The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Frankly Speaking

Monday, February 24, 2014

Frankly Speaking

9/11 TV fakery

267 comments:

UnknownFebruary 26, 2014 at 3:28 AM
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2376235
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 26, 2014 at 3:44 AM
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1131&start=300
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousFebruary 26, 2014 at 9:19 AM
spi-n gola croaks!
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 26, 2014 at 10:06 AM
That was a terrible interview. That guy's (Frank?) stutter-talk never completing a thought rambling incoherent speaking technique is impossible to listen to. Then he accuses Dr. Judy Wood of claiming "beams from space" caused the destruction. She does nothing of the sort. Nukes don't explain the evidence. The tech that brought down the towers is not in public domain!
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousFebruary 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM
franklying!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM
Chris,

I agree with El Buggo's outline for why the victims of 9/11 were faked, not real. I didn't get into the politics as I had planned to several weeks ago.

I think that the cabal that did this are total inhuman scum, even if there were no casualties, because they started the wars that DID kill so many people.

I also think that if new military recruits, active military, and retired veterans understand that no one died on 9/11, it would radically change their motivation to fight in these wars. I think it's hugely damaging to the concept of patriotism.

I hope that from this understanding of the deception of 9/11, that a revival of genuine patriotism can take place, and the people responsible are held accountable.

I think that people considering joining the military should understand what happened on 9/11. If individuals don't have the power to stop what is happening, at least they can "starve the beast" by NOT ENLISTING.

I don't come from a background of opposition to the military, but if the military is called to do tasks that are immoral and based on deception, what am I supposed to think or say? All of that tech isn't so cool anymore. I think that I'd prefer democracy.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianFebruary 26, 2014 at 4:14 PM
Frankly Speaking:

Where have you ever read me mentioning anything like "Flat Earth"? Can you please point me out to where you have read such a thing? Wait - I know: you have read it right here - on this troll-infested "Real Deal" blogspot comment section - and NOWHERE ELSE.

I believe it was Don Fox or Ian Greenhalgh who started the rumor that "Simon Shack believes that the earth is flat". I don't - and have NEVER done so: my only forays into astronomical matters have been confined to reviewing and reassessing the work of Tycho Brahe - perhaps the greatest astronomer of all times. And no - he did not propose that the earth is flat. Please look him up if you have never heard of him - and please retract publicly your totally unfounded claim that I believe that the earth is flat - RIGHT NOW.

Thanks.

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Simon,

Yes, that's true. I only read about it on The Real Deal, and nowhere else. I retract it.

Don Fox, can you tell me why you told me that Simon said that the Earth was flat?
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianFebruary 26, 2014 at 4:32 PM
And while we're at it, Frankly Speaking: Where have you ever read that OBF brings up "Israel, Jews" and such matters? Where? Please point us to any instance in which Onebornfree has brought up this topic - because I don't know that OBF has ever done so.

Thanks.

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 26, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Simon,

This was the comment that motivated my response:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/frankly-speaking.html?showComment=1388209145967#c2871427097617567275

And here was my response:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/frankly-speaking.html?showComment=1388253210720#c8305123338400129595
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 26, 2014 at 5:21 PM
To properly and respectfully approach the research of the victims is going to require a huge amount of work, if done by one or two people, it might take them years. There are many data sources to be collated, examined and then cross-checked which would include the SSDI, the court records of Hilverstein and Mukasey’s legal proceedings, the financial records of what happened to the 3.5 billion doled out by Kenneth Feinberg, records of the 1,500 hearings that Feinberg attended with victims families, obituaries published in NYC newspapers, records of the 1,600+ body parts found plus other sources too.

But of course, if you're very clever like Simon Shack, you can skip all that and jump to the conclusion that no-one died because you spotted some fake bits of video.

Well, I'm sorry, but that sort of amateur-hour BS won't cut it here.

Just one aspect to consider is that of the massive legal efforts that had to be put into paying off the families of the victims and survivors, if there had been no victims, then why were there over 1,500 hearings?

Just eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress created the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. It was a unique, unprecedented commitment to compensate families who lost a loved one on 9/11 and survivors who were physically injured. In its haste, Congress provided very few guidelines as to how the funds should be distributed and set no limit on the size of awards. Instead it gave a single individual nearly unlimited discretion to manage the program.

Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Kenneth Feinberg to administer the fund, handing him sole responsibility for calculating the dollar value of over 5,500 dead and injured in the worst peacetime disaster in U.S. History. In this he was supported by some 30 lawyers from his law firm and his wife, Diane "Dede" Shaff Feinberg.

For three years working pro bono as head of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Feinberg reached out to all who qualified to file a claim, evaluated applications, determined appropriate compensation and distributed awards. Feinberg spent almost all of his time meeting with the 9/11 families, convincing them of the generosity and compassion of the program and calculating appropriate awards for each and every claim. He personally took part in most of the 1,500 hearings with survivors and victims' families and his staff of 200 spent 33 months investigating claims and deciding benefits.

When the program was launched, many families criticized it as a brazen, tight-fisted attempt to protect the airlines from lawsuits. The Fund was also attacked as attempting to put insulting dollar values on the lives of lost loved ones. Those who participated in the Fund were required to waive their right to sue the airlines involved in the attacks, as well as other potentially responsible entities including the Israeli airport security firm Huntleigh USA/ICTS. By taking the compensation, the families waived their right to demand a real investigation into 9/11.

More than 98 percent of the families accepted the money from the Feinberg-managed fund. The amounts of the payments and the amounts paid to Diane Feinberg and the 30 lawyers are not known. The American people deserve to know how the funds were used and who got paid.

Estimates put the total settlement amount at less than $3.5 billion total for all the victims. Due to the lack of oversight, it’s anyone’s guess where the rest of the tax dollars have gone. Ellen Mariani, a brave and fiery widow and 9/11 plaintiff, included Feinberg in her lawsuit which was eventually forcibly settled. Feinberg’s inclusion in the suit was partially related to his success in bribing Mariani’s attorney to try to coerce his client to accept the fund’s payout and attempt to convince her that she was clinically insane.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianFebruary 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM
To Don Fox:
I only rarely comment on this blog - as it is already clogged by comments concerning my research, mostly written by yourself, Ian Greenhalgh and Clare Kuehn. As far as I can see, the three of you just can't seem to stop advertising my research - on every single comment section of this blog. Keep at it, you people - by all means!

As for Jim Fetzer's insisting / longstanding wet wish to confront me on his own turf (on live radio - and with snarling poodle Don Fox as 'moderator' at that! ) - here are my good reasons for declining such a preposterous proposal:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389364#p2389364

A bon entendeur

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 26, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Quite a few falsehoods in that 'explanation' there Simon.

Jim Fetzer isn't a 'self professed professor' he actually holds the academic qualification of Professor Emeritus.

Richard Hall isn't a Scotsman, he's from the north east of England.

The Trident programme isn't phony at all, I know this for a solid fact, the Trident boats were built in Barrow-in-Furness, less than 3 miles from where I sit right now, I myself worked at the shipyard and watched the damn things being built from the keel upwards, I watched them being launched into the Walney Channel, my friends and relatives built those damn boats, so the only thing phony is your BS.

The Stewart Ogilby piece of crap was only removed from VT for a few hours, then reinstated minus the link to your forum. The only reason it was deleted was because it was blatantly advertising your forum, which is against VT rules.

