaluating the Logic and Validity of Information
    "Many articles and essays are not written to present information clearly and directly; instead they may be written to persuade you to accept a particular viewpoint, to offer an, opinion, to argue for one side of a controversial issue. Consequently, one must recognize and separate factual information from subjective content.

    "Subjective content is any material that involves judgment, feeling, opinion, intuition, or emotion rather than factual information. Recognizing and evaluating subjective content involves distinguishing between facts and opinions, identifying generalizations, evaluating viewpoints, understanding theories and hypotheses, weighing data and evidence, and being alert to bias.

    1. also, making sure your facts are indeed facts, hard to know if we are asked to trust the MSM

  41. what if 9/11 was really about facilitating the raising of our consciousness joan? is it co-incidence that the twin towers (of freemasonry fame) were destroyed to reveal the millennium hotel (monolith, of 2001 a space odyssey fame) through the gap left, when viewed across the WATER? or that WCT7 (the salomon building) explicably crumbles and is at the core of 9/11 conspiracy? I think not at all.
    for me (as I have written before), there are three stages to honest 9/11 enquiry; fear, anger and relief (realisation). I arrived at the third stage at Christmas 2010, two months after looking into 9/11 conspiracy for the first time (thanks to simon).
    there are many put in place to take us through, with ease, these different stages of our reaction.
    alex jones is playing the 'fear' game, jim is playing the border of anger and relief and simon's feet are clearly in the realisation camp. it is all about getting back to knowing who we really are and the true nature of the power we possess. I am grateful to all who have helped me get to where I am now.
    the sandyhook and boston marathon (only too) obvious hoaxes (and all the other ridiculous stories since) are exactly for the purposes of disclosure as to how similar hoaxes (and there are very many) have been pulled off in the past. we are being edumacated.
    the only question left for me now is to when the overt 'date that all changes', longsince chosen/decided upon, comes upon us? I thought it might have been the 50th anniversary of jfk's 'death' (50 being the year of jubilation. illumination. ascension etc.), but I realised that he was just a bit player in the greater scheme of things.
    I then thought it was 33 days later on Christmas day 2013, but it doesn't quite seem so from where i'm standing now, though i'm not so sure (although we have had no chemtrails here in ennis, clare since then!). but one thing I am certain of is that all changes, for the infinitely better, this year 2014 (2+0+1+4=7).

    if black is white, as it is with most things media, and the world has never been made to appear in a worse state of repairs, then we are in extremely good shape indeed.
    from my point of view, we made it.

    best regards,


    do you still believe that jfk was really assassinated, btw?

  42. pshea, For the past 50 years, I've been following all the assassinations, scandals and hidden history of the CIA.
    All of this occult stuff is new to me. Now that Clare has done a show on PID, maybe there should be one on the numerology and other signs used in these terrorist events.
    Who is choosing these dates and why?

    Looks like they are planning a little something for the Olympics in Russia next month. (I think JFK is really dead as is MLK, RFK as well as JFK Jr, murdered in August of 1999. You can be sure the CIA had a role in all of these.)

    Operation Gladio: CIA Network of “Stay Behind” Secret Armies | Global Research
    An Overview

    The Purpose of the ‘Stay Behind’ Armies

    In the early 1950s, the United States began training networks of “stay behind” volunteers in Western Europe, so that in the event of a Soviet invasion, they would “gather intelligence, open escape routes and form resistance movements.”

    The CIA financed and advised these groups, later working in tandem with western European military intelligence units under the coordination of a NATO committee. In 1990, Italian and Belgian investigators started researching the links between these “stay behind armies” and the occurrence of terrorism in Western Europe for a period of 20 years.[1]

    ‘Secret Armies’ or Terrorist Groups?

    These “stay behind” armies colluded with, funded and often even directed terrorist organizations throughout Europe in what was termed a “strategy of tension” with the aim of preventing a rise of the left in Western European politics. NATO’s “secret armies” engaged in subversive and criminal activities in several countries. In Turkey in 1960, the stay behind army, working with the army, staged a coup d’état and killed Prime Minister Adnan Menderes; in Algeria in 1961, the French stay-behind army staged a coup with the CIA against the French government of Algiers, which ultimately failed; in 1967, the Greek stay-behind army staged a coup and imposed a military dictatorship; in 1971 in Turkey, after a military coup, the stay-behind army engaged in “domestic terror” and killed hundreds; in 1977 in Spain, the stay behind army carried out a massacre in Madrid; in 1980 in Turkey, the head of the stay behind army staged a coup and took power; in 1985 in Belgium, the stay behind attacked and shot shoppers randomly in supermarkets, killing 28; in Switzerland in 1990, the former head of the Swiss stay behind wrote the US Defense Department he would reveal “the whole truth,” and was found the next day stabbed to death with his own bayonet; and in 1995, England revealed that the MI6 and SAS helped set up stay behind armies across Western Europe.[2]

  43. Gun attack drills more realistic, intense as schools brace for a possible ‘active shooter’ incident
    In the wake of Newtown, Conn., massacre, mass shootings join fires as schools' top worry. Debate rages on as mock attacks are on the upsurge across the U.S. to prepare for if — or when — a gunman attacks.
    These photographs of children pretending to be shot, covered with fake blood, could easily be taken for real and used as evidence in a Sandy Hook-type scenario. I think this is very shocking and should be of concern to the parents and community.

    Here's another drill in which students are acting out a scene in which they attack the shooters and also pretend to be kidnapped on a hijacked school bus.

    The potential is there for misuse of these films as being "real." I think this is outrageous.

    Gun attack drills more realistic, intense as schools brace for a possible ‘active shooter’ incident - NY Daily News

  44. can you tell who this crisis actor is? Its Tom Cruise baby.


    also John Candy

    Boston Police Commissioner Calls Tsarnaev Brothers Actors

  45. I wonder if Mr. Piper has scene this?

  46. You two are insane and despicable. How dare either of you to suggest Michael Collins Piper faked a illness to avoid a debate over Sandy Hook! That's all right!
    Keith will take care of Michael's very light work tomorrow!

    1. Lol, you can't get away from the JWO no matter where you go!

    2. Mr. Propheter, your comment implies we are't worthy of analyzing MC Piper. Now I hear Piper is living off his rep now. Remember how harly tried to live off it's rep as Japanese motorcycles ate it's lunch. Piper just got his lunch ate. I hope he doesn't go hungry but I see who could lose a few......

  47. Hey Jim, I thought I'd post my reports on Sandy Hook as far as the psyop angle that in my view needs to start getting pushed into folks awareness
    please be aware I am not politically correct and I have my own style honed from building a website from scratch and not following anyone else's lead

  48. I actually got attacked on my site after posting the older article