There was no copying and pasting from the Let's Roll Forums in the VT article that debunked your disgusting 'Vicsims Report'

You're just doing your usual act of trying to mislead people, well it won't wash anymore, people are wise to your game now Shack.

Be honest, the real reason why you won't debate Jim Fetzer is because your theories are untenable and you wouldn't be able to defend them in a debate.

Same reason you declined to go to the Vancouver hearings - you're not stupid enough to present your ridiculous BS theories in front of a well-informed audience because you know you'd be laughed out of the place.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 26, 2014 at 7:09 PM
Ian,

Let me continue, here, with the Holocaust analogy. The Zionist powers behind the Holocaust took truthful events of WWII, the German concentration camps, and *built a phony disinformation story* on top of the truth.

One example is Josef Mengele, who was by all German records at the time an SS doctor who cared for the internees, with an exemplary record. The story after the war was that he performed gruesome experiments on twins, and that he sewed two Gypsy girls together to make an artificial Siamese twin. There was a doctored photo to show this. Now sewing together two girls to make a Siamese twin is impossible.

Nevertheless, 40 years after the fact, there were survivors who testified to Mengele's cruelty. These women were certainly actresses, who were never exposed to any cruelty by Mengele.

The point is:

The intelligence agencies such as Mossad and CIA ARE CAPABLE of creating "downstream evidence" that corroborates an earlier event, that did not happen.

That is what is going on with the "body parts" scattered around Manhattan. They are either a total lie, or, they are cadavers actually scattered around Manhattan who are unrelated to the "victims" of 9/11. The reason that I know that is that the deaths of the victims do not stack up where it counts most, at the Center of the Center of the Event.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM
Don,

I hate to say this, but you need to reevaluate the veracity of what you are hearing. "Rich and moist with the bodies of the dead" is EXACTLY the kind of psy-op language that grabs your attention and moves your heart, but isn't the way that people usually speak.

Regarding the South Tower, how did the top 30 floor get vaporized? And most important, how did the BODIES survive well enough to be recovered, but not the steel furniture? Steel furniture is stronger than human bodies.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM
Sometimes I think scientists should not be in the conspiracy theory business. They are too rigid and bound to tradition as well as fearful of their peers and their reputations.

Not once was it established if planes crashed into the towers. Since there is no evidence in existence of planes having done this, other that doctored videos, almost all the special effects must be false. These would include:

1. The smoke coming out of the tops of the twin towers. Notice how the black smoke is blowing from east to west and that it is constantly streaming in that direction, never varying. Real smoke in real wind would pause occasionally and change directions as wind does not stay in one constant pattern.

Also the white smoke emanating from the sides of the towers is very strange and described by Judy Wood as "lathering." (Judy was the victim of this faked, doctored, tampered with evidence.)

2. The fireballs and fires could not have happened unless real planes carrying jet fuel exploded. Since there were no planes exploding and starting fires, no people could have been trapped in burning towers above the 81st floor or anywhere.

3. The only way to successfully demolish WTC towers would be with an implosion--a controlled demolition causing the towers to fall into their own footprint. (Since the towers were so tall, it might have been necessary to let them tip to one side when falling.) Therefore, the towers could not have been demolished as seen in the video. (See videos of implosion CDs on You Tube.) Also, if the buildings were empty as Frank suggests, they would be demolition ready.

It takes imagination and willingness to abandon previous conclusions and theories to get it right. Maybe that is why the greats--the thinkers, the avant garde, like Simon Shack, are musicians or artists. So far, the academics and professionals are way behind on exposing the 9/11 crime and fraud on the American people.

P.S. I still haven't heard the rationale for the used of nukes. What about the fallout and why weren't bystanders "vaporized"? You are just trying to prove the government and media version of 9/11. Nukes are very expensive, btw, when dynamite would do the job better and without expensive clean up and dangers of blowing up adjacent buildings or most of lower Manhattan.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 27, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Hi Frank

Thanks for the further explanation.

That 'gas camber at Auschwitz' is really laughably transparent in it's falsehood, and there have been two studies of the materiel of the walls, one by a US team and one by the Auschwitz curators, and both failed to find any evidence of prussic acid residue which refutes the use of Zyklon B in that building. However, if you go to the delousing building of Auschwitz, it's so heavily contaminated with prussic acid that the deep blue colour has seeped through the brickwork and is clearly visible on the outside surfaces of the building.

I will have to check, or Don can chime in, but I think it was actually small pieces of bodies rather than bodies that were found.

I don't think the furniture was removed. I am open to the possibility that some areas of the towers were vacant, some office space that was vacant as we know that the occupancy rate of th towers was less than 10%. However, I believe that the furniture was simply destroyed in the explosions and became part of the colossal amount of dust that was created. I'm not sure how one could go about investigating this however, dust is dust, tiny particles, so how would one be able to tell whether it was from the building's structure of it's contents without carrying out careful analysis of the dust?
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeFebruary 27, 2014 at 3:45 AM
Don Fox said: " My proposal to Jim was that either you show up to debate or you, OBF (aka Bob Bobson) and El Buggo should be banned from posting here.

You can bring OBF to the debate and John Friend will moderate it. "

The chronology of this proposed debate is as follows:

1] after the recent Fetzer appearance on John Friends show , I proposed to John to appear on it with Fetzer.

2] john thought it was a good idea and said he'd find out if doable ,Fetzer's end.

3] John gets back to me with a couple of suggested dates and tells me you [Fox] want in .

3] I tell John I'm happy to "debate" both of you.

4] He tells me that now both of you want Simon to participate, and asks me to ask Simon

5] I tell him that Simon must/will make his own choices and I have no desire to influence those choices one way or the other.

6] I tell John to ask Fetzer/Fox exactly why they on earth they would expect Simon to "debate" them after the atrociously researched article posted about him/me/Septemberclues.info forum at Veterans Today.

Bottom line:

MY offer still stands: I'm happy to "debate" both of you at the same time on John Friends show.

Bob Bobson, if you are out there somewhere reading, feel free to call in at showtime and we can both have some fun with these two. If you want, yo can email me at onebornfreeatyahoodotcom about this, or contact John Friend directly. If not, thats cool too.

Regards, obf
ReplyDelete
Replies
911truthncFebruary 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Ole Dammegård - The Death Squad Network Behind the JFK Assassination
http://www.redicemembers.com/secure/radio/2014/2/RIR-140226-oledammegard-hr1.mp3

Great Interview!
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeFebruary 27, 2014 at 3:24 PM
Don Fox said :"Jim has no interest in a debate with you - he's sick of your act."

First of all ,it's not an "act".

Tell you what Fox, I'll "debate" you both, no holds barred, on Fetzers show, anytime.

Failing that , I'll "debate" you alone either on John Friends show or the Fakeologist show [assuming he's up for this kind of thing] .

You set it up [with whomever].

obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianFebruary 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM
Were MARTY and MARY standing side-by -side?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389379#p2389379

Enjoy !

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousFebruary 27, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Just to clarify my position here Frank I don't think ALL of the victims are legit. There were no commercial plane crashes so that's a good place to start investigating.

Having said that you can't just say here is one fake victim therefore they are all fake. Ground Zero worker Matt Taraglia collected pieces of bodies out of the rubble. His teeth are falling out now due to radiation exposure.

Real people died at Ground Zero Frank. If you are going to be a 9/11 Truther you need to pursue the truth of what really happened at Ground Zero. Not the way you think they should have done it or what makes sense to you but what actually happened.

I haven't done much research on the Holocaust but from everything I have heard the number of dead Jews was greatly inflated.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Don,

If you don't think that all of the victims are legit, then you think that some of the victims are fake. If that's so, then you think that there really are VICSIMs. Why did you trash Simon's VICSIM report?

You necessarily agree that there are VICSIMs! So you substantially agree with Simon Shack!

So why do you trash him so much, Don?

Your position is incoherent!
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 27, 2014 at 10:12 PM
Don, can correct me if I'm wrong, but he isn't actually a no planer. He fits Jim Fetzer's definition of no planes, which allows for planes... go figure. But Don still believes that actual planes hit WTC 1&2, just not commercial planes.

Jim F, why can't planes mean exactly that.... NO PLANES? Why do you have to come up with this awful long-winded definition? Maybe to fit yourself and your buddies in the camp of no planers.

Also, I have read Dimitri Khalezov's book. It seems to me that you have to either accept his theory as a whole or reject it outright. He did not come to any conclusions based on research but as a witness. He "knew" there were nukes underground because of his military service, and he got all his other theories from his friendship with Michael Harari. Cherry picking from Khalezov's book doesn't work, he is either correct or a liar. Since he is using CGI footage of the WTC collapse, and photoshoped images it is pretty easy to write him off
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 28, 2014 at 2:02 AM
It's simple Frank, the 'evidence' for this revisionist version of 9/11 is largely rubbish.The Vicsims Report is one of the most ridiculous laughable things I've ever come across.

Not all of the victims claimed by the official version of events actually died, that much is certain, because the people said to be on the planes cannot be included. However, there is no doubt that there were thousands of people killed when the towers were destroyed, there is too much evidence to reasonably claim otherwise.

Simon Shack's work is terribly flawed, to the point of being irrelevant nonsense. The only question in my mind is whether it is due to incompetence or by design, whether he is misleading people deliberately or not.

A glaring example is the ridiculous 'King Kong Man' analysis. Well, that took me all of 2 minutes to debunk. I simply looked up the width of a WTC exterior column (18.75 inches/48cm) and the width of a WTC window (22 inches/56cm) then took a ruler and measured how wide those two elements appeared on my screen and then measured how tall the man was in the same image and calculated that he was around 5ft tall, not the ludicrous 13ft claimed by Shack. Shack had measured the lower portion of a window as being 7 feet rather than the whole window being 7 feet, such an obvious mistake that one can only wonder, is this man really so incompetent or is he deliberately trying to mislead people?

Take a look a my blog post debunking Shack's ludicrous King Kong Man nonsense:

http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/shacks-king-kong-man-debunked-in-recent.html

When Shack presents such blatantly incorrect rubbish one can only wonder, is he just incompetent or is he deliberately trying to mislead people?
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousFebruary 28, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Jim,

I used to think that remote controlled planes hit the Towers but I don't anymore. No real plane can do what was seen on 9/11. I leave the plane debate for others to hash out.

As far as Dimitri goes he is partially correct. There WERE underground nuclear explosions on 9/11. They weren't 150 kt but there underground nukes. Retained heat from underground nukes is what caused the persistently high temperatures for 6 months after 9/11. See my blog post from last year on Project GNOME.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousFebruary 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Exactly. Well stated, Frankly. Don is stating "no commercial planes", which means he is also by definition saying that, at least, 246 of the victims were fake. It is safe to say that a large scale amount of work would have to go into creating 246 faked deaths, complete with a fair few actors/agents playing grieving family members and given speeches to enhance the emotional and psychological impact of the day's "storyline". So, that means Don actually does believe the perps are capable of, and did, pull off such a scam on 9/11.

So, what is the next logical step? Surely it is to investigate whether any of the other supposed victims could be fake? Over two hundred of them already are almost solely by definition, therefore the objective investigator should be willing to examine this line of enquiry immediately. It is hard to separate yourself completely from preconceptions, biases and emotions; but this is what we must try to do in order to be able to fully investigate and understand this giant scam.

Upon proper investigation, can anyone of a sound mind really argue that the photos of Elizabeth Wainio, for instance, are genuine unaltered originals?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 28, 2014 at 6:51 AM
Yes, we must investigate this giant scam, but what we mustn't do is promote the work of people like Simon Shack who discredits the 9/11 truth movement with his fallacious and misleading 'analysis'.

We should be trying to open the eyes of as many people as possible, but when people see the rubbish Shack puts out, they are turned off and it makes it even harder to wake them up again, in this way, Shack is doing a huge disservice to the truth community and damaging the search for truth.

The utterly ludicrous 'Vicsims Report' is a prime example of the sort of rubbish that we should all condemn, wok of that nature is damaging to the truth movement.

Another prime example I just wrote about on my blog - this farcical 'King Kong Man' theory:

http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/shacks-king-kong-man-debunked-in-recent.html

Just imagine how the relatives of the victims must feel when they read rubbish like King Kong Man and Vicsims, they must feel that their dead loved ones are being massively disrespected and that they will never gain justice for them.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 28, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Haha that was your first post on your new blog? Terrible start... terrible...

Haha
ReplyDelete
Replies
icrFebruary 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Anyone know why Piper was fired by American Free Press? Mark Glenn reported it on his podcast, but otherwise there seems to be silence.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianFebruary 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM
Ian Greenhalgh - you made me laugh today, thanks!

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 28, 2014 at 12:53 PM
Both Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh seem to have one paramount goal: that you must discredit 100% of September Clues.

What sense does that make? None. What if some of September Clues were right? Wouldn't you be screwing yourself if some of September Clues were right, in a critical way, and you threw away the information?

Of course that's right.

So Don and Ian, your academic behavior here is not normal, and I suspect that you form an interlocking shill system that is designed not to converge on an answer.

Jim, when I asked him, has a policy of having an "always tentative" policy, where he won't give the Jim Fetzer position on the subject (which is his right), so it seems we have a merry-go-round here. Whether by accident or design, we have a system that is NOT converging on an answer.

Do you guys want to get to the answer?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghFebruary 28, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Why do Shack et al focus so much on video fakery? Because they want to limit the discussion to that level which, as I have stated several times before, is pretty pedantic and will never lead you to any understanding of what happened.

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

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

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

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

Shack, OBF and their cronies are gatekeepers spreading disinfo and disruption. They are using the 'analysis' of videos as a smoke screen, they want people to spend their time and energies looking at these faked videos rather than at other data that is far more valuable. They want to convince people that the videos are faked (which some of them are) and once they have hooked people on that fakery line, they then want to convince them that everything else is probably fake. Once trapped in this fake mindset, you can be manipulated easily, they can mislead you simply by pressing the fake button. A person discovers the USGS data - Shack simply presses the fake button.

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

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

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

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

In my humble opinion they are Gatekeepers, nothing more, nothing less.

As to their credibility - it's fake...
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingFebruary 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM
I want to second what Simon said. Please review this: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

And ALL of this page, on the King Kong Man issue.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeFebruary 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM
Ian Greenhalgh said : "You have to realise how a gatekeeping operation works. "

I guess you should know, seeing as how yourself/Fetzer/Fox are running one :-) .

Keep up the great work with your new blog Greenhalgh.

Yet again, you've done an excellent job of debunking...........yourself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
BLUEYEDEVIL14/88February 28, 2014 at 3:51 PM
Dr Fetzer, Why are you wasting your genius on this non-sense? We know who did it and why. This is just a silly distraction. With your intelligence, you should be taking a position on what should be done about it and how we best go about it. Please quit entertaining these clowns.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 28, 2014 at 3:55 PM
maybe jackie stuck a mini nuke to jack's head?

ever think of that one jim?

if not, you better put your experts on the case posthaste.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeFebruary 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Note to genuine critical thinkers:

Even if the people in the "jump" videos were the correct height in relation to the WTC windows [which they are not], and even if the building itself and its windows, looked proportionately correct for a WTC tower [which they do not], and even if similar videos/photos showing the same event[s] from different angles existed [they do], that would not, and could _never_ , conclusively "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt that _any_ of those videos or photos were genuine , and that they were shot live on location, on the morning of 9/11 at the WTC complex in NYC.

Other tests would _still_ need to be performed to try to definitively establish any of them as authentic evidence.

And every one of the alleged videographer/ photographers would still have to be deep-background checked , also.

But Fetzer/ Fox/ Greenhalgh would have us believe that despite the glaring proportional flaws in the existing videos/photos, no individual technical analysis of either the videos themselves, or of the background their alleged authors, was/is ever necessary, and that they all can,and should be, merely because they exist [i.e. the videos/photos] , be automatically elevated to the level of trustworthy, genuine 9/11 evidence.

Fetzer/Fox/ Greenhalgh and other "true believers" in "Fetzel Logic" - God help you all.

obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 28, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Good work, men--Frankly Speaking, El Buggo, Don Hollander. OBF.

You've exposed Ian and Fox for the shills they are. They have been running defense for Jim Fetzer for a long time. Posting anything close to the truth about the 9/11 make Jim nervous and paranoid and so he calls out his troops.

I'm tired of being questioned about who I am and what I'm doing here by Jim. Clearly, he'd like those of us who are trying to solve the 9/11 puzzle, to go away.

So what to do? I think we are very close to solving this thing. It all hinges on those first televised 103 minutes which we got thanks to the television archives. Was it live or was it Memorex? Sandy Hook and Boston showed us perpetrators of these events don't have to actually carry them out, they just have to say they happened.

Frankly Speaking brought up the "missing" flyers posted on what came to be known as the memorial wall. We haven't talked very much about that strange, unprobable behavior by family members. (Interesting to know they had to use ladders!)

Jim Hollander shed light on the work of Khalezov:
"Also, I have read Dimitri Khalezov's book. It seems to me that you have to either accept his theory as a whole or reject it outright. He did not come to any conclusions based on research but as a witness. He "knew" there were nukes underground because of his military service, and he got all his other theories from his friendship with Michael Harari. Cherry picking from Khalezov's book doesn't work, he is either correct or a liar. Since he is using CGI footage of the WTC collapse, and photoshoped images it is pretty easy to write him off."

There is so much more to resolve about this puzzle. It would be nice if we could continue. If this were a true forum, guests would appear without being attacked and ridiculed.

"Logic and critical thinking," indeed..
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 1, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Don, you stated in one of your comments that you "started looking up the people in the Vicsim Report and found them to be real people". Care to actually elaborate on this? Because honestly, those 'vicsims' are a real devil to pin down; you must be a truly amazing researcher if you managed to get a handle on them so easily!

Don, the question that needs to be answered is, DID these people actually DIE on 9/11/01? Yes, whether they existed before is also important, but it comes as secondary to the primary focus. I have no doubt that it will emerge eventually that the majority of the victims are nothing but names on a page. However, I don't doubt that in amongst the plethora of fake identities and made-up names, there probably are a few people who actually DID/DO exist at some point or another.

Whether this amounts to stolen identities, or a few people who were paid or otherwise convinced to disappear as part of the scam, who knows, as that is just my own personal conjecture. I believe that this is a deliberate safety net built into the 'victims' story, so that if this line of thinking ever hit mainstream; they can pick out one of the few people that were real (at one point or another) and use it as straw-man tactic: "Well, this guy definitely existed, etc." But of course, the truly objective investigator can understand that this does not at all equate to proof that said person actually died on the morning of 9/11.

Either way, the point is that combined with the ridiculous fact that hardly any of the victims are listed in the SSDI, the plainly obvious photoshopping of the victim photos, the frankly laughable memorial guest books, the same old "personalities/actors" paraded again and again as 'family members' (Donna Marsh and Bob McIllvaine to name two), the strange algorithm anomalies in the victim names, the "Truth Movement" lookalike victims (I'm looking at you, Lukasz Milewski), the fact that the Internet is awash with people claiming they knew a victim or are related to one, yet when pressed they are never able to prove their assertions and it ALWAYS turns out to be "Well, my best friend's father's sister's uncle's dog knew him really!" and other such bullshit, not to mention the ridiculous "in-jokes" concerning the victims (Elizabeth 'Wino', anyone?). And, that's not even getting started on the unbelievably illogical and laughable 'survivor stories' and 'myths' that have been born out of the day (the elevators crashing down the lift shafts into the lobbies automatically springs to mind. It's just movie storyline bollocks). The list goes on and on and on.

Essentially, anyone claiming that this avenue of thought is bullshit or not worth looking into at all is simply ignorant, naïve, plain stupid, or just doesn't want to take the time do any ACTUAL research and thinking. If you can make the effort to set aside biases and preconceptions (which have been deliberately created in the population via the continuation of this psy-op), no one can actually look at this research properly and state outright that there is absolutely no merit to it whatsoever.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Don Fox said:

"They found a lot of body parts and chunks of people at Ground Zero."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So your source for that statement is what? Newspapers? TV? (How simple your research must be when you rely on the mainstream media for your facts.)
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 1, 2014 at 2:23 PM
Exactly, Joan. Well said. And you beat me to it.

Don, what a simplistic response you provide (yet again)! You are presented with a plethora of factors and evidence that suggest some serious investigation needs to be conducted into the 'supposed' victims. Yet, you basically ignore every word, shoehorn this tired "Jews, Jews, Jews, it's all TEH JEWS!" rubbish in. And just distract from the actual points by just throwing ad hominem at Simon Shack.

Let's get something straight: I do not know Simon personally. Nor have I EVER mentioned his name in any my posts here. I, of course, am aware of his work and would certainly congratulate the vast majority of it. I believe that on the subject of 9/11, he has done excellent work exposing what a giant psy-op and scam the whole event was. That said, OF COURSE, I don't believe he's 100% correct to a T about absolutely every single little point he has EVER stated. Who exactly is!? I try not to deal in absolutes, and just like a sensible, honest researcher; I eat my meat, spit out any bones, and form my OWN opinions ultimately. I don't FOLLOW any specific person. I rely on a variety of sources, plus a great deal of my own digging and research, and THINKING for MYSELF.

Simply attacking Simon Shack is not engaging in logical debate about these facts, Don. Attack the message, not the messenger. This is not a debate about Simon Shack, this is a debate about the legitimacy of the imagery and the legitimacy of the victims.

The point is, Don, I HAVE done my homework. The question is, have you? It certainly doesn't appear so. And if you haven't, which is perfectly acceptable, then are you WILLING to do so? You state that the "Vicsim Report" is BS, but your only singular reason why is an empty claim about body parts being found at Ground Zero. Don, what exactly are you basing that assumption on? The WORD of an unverified witness? Or, as Joan stated, the NEWS media? Which you continue to remind people is run by those dastardly Jews, so why Don, are you trusting ANYTHING they say? Do you not see a problem with that? You're willing to question them about everything, but the victims and the footage? OH NO. Not that. They wouldn't lie about that! *Sigh*

Why don't you go ahead and PROVE your claims? Firstly, how about providing some evidence that the video analysis conducted by September Clues is "shoddy"? You clearly aren't willing to even LOOK at the videos, so I don't think you can question years of research until you are willing to actually attempt to authenticate the videos yourself. But wait, don't you believe there were no commercial planes involved, Don? By definition, that should have you scrambling to investigate all the footage you can find, considering how much of a giant smoking gun that is!

But wait, they must be wrong about nobody being killed, because: "They found body parts and chunks of people at Ground Zero." Really, Don? Really? THAT is your argument.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 1, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Don Fox said:

"You're saying that finding tiny chunks of people at Ground Zero isn't evidence that people died there? The soil was moist with the bodies of the dead."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "they," who claim "chunks of people" were found at Ground Zero, are the same people who lied to us about Muslims flying planes into the WTC.

Disinfo agents such as you, Don, make these categorical statements to distract us from the real issues.

I find the best policy regarding types like you and Ian is not to respond to your silly rebuttals as it only encourages you.

I am convinced part of the 9/11 crime was to plant people to act as "witnesses" on message boards to counter the inevitable skepticism that would follow. These fake identity posters were effective and wasted a lot of my time. One posed as a survivor of and worker at the WTC.

I'll bet when people say they know someone who was a witness to or survivor of 9/11, they have met the person online probably on a message or discussion board.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingMarch 1, 2014 at 7:40 PM
What is your problem, Stevie.t?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingMarch 1, 2014 at 7:57 PM
Don,

I looked at your photos of bodies on your website, http://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/p200047-1.jpg .

And http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/jim-fetzer-real-deal-appearance-21014/

Now IF this is truthful, then you need to come up with a credible physics destruction model to show how that body is where it is.

I don't understand how a nuke can shatter concrete but leave a body this much intact. If the body comes from above the 81st floor, then there should be furniture. Remember, Don, that you have a wide range of furniture materials to choose from. Steel AND cloth fabric AND carpet AND leather AND wood. Just like humans have a wide range of hardnesses of flesh, ranging from bone to skin.

There is no reason for the bitter fighting, unless you are a shill. Are you a shill, Don? Yes or no? You sure seem to have put a lot of time into researching.

You already AGREE with some VICSIMs. So the question is: To what degree do you agree with Simon Shack? Nukes are NOT an issue, Simon already states that he doesnt care.

Make your own physics destruction model, explain what the dead men in the photo were doing above the 81st floor without furniture, and why is the body intact if it was below the 81st floor.

I think that your trashing of September Clues MUST END if you are not a shill. Start talking about the degree to which you accept VICSIMs and September Clues, OR else come up with Don Fox's explanation of fake identities, since you have clearly stated that some of the identities are fake.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 2, 2014 at 2:40 AM
I've read your blog post, Don. Can you please explain to me how this one post, in your words: "Completely dismantles Shack." Because honestly, I think when you are willing to make statements like that, your content needs to ACTUALLY back them up. I mean, ALL you've got here is EXACTLY what I, and others, have explained to you countless times, in plain English, is unverified and not evidence of anything!

Leaving aside the huge majority of your blog post that is dedicated to talking about the atomic bomb and nuclear weaponry (I thought this was a debate about the veracity of the footage, imagery and victims?), let's talk about the TWO things you raise that actually relate directly to 9/11 and this particular argument.

1. Father Frank Morales.

Jesus, Don, how much more simple can I make this?! Father Frank Morales' tale means Jack. Shit. It is UNVERIFIED and just his WORD. As Frankly aptly stated somewhere above too, normal people and witnesses don't use language like that. Saying "the soil is rich with the dead" isn't actually really SAYING anything. It's just loaded and emotive language designed to generate a psychological reaction. I'm tired of going over this point with you now. Just how ignorant of this do you want to act?

Don, a question: do you believe that there WERE witnesses shown on the day and afterward who were plants/agents/actors designed to sell the official story? The infamous "Harley Guy" as one obvious example. Or, the "survivor" from one of the Towers who claimed he actually saw the "crazed face of the hijacker" in the cockpit of the plane. If you do believe this, then how can you accept ANY so-called witness on their WORD. Without an intensive cross-checking and background checking procedure to authenticate properly, not only the story they are telling, but they personal and professional background in detail; you CANNOT present them as credible evidence of ANYTHING, Don. End of.

2. The photos of the 'crater'.

What are these, Don? Are they IMAGERY? Yes. Did you PERSONALLY witness this? No. Have you tried to authenticate this imagery? Of course you haven't. You don't think you even need to verify it, do you?! You really are a joke. But, for arguments sake (and leaving aside for a moment the fact that you've only presented one unverified witness and a few unverified photographs and claimed that it "completely dismantles September Clues". Excuse me while I stop laughing!), let's assume for a moment that those photos are genuine. With that in mind, let's ask a few logical, simple questions in regards to the ACTUAL DEBATE that is in hand:

Do those photos PROVE that the footage of the planes is genuine? NO. Do those photos PROVE that the footage of the both tower destructions are genuine? NO. Do those photos PROVE that the "Live" coverage of the day and the so-called "amateur" footage is all completely legitimate and authentic? NO. Do those photos PROVE that people actually died on 9/11? NO. What parts of September Clues do these photos actually "debunk"? NOTHING.

So, what ARE you saying is debunked? Simon's opinion about the method of destruction? He has stated, as has been repeated to you many times, that he DOES NOT care. And the only factor that can be logically determined is that it cannot be confirmed at all until the footage is verified! But as the method of destruction is neither the focus of September Clues or this debate, then your point remains moot until we can see something that can actually be proven as AUTHENTIC.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghMarch 2, 2014 at 3:44 AM
I believe that any research into this subject must be handled with extreme caution and respect, something which Shack and hoi.polloi completely failed to do. Just imagine you are a relative of someone who died on 9/11 and you read that Shack and hoi.polloi think your dead relative’s name is so funny sounding it has to be made up by a computer program and think your relative’s picture was made by morphing from another picture. How would that make you feel? I’m sure it would be deeply upsetting.

To properly and respectfully approach the research of the victims is going to require a huge amount of work, if done by one or two people, it might take them years. There are many data sources to be collated, examined and then cross-checked.
Shack didn’t bother about doing things properly or showing any respect, and it is my contention that this is because the motivation for his Vicsims Report is nefarious, the purpose being to mislead people away from the simple fact that 9/11 was a mass murder event and therefore diminish the crime committed. He would like people to believe that no-one died and the towers were demolished with dynamite behind a military grade smokescreen while the TV played fake videos because demolishing a couple of empty towers is a far lesser crime than using nuclear weapons to vapourise thousands of innocent New Yorkers.

Shack’s Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish. It contains some ludicrous stuff such as the theory that they morphed from one face to another, my god, what a load of baloney.
Shack’s approach of looking at pictures and names and saying they can see something suspicious is not a valid one imho.

The way I would approach further research into victims is by finding as many different sources of data as possible then cross-checking them. Off the top of my head, that would include the SSDI, the court records of Hilverstein and Mukasey’s legal proceedings, the financial records of what happened to the 3.5 billion doled out by Feinberg, records of the 1,500 hearings that Feinberg attended with victims families, obituaries published in NYC newspapers, records of the 1,600+ body parts found plus other sources too. It’s a vast job, far, far more complex than anything Shack has done and needs to be done with far more respect and pathos than Shack and hoi-polloi applied as we are talking about mass murder and the loss of innocent lives.

In short, all we can credit Shack for is the initial concept of fake victims, he hasn’t done any credible or valid work to investigate that theory however, the Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish. In order to properly refute his theory however, will take a vast amount of careful research and then very careful cross-checking.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianMarch 2, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Don Fox wrote:

"My research has proven to me that the NY Medical Examiner's office is far more credible than dipshit hoipilloi."

You mean these folks here - don't you, Don dear?
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=139&p=2389386#p2389386

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 2, 2014 at 12:53 PM
@ don fox: ouch...maybe you should bow out of this internet brawl, you're leading with your chin.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 2, 2014 at 1:28 PM
Don Fox said: "For my purposes all I have ever needed to prove was that nukes were used to destroy the WTC buildings. I've done that in spades. I've proven the official story is a sham and Steve Jones is a fraud which is what I set out to accomplish when I started all of this. Along the way I've crushed Judy Wood and Simon Shack as well."

Wow. I'm beginning to think that you are actually delusional. Yes, Don. Whatever you say. I mean, I concur, you've certainly proven your case and "crushed" Simon Shack to no end in these comments. Hell, I haven't been able to move for the mass of evidence you've been presenting, and the intellectual genius that you have demonstrated. I hope you're familiar with the concept of sarcasm, but if not, I'll spell it out differently: what a crock. You have nothing but empty claims and ad hominem.

Did you actually just claim that the New York Medical Examiner is CREDIBLE? Tell me Don, exactly how deep does your 9/11 investigation actually go? I'm curious, because you prop up Charles Hirsch as if he is in any way an upstanding and competent pathologist who ISN'T in somebodies' pocket! Do you actually KNOW any of the utterly ludicrous statements that man has made in relation to 9/11? He actually claimed that many of the victims have been rendered into dust! I guess it's easier for them to claim that the bodies "vaporised" (what a laughable, meaningless concept anyway: what is this, a sci-fi movie?); after all, then they don't have produce sod all physical evidence. Hirsch also kept the Medical Office's "investigation" under tight lock and key, and steadfast privacy. And for good reason: they didn't want anyone being able to probe this too closely. It might've given the game away!
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeMarch 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM
seu bobo said : "@ don fox: ouch...maybe you should bow out of this internet brawl, you're leading with your chin."

More like leading with his ass ! :-)

regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
OnebornfreeMarch 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM
Bob Bobson said: "Did you actually just claim that the New York Medical Examiner is CREDIBLE? "

According to Agent Faux, so is the DOE and the USGS :-) .

One has to admire his religion-like faith in government entities and their "reports" and "studies" etc.

Way to go, Faux!

Regards, obf.
ReplyDelete
Replies
stevie.tMarch 2, 2014 at 8:01 PM
911 was done from the inside. Move on please.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 2, 2014 at 9:44 PM
I'm for banning Simon Shack from this forum. He's taking advantage of this forum. Shack takes it for granted that he will be allowed to fully express his ideas here, while extending no such courtesies to members of his own forum, i.e., Simon Shack is running (by definition) a Limited Hangout disinfo website. His behavior has discredited himself. Whatever Shack has to say, he's not necessary to the truth movement. In fact, Shack is distracting, which is precisely why he posts here.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Alex DeLarge JonesMarch 2, 2014 at 10:54 PM
9-11 = Solved... Here's how they did it according to Frank. I guess Israel and the Pentagon were in desperate needs of new door-knobs is their facilities. Problem solved, remove all existing door knobs from WTC1 2 7 and what have you. The only problem left is that WTC 1, 2 & 7 no longer havd door knowbs, so the best way to handle the missing door knobs were to fly either remote control drones, missiles, or whatever and destroy tower 1, 2 & 7 so that Israel could have some much needed doorknobs in their facilities.

I mean sure they could make a bulk purchase of door knobs from Home Depot or Lowes, but chose is use the whole false flag angle.

make up some stories about arabs flying jets into WTC and Pentagon to justify all our war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the biggest modern day catastrophe also known as Syria, now Ukraine is angry.

All over some god damn door knobs that the Jews were in high demand of.

Frank i think you are the perfect male counter part to Judy Wood, I appreciate your unique off the wall views but you are just a little too wacky for me.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 3, 2014 at 2:29 AM
Don Fox said: "Bob,

IT IS relative! September Clues is a bunch of Flat Earth knuckle-draggers! My point is you cannot have a logical debate with a cult of Flat Earthers.

All of your arguments are complete bullshit Bob. Not worth the time to even type a response to. So you will get Flat Earth stuff from here on out."

Oh, give it a rest, Don. You seriously ARE delusional, aren't you?! All you've got are these tired ridicule tactics: "Duh! Flat Earther! Duh!" Which is exactly the same as the mainstream media using the tactics: "Duh! Holocaust Denier! Duh!" YOU are the person not having a logical debate, and instead just acting like a moronic tool.

In case you didn't get it the first time (which you probably didn't), here's why it isn't relative: I. Don't. Care. I don't give a shit. You can call September Clues a 'cult' or whatever other names you want; but here's the thing: I don't care what you think of Shack or Clues. I've already stated that I don't follow anyone, I take my information from a large variety of sources, my own research and investigation, and my own cognitive reasoning and THINKING.

You know why you won't deal with my arguments? It's because you CAN'T. You can claim my arguments are bullshit all you want, or that it's not worth your time to respond to; but we all know that is just a cop out, Don. You do not have the debating expertise, intelligence, or breadth of knowledge on this subject to engage this. So, you ignore it, hoping it will go away. And your only reaction is just to call bullshit, use ridicule and distraction tactics, and call people names.

Your level of thinking and debate is the same as a bloody child in a school yard: "I know you are, but what am I?", "Well, you smell!", "Well, I don't care because your mum is fat." You're a damn clown, and you prove it time and time again. So, why don't you either step up to the plate, or settle down with a warm milk and let the adults talk.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianMarch 3, 2014 at 3:10 AM
Allison Hunt wrote:

"I'm for banning Simon Shack from this forum. He's taking advantage of this forum."

As I've mentioned before, I would be glad to be banned from this place - please go ahead and do so now if you will. Ideally, Fetzer may then copy-paste into his blog's rules of conduct this explicit warning published years ago in the Loosechange forum rules :

http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/LooseChangeForumGrab.jpg

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM
Ian Greenhalgh said: "We've fallen into the trap set by OBF and the others in Shack's lunatic fringe."

Oh Ian, did you actually use the term 'lunatic fringe'? Come on, I thought we were more sophisticated than using these ridiculous labels designed only to suggest that people are nuts, whenever they raise controversial or 'taboo' topics amongst the so-called "Truth Movement". It's the exact same hollow tactic that the mainstream media use when they want to discredit alternative thinkers. And the same tactics that air-headed shills like Alex Jones throw at people who even question the planes one iota: "Anyone who thinks this way has a mental illness" being a prime example of his own brand of crap. Hell, you might as well have called Shack and others "tin-foil hatters"!

And, engaging in open debate and investigation of ALL angles of 9/11; not just the ones deemed 'acceptable' by The 9/11 Truth Movement, is NOT a waste of valuable time. This is about the SEARCH for truth. The difference between that and the shill-infested 9/11 Truth is that they adamantly believe they have already FOUND it, and thus their agenda is to gatekeep and prevent anyone from asking the REALLY tough questions and getting anywhere near the ACTUAL heart of the scam.

Ian said: "they present some dubious 'analysis' and establish some half-baked semi-ludicrous theories which they will refuse to shift from. Then they will attack ceaselessly anyone who dares to challenge them. It's their way of throwing a spanner in the works and diverting serious researchers"

Refuse to shift from? Don, you, and others have given NO reason to "shift" from asking these questions, and presenting this evidence. Instead of dealing with the subject or attempting to enter into any kind of logical, reasoned debate; there has been nothing but empty claims, ridicule, distraction and ad hominem in response. So, exactly what reason/s have we been given in order to reconsider? Oh wait, I get it. That we are nuts. That's the only reason we should need, right?

Yes, Ian. Because I have been doing nothing, but 'ceaselessly attacking' the incredible works on Don Fox and others. Because raising alternative hypothesis and research is the exact same thing as attacking researchers on a personal level. What a spurious assertion. Oh wait, you think it's the same because this research could (gasp!) possibly contradict the research of Fox, Fetzer and others! Oh, we couldn't have that, could we?! This all must just be personal attacks by shills who want to 'divert serious researchers'. Are you including Don under the blanket of a 'serious researcher'? Because honestly, his actions on these comments are akin to that of a ten-year old; and his responses to these arguments are some of the most moronic, childish, ignorant, and otherwise ill-informed and unintellectual claptrap that I think I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingMarch 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM
Clare,

You mentioned before that a certain percentage (was it 50-60%?) of the identities are fake. Can you say what was the basis of your figure? What is your best synthesis of the discussion that we've been having?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frankly SpeakingMarch 3, 2014 at 12:34 PM
Don,

IF

1. September Clues is 100% false, and IF,
2. Don Fox believes that there are SOME fake identities, THEN
3. What is the Don Fox Theory of fake identities, and how does it differ from the Simon Shack theory of fake identities?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghMarch 3, 2014 at 1:26 PM
You have to realise how a gatekeeping operation works. In order to establish credibility and draw an audience, they first have to put out some good info. Once they have 'hooked' an audience with this, they can then begin to mislead them so that thy never approach the real truth. With Shack, the good info was establishing that there was fakery within the live TV transmissions. However, since then, he has expended a great deal of effort in misleadng people. His ad nauseum repeated theory of dynamite being used behind a military grade smokecreen to demolish empty towers killing no-one while a fake movie was played on TV is simply a misdirection tactic. He doesn't want people to see the truth that nuclear weapons were used to commit mass murder, hence his 'nukes are fake' campign and his 'Vicsims Report'. Both are crass attempts to diminish the scale of this horrific crime. Demolishing an empty building killing no-one is a far lesser crime than using WMDs to murder thousands of innocent New Yorkers. I also think that the reason why Shack puts out a lot of plainly fallacious 'analysis' such as the laughable 'King Kong Man' is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. People see this laughably poor work and it makes them think the 9/11 truth movement is populated with kooks and idiots. David Icke uses the same tactic when he talks about some of his lunatic theories like the Queen of England being a shape-shifting reptilian who drinks human blood in occult rituals below Windsor Palace; his presence in the truth movement is a cointelpro op to discredit the movement. Alex Jones does the same in a different way, his screaming and ranting like a crazy man is an act designed to make the general public think all 'conspiracy theorists' must be similarly crazed.

We know the Zionists control the mass media, so we shouldn't be so naive as to think they haven't also deeply infiltrated the alternative media and the truth movement. Sometimes their cointelpro psyops can take years to uncover, Judy Wood being a prime example, we now know she has close ties to the ADL and SPLC, but that took years to reveal itself. We now have Michael Collins Piper and Deanna Spingola causing trouble over Sandy Hook, cointelpro agents and psyops are everywhere and we need to always be on our guard against them.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianMarch 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM
Ian Greenhalgh wrote:

"I also think that the reason why Shack puts out a lot of plainly fallacious 'analysis' such as the laughable 'King Kong Man' is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole."

Ian Greenhalgh is apparently still standing by his silly debunking effort of the "KING KONG MAN"... Fantastic. I guess this is how the military mindset works:

"DENY, DENY, DENY - even when your pants have been pulled down."

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

Simon Shack

ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghMarch 3, 2014 at 2:06 PM
LOL, your 'analysis' is utterly laughable Simon and anyone with half a brain can see that, you can't even make a simple measurement:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CWjmyMBs4UQ/UxBTdYMQvJI/AAAAAAAAACg/CfhYcTBsEfU/s1600/King+Kong+Mn+debunked.jpg

The only thing op to debate now is whether you are deliberately misleading people or are just completely incompetent and hopelessly arrogant.

Either way, you are a figure who deserves nothing but scorn and derision.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM
Wow. Ian, for once, I actually agree with you to an extent. I understand how controlled opposition tactics and gatekeepers work, I just disagree about WHO those gatekeepers are and WHY they are operating. But, to your credit, I will say that I certainly agree with the sentiment that the perps are operating on all sides of the dialectic and the so-called "alternative media" is heavily infiltrated. In fact, personally I would argue that it is SO infiltrated and controlled by the opposition that very likely 99% of the personalities and pundits within it are shills/agents running very clever disinformation campaigns in a variety of different ways. In fact, it is my considered opinion that the 'alternative media' and "Truth Movement" was actually set up from the start to BE a controlled opposition trap in order to contain any kind of awakening.

I also agree with you about both David Icke and Alex Jones. I have never supported those two clowns, and openly expose them at every opportunity as the shills that they most clearly are. That said, you speak at the "9/11 Truth Movement" as if it is some kind of beacon of light. Personally, and it may shock you to hear this, I don't give a rat's ass about the 9/11 Truth Movement being 'discredited' (in fact, as far as I see it, they are ALREADY discredited!). I never align myself with that 'movement', nor have I ever declared any support for them. It is nothing, but an agent-infested gatekeeping operation through and through (again, I would argue it probably even began as such). I am an independent researcher, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, of course, I actively search for the truth behind 9/11. I just don't think I need to align myself with those fools in order to be in support of 9/11 research.

So, you agree that there WAS fakery in TV transmissions? If that is the case, Ian, then what IS your overall position on the purpose and extent of that? As for Shack's "towers demolished using dynamite behind a military smoke screen": I believe he has openly stated on many occasions that it is just that: a theory. His best guess on how the destruction COULD have taken place. The issue is, the main point being made is that due to the fact that the footage is unverified and can be shown to be illegitimate; the method of destruction cannot be conclusively proven at all by analysing the imagery. I think that's a pretty easy concept to grasp, personally.

As for the research into the supposed victims (vicsims), the plethora of information, evidence, research, and reasoned thesis presented in these comments that suggests a scam on a massive scale when it comes to the deaths has not been countered AT ALL. Or even debated on any logical, rational level by those who disagree. The only responses have been ignorant foot stamping, ad hominem, and resorting to childish "Flat Earth nuts! Duh!". To me, this demonstrates how powerful and effective the 9/11 psyop was, because these are exactly the kind of emotional and ignorant responses it was designed to invoke.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM
Hi everyone,

Jim Fetzer says: "I've got a lovely bunch of nukes. Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head" [sings like that character in the Lion King movie] ;)

Here is my latest article on the 9/11 Big Lie to help people to distinguish right from wrong:

http://jahilliya.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/knowing-right-from-wrong/
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianMarch 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM
Has anyone ever taken the time to read James Fetzer's personal Wikipedia page?

It's a quite interesting read, imho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

Simon Shack
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ian GreenhalghMarch 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM
I agree with you Bob, about the very high level of penetration and infiltration of the 'truth movement' (a term I dislike, but I don't have a better one to use.

You may well be right about the movement being controlled opposition from the start, certainly there are other examples of controlled opposition that point in that direction. I'm not a UFO/Aliens person, but I have friends that are and one of the main reasons why I've always shied away from all that stuff is because it has always been apparent to me that the majority of 'researchers' into such things are cointelpro shills and gatekeepers. Stanton Friedman is a prime example. The obvious reason being that guff about Aliens is perfect cover/distraction for the many advanced tech black ops.

My position on the TV fakery is that it was necessary to broadcast fake footage of the planes striking the towers because no planes hit the towers. However, I don't think it was necessary to fake much else because it actually happened. No need to fake the tower destruction footage because it happened, and if they had faked that footage, they would have made it consistent with their story, which it isn't in any way, shape or form.

The vicsims thing, well, as I have said several times before, it has a fundamental flaw - it does not follow the proper scientific method which entails studying ALL available evidence and then cross-checking and correlating. I listed some of the data sources that should be looked at, and one big indicator that there were victims is all the legal proceedings that went on. Kenneth Feinberg was appointed to dole out the compensation/hush money to relatives and survivors, there were 1,500 legal hearings, they handed out over 3.5 billion usd. Now, when there are any legal proceedings, there are records that are a matter of public record and can be accessed through FOIA requests. That's just one area that could and I think should be studied.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 3, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Ian said: "My position on the TV fakery is that it was necessary to broadcast fake footage of the planes striking the towers because no planes hit the towers. However, I don't think it was necessary to fake much else because it actually happened."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian, are you saying only the images of the planes were faked and nothing else? Did you study the archived tv footage broadcast on all the networks and compare them? Did you notice the path of the planes was different in some of the footage? How do you account for that?

Did you notice the plane-shaped, cookie-cutter gashes in the buildings? Did you notice the fireballs which appeared following the so-called hits and the smoke pouring out of the buildings?

Since there were no planes, how were the gashes made? Jim has posited drones with lasers on the wings flew into the buildings and made the cut-outs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian said: "No need to fake the tower destruction footage because it happened, and if they had faked that footage, they would have made it consistent with their story, which it isn't in any way, shape or form."

But IT WAS CONSISTENT with their story. The planes hit near the top floors, setting them on fire. The fire was so hot, the trusses failed and the building "collapsed." The 'collapse" started at the top and fell as quickly as a demolition.

NOTE: NO DEMOLITION EVER STARTS AT THE TOP. Look at you tube videos of CDs and see if you can find a demolition from the top down. Do you chop a tree down from the top expecting the tree to fall over? Sure, there was thick pyroclastic stuff spewing from the tops of the towers indicating tremendous force--force enough to vaporize 3,000 people--looking like an atomic bomb. Judy Wood made this connection early on and was looking for evidence of a nuclear event. She posted pictures of nuclear explosions and similarities to the explosions of the towers. The nuke theory has been revived lately by Dimitri Khaselov to keep hapless researcher nuts busy. How many interview sessions are there with Fetzer on You Tube?

BUILDINGS DO NOT FALL LIKE PEELING BANANAS
FROM THE TOP DOWN. You have to take out the support columns at the bottom, not the top to fell a whole building. Also, it must be imploded so that it falls in a manageable pile. Note in the CD videos the rooftops folding in on themselves.

Since the towers must have been imploded and brought down in an obvious controlled demolition, knocking out the support columns at the base--the safest and least expensive way--this had to be hidden from the public. Doing so could be as simple as a drill keeping people away from the scene. Don't forget the almost 18 drills going on that day and FEMA arriving early on the 10th.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Do you really think the special effects above were created live, at the last minute? The gashes, the fireballs, the smoke--all of it? Think of the skill, the synchronization necessary to pull off such a spectacle. This would be like opening night on Broadway and without a rehearsal. \

No, they wouldn't risk it for a lousy 103 minutes to convince a few "witnesses," who could easily be bought from the actors pool. They pulled off Shanksville without any effort at realism and they did have witnesses who backed up the official story.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 3, 2014 at 9:30 PM
? "CDI - The Art of Demolition" - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TARNVwF7Yg

I dare you to find just one demolition that looks like the 9/11 video. Find just one with dust flowing from the roof tops. There are some pretty tall,narrow buildings like the WTC towers which are taken down by CDI.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 3, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Thanks, EB.

I forgot to mention the improbability of so many professional photographers on the scene on such short notice. How did they get so many shots at just the right moments? How were they positioned perfectly for such impossible shots? What are the odds of that happening? Zero, that's what.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMarch 4, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Ian, so if you do believe that the plane 'strikes' were faked, and no planes really ever hit those towers. Then, do you see the possibility for at least, 246 of the deaths to be fake? After all, no planes would mean no passengers, and no NEED for passengers for the perps to worry about either. Some researchers who want to lead the investigation away from the reality of the victims have posited that the passengers were somehow 'switched' or ended being all whisked away somewhere; i.e. to a hangar where, I'm guessing, CIA agents or the Men In Black killed them all. To be honest, for me, this echoes of the same Hollywood BS that the rest of the official 9/11 story does. It's just The X-Files sci-fi/thriller hooey. In my opinion, the perps would absolutely have wanted to limit all risk factors surrounding the scam. So, why have real passengers when you don't need them at all?

You mention cross-checking the data with all available sources. Why don't you hold Don Fox and others' theories to the same strict standards of proof and rigorous investigation? Holding up Father Frank Morales and stating: "That's it. Case closed." is HARDLY a good example of using the actual scientific method now, is it? And, in terms of victims research, Shack, Clues, and other researchers determined to investigate this area HAVE attempted to cross-check and investigate as many different sources of data on the victims as possible. And each time they do, or discover a new one, the anomalies, questions, and evidence of fakery just keeps cropping up. Of course, I and others, are aware of Kenneth Feinberg. I would argue these compensation/donation funds set up after 9/11 are all scams and cons in order for the perps to profit massively.

After all, are you aware of how many supposed 'family members' actually showed up to get any of the money that was being 'awarded' to them? The fact is, that out of the 3000 supposed victims, the Social Security Death Index lists only 466 of them! And only 220 of those have even been given death certificates! Out of the remaining 220, only 59 are actually listed in the Victim's Compensation Fund! And out of that 59, hardly any have actually collected the almost two million dollars each owed to them. This is just absurd! Where are the rest of the family members? Why aren't they properly allocated for? And why are they not showing up to collect this money? With the Victim's Compensation Fund and Business Compensation Fund combined, they have amassed over 40 billion dollars! With that amount of collateral, the perps can easily shell a good multi-million to their 'actors' playing the roles of survivors, witnesses and family members. Enough for them to live like kings, and keep their mouths shut for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDelete
Replies
norwegianMarch 4, 2014 at 5:08 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast

Monday, February 24, 2014

Frankly Speaking

267 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive