Monday, February 10, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
February
(12)
- Fredrick Toben
- Mark S. Mann
- Frankly Speaking
- Jim Fetzer / Ibrahim Soudy
- Nick Kollerstrom & Clare Kuehn
- David Weiss & Timothy Rothschild
- Márton Gyöngyösi / Brandon Martinez
- Meria Heller / Wolfgang Halbig
- Jim Fetzer / Don Fox
- Jim Fetzer / Judyth Vary Baker
- Arthur Topham with Joshua Blakeney
- Ian Greenhalgh / Allan Weisbecker
-
▼
February
(12)
Here is the link to the blog post for this show.
ReplyDeleteDimitri may have gotten the yields of the bombs wrong but there is no denying that he's right about underground nuclear explosions on 9/11.
You can download his PDF from my blog.
If you download the PDF you should donate some $ to Dimitri. He's done some very good work here and the man is destitute. Thanks!
Where is the link to the audio?
ReplyDeletecant play the show or download it either
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to audio on this one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is the latest show with Simon Shack you may want to listen to while we wait:
ReplyDeletehttp://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ep87a-Reviewing-Clues.mp3
Link works now.
ReplyDeleteShack labels a whole host of serious researchers 'Clowns blatantly recruited to waste everyone's time'. Well, I am pretty sure it's the other way round and Shack is the one who has been recruited to mislead and wastepeople's time.
ReplyDeleteShack's theory is laughable - that no-one died, that the towers were demolished with dynamite behind a military-grade smokescreen. This theory doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination and Jim and Don did a great job of explaining this - the dustification, the lack of a large pile of debris, etc.
Shack talks a lot of rubbish, he clearly doesn't bother to do proper research, he makes incorrect statements such as all building demolitions being carried out with dynamite. That is not true at all, many other types of explosives are used, often cutting charges and shaped charges are deployed, which don't use dynamite, they use plastic explosives.
At this point, Shack's ludicrous theories have been utterly and totally debunked and anyone who continues to support him is either an idiot or a shill.
Shack and his theories should never have been given much consideration anyways due to the simple fact that his work is so flawed in both it's concept and execution that it is totally invalid.
Anyone who attempts to defend Shack's work simply has no understanding of the proper scientific research methodology.
Shack will never stand up and defend his work in front of proper researchers because his work is so indefensible and his theories so paper-thin and untenable.
Ian, by "Shack's theories", I presume you mean only the most extreme form -- that of complete, pre-set fakery? For if stripped of that last step, which as you know is uncareful, the bulk of his actual work shows, instead, merely -- but importantly -- that there was much monkey business done to audio, video and to who was supposedly present to witness and die at the event, and is very valid work.
DeleteHow many friggin times do I have to tell you - the whole body of Shack's work is amateur-hour bullshit! Invalid and worthless because it's deeply flawed, all it is good for is misleading and confusing people; whether it is Shack's intention to confuse and mislead or he's done it inadvertently and is too arrogant to realise is the only part open to debate, the work itself is just not worth discussing.
DeleteJeezus Clare, I've explained this to you at least 7 or 8 times in depth, have you ignored everything I've said?
I don't propose to waste more of my time explaining it yet again as it seems you are never going to listen or learn and I don't have time to waste.
The pothole is fascinating and completely refutes any notion of Judy Wood's DEWs or Simon Shack's dynamite.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear, we are looking at a hole 40ft deep and at least 60ft in diameter that has been melted into the bedrock. Thousands of degrees of intense heat would be required to melt that hole, note one of the geologists said such rock formations are found at a depth of 20 miles rather than sea level, inferring that immense heat and pressure is required.
Furthermore, that pothole is right where the foundation of the central core of a 110 storey tower that weighed hundreds of thousands of tonnes stood. Do thy really expect us to believe that the WTC was built over that hole? That would infer that no-one noticed the hole when they were building the towers, which is totally unbelievable. Also, there is no way that the tower would have stood for 5 minutes let alone 30 years with that big hole right underneath the central core.
That pothole was melted into the bedrock, period. Only a nuclear explosion could create sufficient heat and pressure, therefore the pothole is strong evidence of an underground nuclear explosion. I would propose that the diameter of the hole represents the diameter of the intense fireball created when the nuke exploded and the rock was vapourised. No wonder there was molten steel and very high temperatures for many months after 9/11!
Well done Don, this is fabulous research and this evidence is extremely strong. Adding it to the existing evidence for nukes such as the presence of the products of fusion and fission in water and dust samples and the case for nuclear weapons is becoming very hard to refute.
There is no way dynamite, thermite or a glacier created that pothole. The fig leaf that the nuke denying shills are hiding behind is getting smaller and smaller all the time.
DeleteIan and Don: other methods than nuke bombs being in use are not actually eliminated by having nuke bombs and the "pothole".
DeleteSome events require more than one method to accomplish the total action. Though this may not be the case here, it may be.
In other words, DEWs (particle beam nuclear weapons, working with electromagnetism) might also have been used on the day. There is some question as to why -- or if -- the multiple little holes would have been done with nukes or other charges. There is also some question as to why the lampposts and the cars were affected differently, if not for the ungrounded effect on the cars versus the grounded lampposts.
The spire, possibly, required extra help to come down, too.
*Sigh* Can any of you who defend Fetzer and Fox on this not see the ridiculous level of simplicity to their arguments? The only people IGNORANT of the scientific method here are those two chumps.
ReplyDeleteThis has been pointed out COUNTLESS times on these comments sections before, and in other places. AGAIN. Both are STILL basing their conclusions on UNVERIFIABLE imagery and UNVERIFIABLE witnesses! How difficult is this to understand?
Let's break it down:
1. Neither Don Fox nor Jim Fetzer have attempted or have any clue how to attempt even a cursory investigation into the authenticity of the video record! In order to use the imagery as evidence, then it must be able to be confirmed as legitimate! Fetzer himself agrees that NO PLANES were used on 9/11. This AUTOMATICALLY brings the video record into question (regardless of his outlandish and frankly laughable hologram theory). Therefore, Fetzer and Fox NEED to properly investigate the authenticity of the videos! This just not mean just a throw away opinion about how it "all hangs together". Because this opinion can be SHOWN to be false via the FACTS. Without conducting a proper scientific and physical analysis and investigation of the imagery, it CANNOT be taken as an example of real evidence.
2. Jim Fetzer and Don Fox are both completely willing to rely on the WORD of an unverifiable "witness". Regardless of people's emotional attachments and preconceptions, a person saying they saw something does not make it so. In order to follow any kind of scientific method, the word of eyewitness almost has to be entirely disregarded. At the very least, it cannot be taken as legitimate without a deep examination of the apparent witnesses story, history, background, financial situation, etc. And even then, due to the fact that the witness statements do not correlate with each other and there is no CONSENSUS between the supposed eyewitnesses, nothing can be taken as absolute fact. And considering that both Don and Jim would definitely agree, if questioned, that some of the 9/11 witnesses were definitely liars and 'plants' (Harley Guy and the Pentagon "I saw the logo of the plane" witnesses). So, how can you cherry pick the witnesses that you are going to believe in!? It makes no sense, and again is another reason to completely disregard the witness statements and rely on actual evidence.
Oh dear, we have yet another shill from the Sept Clues mould and such an obvious one.
DeleteClearly this idiot has no concept of what the proper scientific method actually is and must have been ignoring all the times Jim has explained it.
Simply, the proper scientific method is to consider ALL available evidence and data, then cross-reference and compare in order to identify points that are mutually supporting as well as points that refute others.
If the videos and images fit with all the other evidence, then there is a prima facie case to be made for them being legit.
Just because the footage of the planes impacting the towers was faked, that says nothing whatsoever about whether the footage and images of the actual destruction of the towers was faked or not.
As for witnesses, if their testimony doesn't contradict the other available evidence and is consistent with the testimony of other witnesses, then it can be considered as valid evidence. Anyone who has watched a few cop dramas on the TV knows this, it's a basic principle of investigation.
Honestly, this is such basic, simple stuff that people who question it have to be shills, especially as it has been explained at length many times now in both verbal and textual form by Dr Fetzer and others including myself.
Bob Bobson, another shill, I say ban him along with all the other shills such as OBF, Buggo, pshea, they detract from this blog and are nothing more than a scummy nuisance.
The bad guys love this debate. All of you spending all your time arguing over HOW they did it instead of agreeing THAT they did it and going after them.
DeleteYou are all functioning AS shills.
It would be much simpler if these people who keep talking about this very important but mysterious "image verification" step would point researchers to the proper Image Verification Institute where they do the patented and trademarked Image Verification Process, so that people can begin to study the crime of 9/11. All they ever seem to do is point to clues forum and shack's work.
DeleteSorry, let me get this straight. Just so I can grasp the full ridiculousness of what you just claimed.
DeleteYou are stating on one hand that if the imagery appears to fit in with the 'other evidence' then therefore it should be accepted on face value. Yet, on the other hand, you are affirming that the footage of the planes is fraudulent. Do you not see a problem here?
I will lay it out for you as obviously and clearly as I can. If this is your position the 'other evidence' now does not fit with imagery, does it? Therefore, if the planes did not exist, then the imagery must automatically be brought into question; and a 'prima facie' case DEFINITELY cannot be made.
The reason for this is inherently simple: the absence of planes automatically brings into question the legitimacy of the 'other evidence' that has been used by many to "prove" their existence. So, as such a body of evidence can be shown to be fabricated, instead of employing 'prima facie' we should actually be posing the question, is this a case of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'?
Which neatly brings me to your next point. "Just because the footage of the planes impacting the towers was faked, that says nothing whatsoever about the footage and images of the actual destruction of the towers was faked." Of course it does! If it can be proven that the supposed live footage we were shown of the airplane impacts was fabricated, then it is the next logical step to ask the question, why would they show REAL imagery of the towers destruction?
Let's just consider for a moment the mechanics that would have had to go into creating fake "live" imagery. Certainly, the imagery we have seen wasn't created in real-time and on the fly. So therefore, the 9/11 live footage of plane impacts must have been created in advance of that day (most likely by months or years). This can be shown simply by analysing the TV news archive footage, which many times reveals that the news networks were all sharing the same live footage from the same cameras! In real time! During a supposedly live and unexpected event! Now, setting aside the question of why rival networks would share their 'money shots' with each other, the bigger question is HOW would this be possible to achieve? The only way this would ever be possible would be if ALL of the 9/11 'live' imagery was being transmitted from a single, central hub or control room.
So, why exactly would or should we trust ANY of the 9/11 footage at face value, when we are dealing with such a monumental fraud in terms of the plane strikes!? It would be naïve to assume that the perps behind this would allow us to see ACTUAL collapse footage when they would have needed to go to such lengths to fabricate the plane impacts. After all, if they are willing to lie and defraud the public on such a massive level, it would make no sense to then show legitimate footage! Also, by admitting that the planes were faked, you are by definition agreeing to the fact that at least a sizeable portion of the victims were fabricated also. So you need to ask yourself: how deep could this lie go in terms of a logical progression?
... (Continued below)...
And as for the witnesses, what on Earth are you talking about? Firstly, the police do a little thing called BACKGROUND CHECKS. They don't take any old witness statement as being gospel. A cop drama is just that: a drama. In a court of Law, if the available physical evidence contradicts the witness statements, then the case will proceed in favour of the physical evidence. ALWAYS. This is because witnesses can be easily bought and paid for, lie, omit, forget, misinterpret, become confused, etc, etc.
DeleteFurthermore, there is NO witness consistency in regards to 9/11, so what point are you trying to make? The witness statements are a mish-mash of accounts all claiming such a wide variety of different things to the point where NOTHING is verifiable from these statements. Hell, you have "witnesses" at the Pentagon that swear blind their saw the plane bounce off the lawn. There are "witnesses" who claim all the black boxes were found. There are "witnesses" who claim none were found. There are "witnesses" in NYC who say that the 'object' was slow, fast, loud, quiet, silent, deafening, a plane, a small plane, a large plane, something, a missile, a bomb, nothing, an explosion. And so on and so on.
And, in order to accept anything they say as credible, a large and extensive background checking procedure needs to be carried out. This is particularly important considering the amount of obvious shills who were on the ground that day posing as legitimate witnesses. Why is it so difficult to understand that anyone can come forward and CLAIM they were there on 9/11 and saw {insert event here}! Have you never heard on Tania Head, the 9/11 faker, for instance? Witness statements, especially the 9/11 witness statements because there is so little correlation between any of them are NOT factual evidence of anything at all. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Very excellent posts, Bob. Hope you will write more.
DeleteBob, it seems you are confusing layers of reasoning here. One layer for reasoning is the general lie; as such, we can say the event was a fake, a lying event as the official story tries to work in all kinds of things (problematic witnesses, etc.) which do not fit.
DeleteBut another layer of reasoning is in the types of things under discussion.
CGI planes can be pre-set to run over whatever footage would be gotten of a missile, using matching points, that is: take a clip, have a CGI plane image ready to overlay, and set where it starts from, where it ends. In fact, that is the kind of thing which Sept Clues raised years ago, about the nose-out: that the camera had drifted a bit and the person doing the set points for the end didn't notice, in haste.
Yes, there were problem witnesses; but some act quite natural, are shocked (didn't see a plane, or saw one nothing like they'd ever seen before). Yes, there are problem victims (lots of them), but some persons may well be quite real, for indeed, lots of persons would have wanted to help and died.
We don't know the exact event's details for the day, Bob.
What we can know is that there was a lot of faking overlay done; a lot of witness interpolation (spooks, TV personalities and family members, etc.); some slip-ups (Silverstein's flub being a good example); some genuine responses, judging by their natural shock, their often simple and consistent stories, no fanfare, often ignored, etc.
We have to remember natural explanations as well as look for lies. Most events such as these have combinations, if not all.
Bob Bobson said :
ReplyDelete"Sigh* Can any of you who defend Fetzer and Fox on this not see the ridiculous level of simplicity to their arguments? The only people IGNORANT of the scientific method here are those two chumps.
This has been pointed out COUNTLESS times on these comments sections before, and in other places. AGAIN. Both are STILL basing their conclusions on UNVERIFIABLE imagery and UNVERIFIABLE witnesses! How difficult is this to understand? "
Thank you Bob. Eloquently stated- congratulations.
Regards, onebornfree.
That's a great shill technique: have a conversation with yourself to derail the discussion.
Delete@Bob Bobson:
ReplyDeleteBottom line.... neither Fetzer or Fox, nor this snotty little twerp Greenhalgh, have any interest whatsoever in actually attempting to establish via simple, scientific, detailed analysis whether or not any of the proposed "evidence" [i.e. videos, photos and witness statements] is actual genuine reliable evidence that can be relied on in order to formulate a hypothesis of what might have happened on 911, despite the fact that methodologically speaking, scientifically it is an important, and entirely unavoidable step [that is, for real investigators and scientists ;-) ].
The question you need to perhaps ask yourself is: why?
Are these persons just ignorant of the scientific method to the point where they all believe that something becomes "genuine evidence" with no detailed analysis of it ever having occurred - or is there perhaps another reason as to why they refuse to engage the scientific method and actually closely examine, for just one example, the original "live" network footage?
Your guess is as good as mine. :-)
Regards, onebornfree
OBF is obviously an expert in scientific methodology. No one should doubt his qualifications or question his sincerity.
DeleteOn behalf of Clare:
DeleteOBF: In Sept Clues movie, Simon rightly asked for examples of natural photography look and feel. The destruction sequence has that, for example in the flat look (dusty look) of the spire turning to dust, far away before the "white out", which is alteration of the film, and in multiple angles and different definitions (hi-def, low-res).
The destruction sequence and dust also fit what all witnesses and photos after support, plus what the USGS found, without knowing what they were finding from a nuclear chemistry point of view, plus what actions were taken for years (water, dirt, Hazmat suits, etc.).
So you need to -- even if you don't do it, you need to, to be rational -- make a distinction between, on the one hand, layering and CGI for planes and obstruction of exactly what was going on during the process of readying the towers to be blown and making different networks' footage seem more varied in views than it was (cropping, colours used to adjust balance of footage), and on the other hand, the destruction sequence.
I think Bob Bobson is OBF posting under a new handle, a new ploy to spread the same old BS.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer completely demolished OBF's stupid arguments months ago and totally refuted his claims of Fetzer and Fox not using proper scientific method.
Honestly, the best way forward from here is just to ban OBF and his cronies. They have been given more than enough of a fair chance to build a tenable argument and have utterly failed to do so, all they do is constantly repeat the same completely flawed and untenable nonsense and disrupt the debate.
Sorry this is off-topic, but for those interested, AFP just posted an audio with Professor Tracy on SH:
ReplyDeletehttp://americanfreepress.net/?p=15677
It appears we have "new information" coming on the scene. I do not recall this pothole ever being studied before by any of the 9-11 truth researchers that I have encountered.
ReplyDeleteIt is often said that Dr. Judy Wood did a "comprehensive forensic" study of the WTC site with a large array of still photographs, yet I do not think her site or her book discuss this huge pothole. I have been away from Dr. Wood's work for a long time and invite corrections to my idea that the pothole issue is new to the 9-11 truth arena.
The pothole issue needs to be thoroughly studied and the fact that it is so long after 9-11-01 and the site has been totally destroyed and revised, such a study would I guess necessarily have to revolve around thoroughly vetted still photographs and testimony of thoroughly vetted eyewitnesses at "Ground Zero" at the time of and the immediate aftermath of the event.
Dimitri Khalezov's (DK) positions over the years have been I think consistently discounted by Dr. Fetzer and others in Dr. Fetzer's arena of researchers. Now, because we have "evidence" of this huge pothole that is right over there the WTC North Tower, WTC1, stood and the pothole has characteristics consistent with nuclear extreme high heat formation, then we must now consider that DK's idea of underground nuclear "bombs" were detonated under WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, and must suggest that his basic idea was correct but the power of kiloton size of each nuke was much lower than the original amount DK set forth, which I think was 150 kiloton per nuke.
So now we have a whole new ballgame as far as how WTC7 was destroyed as well.
I notice there was no mention of seismic data we have and how it corresponds to the size nuke that it must have taken to make the pothole.
I notice there was no mention of the "bathtub" or "slurry wall" that is the basic in which the WTC Towers were built. Same info is needed in how the remaining intact of that bathtub corresponds with the size nuke that made the pothole.
Also, we now have reason to be especially sympathetic to DK, and I always certainly am to those who have put out masses of hard work for the cause of truth, any and all truth issues we are facing, but still have empathy and concern for a fellow truth seeker and taking appropriate action in that regard, should not color objective truth seeking efforts and our judgment.
P.S. I would like to send either a personal check, a money order, or a cashier's check for DK, but part of my taking action against our totally collapsed USA social and economic system is not have anything to do with PayPal. One a person is a full member of PayPal and deliberately disenrolls formally from PayPal, one may never make PayPal payments again, not even as a guest. I would hope that another online credit card pay application be established or located and then used by Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Fox and all other sites that have one of those nifty PayPal buttons.
I am going to post a comment of mind on John Friend's blog that I did in regard to the Greenwald / Snowden caper and PayPal in a separate posting here. It relates to something Allan Weisbecker said on a recent Real Deal show.
I understand that that, and possibly this, comment may be not accepted for posting.
Jeannon,
DeleteYou bring up a number of great points again as usual.
The pothole has come up before but it has not been widely discussed. Khalezov has been about the only one writing about it.
The pothole refutes Judy Wood's non-theory so you won't hear her talking about it. It refutes Steve Jones' thermite nonsense so there won't be any mention of it by his disciples like Gage or Bollyn. It certainly contradicts Sept Clues movie set BS so they won't talk about it except to proclaim that it was faked of course.
I've discussed underground nukes before in several blog posts but I probably have not put enough emphasis on it. That was one of the main reasons I wanted to do this show.
The reported seismic readings for the "collapse" of the North and South Towers were 2.3 and 2.1 respectively. Those are low readings and certainly fall within the micro-nuke range. 2.1 is the equivalent of 21 kg of TNT. The OKC bombing was a 3.0. 150 kilotons is about a 6.6 or 6.7 on the Richter scale.
How big of a nuke would it take to blast out that size of a hole? That's a great question and one that deserves further study.
You bring up a great point about the slurry wall and I plan on discussing that in a future show.
Don, we don't know that particle beam nuclear weaponry (which uses electromagnetic charge to run) could not have accounted for some of the event.
DeleteThere may well be also a blast of nukes. Or many. Or only nukes.
Be not so quick; I say this because the spire might well have been helped along specially, and the 50+ holes everywhere make no sense as mini-mini-mini nukes for nothing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.john-friend.net/2014/02/the-realist-report-dave-mansfield.html#comment-form_6510394491307697136
ReplyDelete"I think not paying via PayPal for anything, not even as a "guest" is a good doing something and that may mean not doing business, not donating to people, with sites and entities that only provide that one way to pay."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/20/pierre-omidyar-behind-the-billionaire-bankrolling-glenn-greenwalds-new-journalism-project/
Pierre Omidyar: Behind the billionaire bankrolling Glenn Greenwald’s new journalism project
This billionaire Pierre Omidyar who owns PayPal and Ebay is starting a big new news conglomerate with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill (another limited hangout guy).
So Snowden has supposedly given over all this very valuable documentation he took from the NSA, and Snowden is fine with his partner in this, Glen Greenwald who now has in his possession all of this valuable information, starting up a big media conglomerate company, a company that Snowden ostensibly has no part in.
There is no way this new media conglomerate news service started by PayPal owner Omidyar has a chance at all commercially without the leveraging of that Snowden-obtained bombshell information.
So is somebody going to tell me that Snowden was not paid well for giving away all his power, ( his documentation about the NSA ) for no money or no "consideration" of any kind?
No the WHOLE Snoden-Greenwald caper is stagecraft, political theater, that will be sold very profitably to a deluded public as this new PayPal owner scam company. People will think it will support "free speech" and "human rights." No, it is all the same old bankster-one world government scam.
One does not have to look at the Snowden thing very long to see Zio fingerprints all over it.
There are some things we can do to take action against those who have taken down our nation. I listed some of those things in my earlier posting, but getting Omidyar's PayPal button off their sites is a very good start. ( Why not find a good pay service app that is honest and low cost or maybe start one yourself if you have the skills? I know of dozens of "patriot" sites that would love not to support and do business with PayPal but they think its the only game in town. But most importantly each of us should take personal action and not ever mess with PayPal again. If enough of us do it, the "patriot" and truth seekers will get their act together and do right in this regard.
***
Ian Greenhalgh said: "I think Bob Bobson is OBF posting under a new handle, a new ploy to spread the same old BS.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer completely demolished OBF's stupid arguments months ago and totally refuted his claims of Fetzer and Fox not using proper scientific method.
Honestly, the best way forward from here is just to ban OBF and his cronies. They have been given more than enough of a fair chance to build a tenable argument and have utterly failed to do so, all they do is constantly repeat the same completely flawed and untenable nonsense and disrupt the debate."
Of course, I understand completely that it's easier to just call me a shill or a bot, rather than debate and discuss the actual issues raised. I understand completely that it's easier to ridicule and suggest a sweeping ban of those people who disagree with you, rather than engage your brain and actually do some thinking and some independent investigation. And of course, I completely understand that it's easier to just ignore the very simple conclusions and questions being raised, and instead make totally empty claims about 'tenable arguments'.
It's funny that you can't simply calm down, and engage any of these points, or simply enter into debate on a purely intellectual level. I guess you simply don't have the debating expertise or breadth of knowledge in this arena; and that is to be expected as, after all, you appear to refuse to even LOOK at the video record! It strikes me as odd that for someone who relies so much on the legitimacy of the imagery, you seem to have very little awareness of it!
If all of this is 'nonsense', then why can't you argue the actual points being made? Instead, you resort to classic evasion tactics. I mean, what exactly can't you understand about the 9/11 witness statements being unverifiable, and therefore not evidence of anything?
Let's just break it down, shall we? I'll make this simple point as bite-size as possible, so you can deal with it at your own pace.
1. There are many supposed eyewitnesses.
2. Their statements however, do not correlate with each other.
3. They have not been background checked in terms of their identity, etc.
So, we should now ask the question; are their claims evidence of anything? If you answered yes, you have failed.
After all, as a final point about how erroneous it is to consider eyewitness statements as proof of anything, let alone be-all and end-all evidence; let's consider some of those witnesses who DID claim to have seen planes. One thing that I rarely see considered or raised that I believe is of a fair amount of importance when dealing with witnesses of 'planes' (especially in regards to the fact that these witness stories are widely varied in regards to details as mentioned earlier: quiet, loud, fast, slow, etc.), is that NYC is directly underneath commercial flight paths. Planes are a regular sight for New Yorkers, so it is quite likely (if any of these people are 'real' witnesses) that they may well have SEEN planes on the morning of 9/11. And with what was to follow, the media, rumour and imagination would complete the picture and do the rest... Just a thought.
Ian Greenhalgh wrote :
ReplyDelete"I think Bob Bobson is OBF posting under a new handle, a new ploy to spread the same old BS."
Mr Greenhalgh,
I see that you are using your own brand of "scientific method" - even when speculating about the identity of the participants in this blog's comment section. "Fascinating!" - as Fetzer would say... Why don't you go all the way - and suggest that everyone here supporting my 9/11 research on this blog are, in fact, just me (Simon Shack) hiding behind different monikers?
Ian Greenhalgh then wrote :
"Honestly, the best way forward from here is just to ban OBF and his cronies."
By all means, go ahead and ban them all. The problem is - you will have to ban me as well - surely not a viable option? Dr Fetzer would thus be left continuing his tiresome, long-winded and seemingly endless anti-Shack campaign - while blocking from his blog the very person he hopes to discredit. Surely, this wouldn't work out too well for Fetzer's credibility?
Come to think of it, your idea is brilliant, Ian - and meets with my full approval and support : YES, do us this favor! Go ahead and ban us all. After all, we're all wasting precious time of our lives typing away on this increasingly silly "Real Deal" blogspot.
low regards
Simon Shack
If Fetzer does decide to ban you guys where are we going to get these mind-blowing concepts like "the WTC was just a movie set" and "nobody died" and "all the victims were VIC SIMS"?
DeleteBanning brilliant researchers such as yourself, OBF and El Buggo would be a tremendous blow to the quality of the discussion here no doubt.
How many victims should there be Shill, if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up? They had lot to do that day, so maybe they forgot that part?
DeleteWould be very unfortunate for the 911 operation management if anyone was killed in that operation, because murder has no statute of limitation and would have gotten everyone in the operation involved in a conspiracy to murder, including some of their very valuable news anchor actors.
If no one was killed, this operation was just some deceptive free speech, and mostly legal.
This wasn't their first or last media operation, and it is rather risky and expensive in the long run with these real killings all the time. Much better to fake the murders the Hollywood way. Almost everyone will believe it anyway - I promise.
how interesting. i earlier, by chance, read my son a short story (2 pages long) called 'hell-fire' by isaac Asimov.
ReplyDeleteit was about the footage from an A-bomb test being shown to a group of scientists and other observers.
the very short story ends as the horrified audience views the Devil, horns and all, as he unmistakably appears in the flames of the nuclear inferno.
do you remember the footage of the demon/devil face that featured in the flames that resulted from the explosion of when plane met tower on 9/11?
nuclear 9/11 theory is science fiction jim, as i think nuclear weapons themselves are.
all the footage was faked, and this was there little inside joke!
you are being said and lead jim, and still being played for a fool.
(although i really think that you really do know better!)
Yep. Nukes are pure science fiction. All of those people that were vaporized in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and New York on 9/11 agree with that 100%.
DeleteThank God we have brilliant minds such as you and El Buggo to see through the government's lies about nuclear weapons.
you are not a shill or the son of a shill, are you shill shillson?
Deletei don't know what ever gave me that idea!
treble bluff?
Shill, there isn't any traces of anything that is specific for 1 huge explosion in Hiroshima in any of the published films or photos from that event. Could have been another story like Mrs O'Leary's cow who kicked the lantern in the barn and caused the entire city of Chicago to burn down in 1871. More likely, Hiroshima was firebombed the old fashion way, like Tokyo and Yokohama.
DeleteActually I am a 2nd generation shill. A shill in training as it were.
DeleteThey told me to keep an eye on all of the Jim Fetzer/Don Fox show threads here on radiofetzer because some of the best shills around like Simon Shill, OBF, El Buggo and pete shea will post here. They have to send out the big guns to try to derail all of Fox's great 9/11 info.
ian greenhalf is a keyboard warrior. a far cry from the meek sasanach as he comes across on his interviews with fetzer.
ReplyDeleteonce again, ian greenhalf is not to be trusted.
simon, you might go through those photos of the 'potholes' with your expert eye for fakery, as seen on don foxs' site www.donaldfox.wordpress.com
none of them look to be quite genuine, especially the one with the large building reflection seen in the muddy pool.
greetings to you, btw.
Bob Bobson said :
ReplyDelete" Neither Don Fox nor Jim Fetzer have attempted or have any clue how to attempt even a cursory investigation into the authenticity of the video record! "
Exactly Bob!
As an example of the type of simple image verification processes they are unwilling to even consider, my most recent blog post [mailed to both Fetzer and Fox BTW], demonstrates the findings of two researchers [_not_ Simon Shack], who did simple, basic, slo-mo analyses of the Hezarkhani video, showing that the Hezarkhani video is in fact 100% CGI - for one thing, in slo-mo it is revealed that the left wing of Fl. 175 passes impossibly _behind_ a building in the background- which makes Richard Hall's silly hologram hypothesis [ currently championed/promoted by J. Fetzer], and Ace Bakers equally silly "plane image inserted into live feed" hypothesis, entirely redundant.
As I point out in my article, this simple to understand [even for "laymen"] basic image analyses as performed, as well as other, related techniques, is entirely missing from the research of 99% of persons calling themselves "911 researchers", including: Jim Fetzer, Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh, Ace Baker, Richard Hall, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, Dmitri Kalezov, and numerous others.
See :" Why Jim Fetzer,Ace Baker and Richard Hall Etc. Are Wrong About The Hezarkhani Video" : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html
Regards obf.
OBF:
DeleteYou are right that in not considering layered buildings as well, for foreground and background, Ace Baker does not go far enough, but that is all. The fact a visually background building is in foreground and background at the same time for the action of the plane, which passes behind it at one point, is not a problem for analyzing what was intended by the perps.
The background building visually was conjoined with the foreground building layer, that is, the building was mistakenly on the same same masked area with the foreground buildings.
Both of your analyses only prove that the buildings supposedly in background are on a layer, and that the CGI planes were inserted to "reach" the buildings after footage was obtained of the smoking buildings.
They had smoking buildings footage and tracked the plane and buildings layers to the buildings, not the other way around.
The analyses you present do not prove the buildings themselves did not come from realtime footage.
What does suggest a missile (or hologram, possibly), is:
a) the "ball" footage, which indicates the inconvenient likelihood that whatever flew toward the towers was caught on film, but was small and maybe even cloaked (hologram/ special technology), since the "ball" leaves only distortion.
b) the multiple angles of the shots of the towers and overlaid CGI planes
The "pothole"...
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the peak of absurdity!
http://www.septclues.com/SIMCITY/Pothole_GroundZero_01.jpg
What's absurd about it? Why do you think it's fake? Let me guess, you think it's fake because it doesn't fit into you neat little dynamite demolition theory.
DeleteExactly, Ian. There is no sign of faking that or many other photos of the "pothole".
DeleteMerely asking whether it could be proved fake is fine, but concluding that with no indication of it is unacceptable.
OBF and Shack sometimes use the context of what they've found with the CGI layering of some buildings and skies AND planes, and some faraway "shots" of the WTC (doctored or CGI, with wrong shadows).
There were different types of faking and manipulation, to cover different problems with the footage of the towers and to create different "viewing" impressions. This context leads OBF and Shack to assume all is fake in all shots, by association.
Ironically, this would not be bad in every argument: sometimes context changes how something must be interpreted.
But in the footage sequences OBF and Shack find problems, genuine problems, most of the time the problem proves layering, with real towers, and only a couple of times shows doctoring of the towers themselves or possibly CGI towers for some shots.
They forget this, and end up over-doubting all shots, by context of their over-application of what is fake in different shots.
Simon Shack said: "Surely, this wouldn't work out too well for Fetzer's credibility?"
ReplyDeleteSimon, don't you think his credibility is already shot to hell?
After all, he is on record as a scientist [ he apparently has a University degree in the philosophy of science], both here and elsewhere, as claiming that :
1] Alleged evidence from certain sources is genuine and above reproach, and therefor never needs to be closely scrutinized, its just automatically becomes genuine "evidence".
2] Wholly unverified imagery can be confirmed as being authentic via other, equally unverified imagery.
3] Untested/unverified imagery can also be "verified" via entirely unverified , alleged "eyewitness testimony" .
4] And vice versa - wholly unverified "eyewitness testimony" can be "verified" via unverified imagery, which "proves" that the "eyewitness" was/is "telling the truth".
Isn't all that enough?
Regards, obf.
Dear OBF,
ReplyDeleteOne would have to be blind not to realize that Fetzer protects the major media networks and their all-important complicity in pulling off the 9/11 scam.
When has Fetzer EVER denounced ABC/ CNN/ FOX/ CBS etc... for their central role in this scam? Never - as far as I know. Instead, Fetzer focuses his efforts and time at denouncing me and my efforts - as if I were some sort of bad guy.
Go figure!
Simon, Jim mentions the media complicity a lot; but as he said several times, he thinks it's not the biggest problem -- yet you do.
DeleteI have tried to emphasize that it is a very big problem AND so is the takedown method.
Both help solve the overall case.
Both are important.
But your overemphasis on video faking and lying of different kinds, given that you forget your own caveats: that if something has natural photography, it must be considered into the story of what happened, and you ask "where is the natural photography" about the doctored "rainbow coloured" skyline scenes,
and Jim's major focus on physics quite often,
each seem to drive the other person to be upset. It is regrettable.
Go figure, is right. Your forum is the very definition of a Limited Hangout. As if you were some sort of bad guy? There is no "as if" about it.
DeleteJim Fetzer said : "On behalf of Clare: OBF: In Sept Clues movie, Simon rightly asked for examples of natural photography look and feel. The destruction sequence has that, for example in the flat look (dusty look) of the spire turning to dust, far away before the "white out", which is alteration of the film, and in multiple angles and different definitions (hi-def, low-res)."
ReplyDelete"The destruction sequence and dust also fit what all witnesses and photos after support, plus what the USGS found, without knowing what they were finding from a nuclear chemistry point of view, plus what actions were taken for years (water, dirt, Hazmat suits, etc.)."
"So you need to -- even if you don't do it, you need to, to be rational -- make a distinction between, on the one hand, layering and CGI for planes and obstruction of exactly what was going on during the process of readying the towers to be blown and making different networks' footage seem more varied in views than it was (cropping, colours used to adjust balance of footage), and on the other hand, the destruction sequence."
Jim, I refuse to attempt to engage/interact with Clare Kuhn anymore, here or elsewhere [unless she pays me for my time- in advance] .
I've tried in the past and discovered that I was wasting my time. I just cannot understand a word she says- I might as well attempt a conversation with someone who only speaks Swahili.
If, however, _you_ are claiming that :
1] The "spire" sequence must be genuine because it is high resolution.
2] The "spire" sequence must be genuine because other photos confirm it happening.
3]The "spire" sequence must be genuine because alleged eyewitness confirm it.
4] The "spire" sequence must be genuine because its occurrence is confirmed by a USGS study......
then I would direct you to my post here dated/timed 02/19/14 at 3:53 pm.
obf.
I'm not simply one-sided thinking enough for you, OBF?
DeleteOkay.
Let me spell this out for you, even if you don't speak to me in return:
THERE IS NATURAL PHOTOGRAPHY LOOK TO THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE SPIRE in the pre-white-out and looping (post-event edited) faraway views. You can see them both in Sept Clues, if you want. We also have the closer up version which is so well known.
The "melt" into dust, that is, the falling details of spire top section and the dust blowing into complex air currents is also unnecessarily complex for a fake, nor it is something which perps would want in there.
The photography literally looks natural in the way the lighting is (though whited out a bit overall by having contrast added in the two faraway shots).
The general dustiness afterward is another issue; it is attested by all persons, is shown for weeks, affected many thousands in the end, and so on.
The USGS study affirms by association not specifically the spire event, but a particular physical causal mechanism, i.e., a takedown mechanism, for so much dust. It is inconvenient to the official story; groups of loyal government scientists do end up wanting to help and can't be completely kept away necessarily, and IF genuine, let's say for a minute --
or have I lost you here, OBF? --
IF genuine, the USGS study crew would be quite likely to have not been thinking in a certain manner, to catch the implications of some of what they found.
Why?
Because they were not thinking of isotopes and didn't test for such things; they were chemists asking "how much" not "why".
Just as your thinking has gotten stuck in one line of assumptions, so could theirs.
Does the whole event require mini nukes? That is another question. Let's say nuclear particle-beam weapons (which use high electromagnetic frequencies to work) could leave a lot of nuclear effects, and maybe there is some other physical cause for the takedown.
But at least we're asking what could have done it; unlike you.
Is that too Swahili-like for you to read? I don't ask for a reply; but at least the reply is on record.
Dear Simon Shackelstein,
ReplyDeleteCan you say "hypocrite"? I think you can. I think you look at one every time you shave. Please explain to everyone why you banned me from your forum. Of course, I'd be hearing it for the first time, too. Explain to us how you work for Jews and that those same Jews would not allow a member of your forum exposing the very same people for which you work. After all, what's the point of running a limited hangout without the "limited" part? Right, SHACKELSTEIN?? I mean, you've got to be able to direct the dialog away from revealing the true root of the problem! That just goes without saying. After all, the guy with the big pair of bagels isn't going to sign your check if you allow him exposure, no?
I do not support someone getting banned. But don't you think it a little ironic that the free speech which you are allowed on Fetzer's blog is the same free speech you deny your own forum members? Live by the gun; die by the gun. No one deserves to be permanently banned from this website more than do you.
The very lowest regards,
Allison Hunt
not you Allison. The discerning among us can detect deflection.
ReplyDeleteIf all of you would spend as much time and energy on going after the culprits as you do upon quibbling over details and being rude to one another Dick Cheney and the rest would already have been convicted of treason.
ReplyDeleteExactly, this is why I say just ban the shills and agents of disruption so we don't have to waste energy refuting them and have the debate sidetracked by their falacious rubbish.
DeleteUnfortunately Mr. Fetzer has told us that he does not believe in censorship.
DeleteIt really is time for all of you to understand that no legitimate "research" is possible on You-propaganda-Tube. You need to get off of your backsides and get out there in the world and do something about all of this.
Mr. Fetzer organized a show in Vancouver!! More of this is needed. You all need to write your politicians, phone them, demonstrate outside of their offices, raise public awareness. You need to do the same will all media outlets. You need to go to university campuses and organize debates, seek out the journalism students... on and on and on.
STOP wasting your time on wild goose chases set up on You-propaganda-tube by the bad guys.
FIGHT for a new inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001.
STOP your inane quibbling over fine details based upon garbage found on You-propaganda-Tube.
Of course, your criticism is very appropriate to Shack and his cronies. Looking at pictures and youtube videos and then declaring things to be fake is not serious research.
DeleteShack was invited to Vancouver, he declined, he's not stupid enough to try to defend his untenable viewpoints based on paper-thin premises derived from invalid squinting at a screen then dreaming up inanities in front of an educated, well-informed audience that is accustomed to examining real scientific research.
He'd get laughed out of the building.
The problem with seeking the truth as to exactly how these events took place is that even if you did have an opinion that was in fact the truth of the matter you still would not know that your opinion was in fact the truth.
DeleteThe only people who know for sure the truth are those that did it.
So go after them and stop debating the exact, and ultimately unknowable (because you could never know that you had the truth even if you did) methods of this criminal operation.
Mr. Fetzer, would you like to try to run a show in Ottawa? I offer my full services if you are interested.
But I will not debate the exact specifics of how the towers were dropped. That the "official" report is easily demonstrated to be false is sufficient grounds for a new investigation.
The purpose of all future efforts need to be to present the case, raise public awareness and get a new inquiry.
I don't understand your objection to JewTube. I may even agree with your objection but you need to elaborate.
DeleteI do admire your enthusiasm. I wish I could think of a better word but it is naive. We are all Johnny-Come-Lately to a Jewish war that was launched against us long before any of us were born. For example, I count less than a dozen people who are regular legitimate posters here on RadioFetzer, yet the Zio-Jewish flies are landing all around us. As much as I'd like to kick the chair beneath the swinging corpse of Cheney and Rummy... that ain't going to happen. They have patiently gained complete control by silk degrees. They've done their homework. Your not going to be able to slap that shit out of their hands just because you recently figured it all out. I'm not saying they cannot be defeated. I'm saying you need to lower your approximations to success by a factor of at least a thousand or more.
YouTube of course contains some material that is true, but clearly large amounts of it are fabricated to deceive. It is ridiculous to suggest that any form of scholarly research can be done on YouTube. Yet, so many people herein, and the entire so-called Truth Movement has gotten almost everything from this completely untrustworthy source.
DeleteIt amazes me how anyone can come to conclusions and beliefs based upon what they see on YouTube.
A primary purpose of the internet is to further the mass public brainwashing that was started by television.
It is unbelievable how stupid people are nowadays, and television and now the internet are the reason.
Nobody thinks any more.
Forget You-propaganda-Tube, and forget television. Try reading books, listening to radio shows and doing some thinking on your own.
People who sit around "researching" on YouTube are simply making themselves stupid and brainwashed.
I am astonished at how gullible some people are. I am astonished that people's beliefs tend to be determined by what they want to believe, rather than by what logic and reasoning leads them to believe. I am also astonished at how most people develop strongly held beliefs on almost every subject, when in fact we simply cannot know and ought to with suspending judgment.
Get a grip. :)
I'm still not understanding your objection to JewTube. YT has "clearly large amounts of it are fabricated to deceive". Yes, of course. But so does radio and books. How is YT any different? You need a discriminating palate to sift through any of it... YT is no different in this respect. However, YT is different in that it is "hot media", i.e., you're getting sight, sound and sometimes words, all at the same time. For ease of consumption, the cooler media, such as books, don't stack. That's just the way things works.
DeleteWell, I suppose anyone who is confident in their ability to sift through YouTube for the truth, and to reject the false, should continue to do so. And I wish them luck.
DeleteBut the point remains, if you want the world to change you have got to get off of your ass and do something about it. Endless "research" on YouTube, and endless quibbling over fine details only serves the interests of the bad guys.
Karl Marx said something interesting:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it.
I've never thought too much about Karl Marx, one way or the other. However, a dude named Stefan Molyneux did an send up on Marx. To sum, Molyneux says that you wouldn't buy I diet book from a 500 lb fat-fuck; therefore, you shouldn't take moral advice from someone as morally bankrupt as Karl Fucking Marx. It's well worth watching.
Deletei have a couple questions for the fetzer theoretical nuclear physics team.
ReplyDelete#1 what is the point of a mini nuke? to my unimaginative mind a mini nuke is akin to using a steel beam as a toothpick.
#2 if multiple nuclear weapons were employed, enough to dustify (whatever the hell that means) 9 buildings and to form a molten crater pond in the bedrock of lower manhattan, my unimaginative mind suspects that there would have been very strange surface temperature anomalies in nyc, no?
i heard you on john friends show jim where you asked
ReplyDeletewhy would the government produce fake collapse video
which directly contradicts their account of events.
for fuck sake jim, everything the government has produced regarding 9/11 directly contradicts all evidence, science and logic.
all your questions aimed towards obf and simonshack at the end of the show have been answered before, so quit it, please.
please get the guts together to appear on fakeologist's show.
Dear Don Fox,
ReplyDeleteI am not a shill.
Gary
Are you denying nukes at Ground Zero Gary?
DeleteI am don. absolutely.
ReplyDeletewhy do you think 'they' immediately attached the label 'ground zero' to the effected area?
no accident, mate!
said and lead! said and lead!
BEFORE THIS TURNS INTO ANOTHER MULTI-HUNDRED POSTING, EXHAUSTION THREAD:
ReplyDeleteClare, please tell us where and when we can read your analysis of just WHICH aspects of the 103-minute were NOT CGI and WHY you are so certain they must have been genuine LIVE-CAM feeds.
And Don, please tell us if and why you have ANY doubts as to the authenticity of ANY of the networks' 103-minute "live" coverage.
Although I doubt Sophia Smallstorm has been reading through these (by now pretty tedious and repetitive) Real-Deal comment wars, she really should weigh in here... particularly since she did say (in a Red Ice Radio interview) that she had actually talked to some TV-network staffers who seemed to agree that what their bosses told them to transmit on that morning was bogus. Unless she was making this up, we need to have these workers identified and questioned again -- in light of the Shack discoveries (or what his detractors call BS).
Jim, you know how to contact Sophia. See what you can learn about this startling and crucial claim.
Don has stated many times that some of the footage was adjusted (the planes) and that some victims were faked.
DeleteThe point I raised, several times, is that Don does not go far enough and Simon/ OBF/ pshea go too far.
I outlined a number of features which prove faking (in an interview and on several threads) and also outlined arguments about what aspects are not fake and why in a general sense and some specific senses, we can tell that.
OBF cannot tell, but I have outlined it. I don't know exactly where those comments are. If I find them, I'll post here where they are.
One set of comments (about the spire and the destruction) is here on this thread, above, at February 19, 2014 at 7:18 PM
DeleteIf I find the ones I did outlining many (not exhaustive) examples from other periods in the 103 minutes (and after), showing faking and which aspects are likely fake in them versus "all" fake arguments, and what is likely not fake, I will post.
Not only do the "all-fake" people use language about lies sloppily (that a lie, being a fake story, means we should say it's "fake", and then it's okay to use that term for literal fakes all the time as well, sloppily overlapping the term),
but also the "all-fake" advocates keep suggesting that any evidence of cover-up flubs are themselves PLANTED. This sort of argument undoes the more reasonable argument that flubs are indications of the plot to control what we see, but often happen when things go wrong in real or partly real footage and statements they wanted to control.
Andy Tyme said: "BEFORE THIS TURNS INTO ANOTHER MULTI-HUNDRED POSTING, EXHAUSTION THREAD:"
ReplyDeleteSo what if it does? That's what comment sections are for, surely?
No one has to read any, or all of the posts, nor any of yours or mine,[except perhaps "Total"- the excellent moderator].
I make it a habit to only briefly scan the posts of at least 60% of the posters here [going by the consistent content of their previous posts] e.g. Halhgreen, Kuhn [the Fog], Fox, Alison the Nazi girl.
Even fake scientist Fetzer's post are mostly a waste of time for me to read these days, as far as I can see, as they consist of mostly talking down, ad hominems etc., if I am addressed directly by his lordship.
This reading habit of mine saves me hours of time- try it- you'll like it !
Regarding your requests of Fox and Kuhn, if you are sick of me making the same points repeatedly here, [most are :-) ] , then , for "variations on a theme" I would suggest you take a look at [if you have not already done so], Bob Bobson's excellent posts, particularly his first one, which neatly lays out the inherent huge flaws in the Fetzer version of scientific evidentiary review.
Also , yourself and others here might be interested in this Fetzer interview on John Friends show which occurred Wednesday last [ 02/19/14], in which , for part of the show he rants and raves like a spoilt kid about myself, Simon Shack, etc. etc. and puts on his usual display of talking down, like the authority figure he imagines he is. What a psychological mess the man is ! :-) :
Friend/Fetzer interview: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-realist-report/2014/02/19/dr-jim-fetzer--911
regards, obf.
Stooy44, I have to disagree with you in terms of the details. I understand what you are trying to suggest, but in a case such as this the details are absolutely paramount. There is no way we can learn the WHO and the WHY, without first fully grasping the WHAT and the HOW. The fact is, regardless of how obvious it may seem to the average 9/11 researcher; in order to EVER get 'alternative' 9/11 investigation to be dealt with properly in a Court of Law, or even just dealt with in a SERIOUS matter by the mainstream, the facts and details NEED to be established.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I agree with you that it is impossible to know the exact, 100% full truth (and that is the same with most topics and cases, not simply 9/11). But it should ultimately be possible to eventually be able to build a thesis beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that every single point raised ever needs to be 100% correct and accurate to a T, but the devil is in the details and in a case like this it would never be enough to simply state: "Well, we know the official story is bogus and Cheney did it!" I promise that no matter how 'apparent' that may appear to those in the 'truther' community, a case that flimsy would just be laughed out of the arena. Facts need to be established including, proofs, bodies of evidence, and thesis'; all these things need to be drafted, investigated and presented if there were ever to be a chance of a solution.
As for you, Shill Shillson, as I said before, of course it's easier rather than to address any actual points raised or enter into any actual discussion to just act like an idiot and a tool. I actually feel sorry for you really, after all, it must really hurt your brain to have to actually engage in the process of Thinking. So instead of that, why not just create dummy accounts and use ridicule tactics instead, as clearly you don't have the intelligence, the debating expertise or the extensive knowledge of this subject to be able to converse on an intellectual level. Luckily, there are people here who actually have enough of a brain to be able to see through your tactics and realise what a complete idiot you are. So, I'd imagine this might actually be counter-productive for you in the long run. Have fun.
Thank you for your comments Bob. We still do not have all of the details of the JFK case. The perpetrators are dead. I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteWe need a new investigation, and for this to take place the public will have to demand it in huge numbers. This has got to be the goal. If you think that quibbling over the details is the best way to bring this about, then of course you should continue to quibble.
My opinion is that all of this energy should be spent fighting to convince the masses that a new inquiry is necessary. And I do not see how all of this quibbling is or ever could help to bring about what is needed.
The questions quibbled over are interesting academically, but that is it.
Spend this energy trying to educate the masses. Bickering back and forth over the details is silly in my opinion.
How long must this go on? Until like the JFK case it is too late?
Mr. Fetzer, your Vancouver show needs to be repeated. How about Ottawa?
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I personally feel that regardless of how large the call for a new inquiry may get, if the details aren't firmly set in stone, it is essentially just a licence for another whitewash. After all, who exactly is going to be conducting this new inquiry if it is successfully launched? Certainly NIST or some other lacklustre government appointed group would not be tolerated, so who? A "Truth" group, such as A & E for 9/11 Truth?
ReplyDeleteJust like most of the different camps and 'factions' amongst the 'alternative media', they (like all of the rest) have their own agenda and consider particular points and factors more important than others, so "quibbling over details" would definitely come into it no matter which way you slice it. Personally, I think those details need to have already BEEN quibbled over, and the case needs to be as air-tight as is possible before it is pushed into the realm of Law, or it will very likely lose, or become just another cover up of a cover up, so to speak.
The JFK point is well made in theory, and don't get me wrong I can see the issues and need for hast; but the problem is, it could very well be argued that the JFK case DID get a new investigation. The one led by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, and the only inquiry to launch the first and only court case relating to the assassination in history. However, due to fact Garrison did not have all of the details (or as many as possible) down to a level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', the opportunity was lost. So yes, I do contend that the need to go over the myriad of points in regards to 9/11 with a fine tooth comb is a very important one indeed. However, as stated, we can agree to disagree on this one, as it is more of a difference of opinion about how societal change would be better affected, rather than a disagreement over its need to be done.
I think you make good points Bob.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who could perform a new investigation, how they would do it and so on. And of course, if such an investigation ever did take place, then all of the quibbling I am now concerned about would be important and necessary.
But for now, what is needed is to clearly demonstrate to the masses that the "official" story is false. No further quibbling is necessary to prove this. All that is required is to display the faults in the official theory to the masses and get them to pay attention.
Do the masses really need all of this exacting material to be convinced? Most people I talk to don't even know that a third building came down. Once I prove it to them they get suspicious.
The point of a new investigation, which could only be brought about by demonstrating that the official story is false, would be to try to determine what really did happen, and then the quibbling would have to take place.
But again, for now, just show the masses that the official story is false. Show the masses that a third building DID fall, do not worry about HOW the three of them fell.
Show the masses that the films defy Newtonian physics, do not bother with HOW the films could have been made and by whom. This would be the job of the new investigation.
Do not put the cart ahead of the horse.
May I also say, Bob, that it is enjoyable to have a civil debate without insults and references to race. :)
ReplyDeleteI feel exactly the same way. It is pointless to resort to ad hominem, ridicule and insults. Those are simply the tactics of someone who doesn't understand or know how to debate, and will only ever serve to cheapen a person's position. Disagreements, in my opinion, are necessary, as they allow us to revise, build and strengthen the position of 9/11 investigation. Different ideas are brilliant as they allow for a fuller, reasoned analysis of the event. And regardless of where an individual stands in reference to what they personally feel is 'truth', everyone can bring something to the table, in spite of whether you agree 100% with their proposed thesis. Eat your meat and spit out the bones, as they say. And you make intelligent points, also. :)
DeleteI can't remember who exactly said it, but a wise man once mused that: "Everything is true, to a given value of the word 'true'." I know it's more of a philosophical observance, but I feel that it can be applied to situations like this. Keep fighting the good fight.
bob by name bob by nature!
ReplyDeletei would be interested to know what you make of culto's excellent research regarding the whole jfk extravaganza bob.
ReplyDeleteyou too simon, for that matter.
here is the index to the thread;
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=225299&postcount=238
here is the thread itself;
http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127p65.html?highlight=jfk+faked+death
i personally think it is one of the most important threads to be found anywhere on the internet. he more than adequately proves the case, and then some!
the 9/11 and the jfk hoaxes are intimately connected, and for me, you can't have or buy into one without the other.
(the road layout around dealy plaza where kennedy was 'shot' traces out a trident, just as the same shape is integrated into the twin towers design.
(the age of aquarius immediately comes to mind - are both 'events' really rituals to usher in this new age?---i myself have a fantastical account i could relate regarding what can only be describes as a trident almost magically appearing before my very eyes, last year, but no-one would believe (or believes) me, by Neptune! (i must relate it to you simon, if and when we talk again.)))
jim won't comment on any of culto's 'shit' in any intelligible way because he knows
it's fucking true, in my honest and forthright opinion.
as i have written before, i believe we are entering into a new (and wondrous) age, and this happens this year, the 50th (50 =illumination, jubilation, ascension) year after 'the killing of a king'.
(2014 or 20(7+7) and 7 is the number of God!
seven = Se-Ve-N. Se = creation Ve = truth and N = infinite mind).
I think all this and everything else is preamble!
amble on!
So killing Jack Kennedy was a good thing?
DeleteAnd eventually will lead to.... a paradise on earth?
Yeah, sure.
But I thought he didnt die. And if he didnt die then the 50th anniversary of illumination (curious word) jubilation, and ascension are fake as well....no?
Dynamite, everything is fake and killing Kennedy was a good thing but not really because it didnt happen but will nevertheless cause a paradigm shift....well okay then.
I love this blog.
Dynamite and smoke pots??? Wow, the 19th century called and wants its technology back.
ReplyDeleteWhy not just use harsh language and shake your finger at them? Be about as effective.
And I thought the PID folk were about as loony as it gets.
Dynamite and smoke pots indeed.
Somebody is smoking dynamite
K.I,S.S., chris. K.I.S.S.
ReplyDeleteyou watched a movie and fell for it chris. get over it and move on. we all have to sometime.
9/11 nuclear theory is just an element of the whole 9/11 war games scenario as it continues to 'play' out.
it has no basis in reality.
in reality, the buildings were emptied and evacuated beforehand and taken down, behind the scenes, in complete safety and with great efficiency.
I also wonder were they both taken down in one piece and lowered underground in a fashion analogous to a descending elevator (delevator?)? I think it was lux who brought up this notion first over at cluesforum, and a very interesting notion it is too.
could the reported twin tower basement explosions have been about releasing the 'anchors' to allow for the controlled decent of both monsters of engineering? the outer columns of the towers would make a nice guide-rail component, wouldn't they? (imagine riding those babies down - yeeehaaawww!!).
you see, even if the towers were taken down with conventional explosive and they were just the shells that they surely were, there would still be an enormous pile of steel from these two 110 story skeletal giants. but that was not at all the case at all.
rudy guiliani didn't first talk about the 'victims' when interviewed the day after the 9/11 event. he talked about the obvious lack of apparent debris and he gave out the 'reasons' for that.
also, two vast and deep holes are now reported under the area where the 9/11 memorial fountains are constructed.
are these holes the 'abandoned' '(d)elevator' shafts?
were the towers dismantled, for the most part, underground?
didn't smoke obscure the wtc area for many many days afterwards?
was this artificially generated for the purposes of concealment?
outside of anything else, you have to admit it is an intriguing possibility. it makes very good sense.
how practical is it is another question, but I cannot immediately see any enormous difficulties with it's execution.
I think the towers were just two high to allow for any other form of safe and controlled 'demolition'
and thanks mate. I think I will smoke some pot now.
boom, baby, boom.
care to join me jim? what are your thoughts on the above, btw? are we getting close yet?
I fell for a movie? No, you fell for an orchestrated attempt to obfuscate the story and evade prosecution.
DeleteI gather you are not very familiar about the people (perps) of whom you speak . They are not nice people with a fine sense of morality.
They are brutal thugs. Descendants of a dark theology bathed in blood, that cries for blood at every turn and action.
They are not slick. They are not subtle. Their dark beliefs preclude them from seeing those things as anything but weakness.
You speak of the esoteric but sadly display little knowledge of the people that actually practice their rites to achieve desired results.
They dont talk esoteric, they do esoteric
Other than making money they are not good at what they do. They use brute force to achieve their ends. They leave holes big enough to drive a truck through. But they rely on money, threats and death to insure containment. They dont care if you know what they did. Just dont try and do anything about it.
Hence, any who go on about fakery and no deaths when it comes to truly paradigm shifting events display a truly profound lack of knowledge about what motivates these people to do what they do.
You and I may not believe in Hocus Pocus but they do.
And if folk dont know that... they dont know anything.
so what can you or are you going to do about that chris?
Deletemyself, I think everything is already decided behind the scenes.
relax, trust and love yourself and family, and enjoy the ride from here on in, are my thoughts.
it is going to be very good or very bad. no two ways about it.
and all my mow-knee is on the former, my friend.
I am declaring myself Head Honcho will start using harsh language if the perps wont go on Jims show and confess to their crimes.
DeleteHaving solved that crises, I shall adjust my attitude and work out a couple of bass parts I have to have ready for a rehearsal on Sunday.
Personally my money is on the fake alien invasion. But perhaps thats just because after all these years of championing the ufo subject, I want to be the one to say, Those are fake, they arent the real ones.
Plus it would be superb TV
kennedy didn't die chris. it was an en-acted ritual.
ReplyDeleteWow man. You see.....This is where I know you are completely full of it. Or what you profess to believe at any rate.
DeleteYou cant know this and I dont give two hoots about whether you believe me or not. But anyone who wants to stop by my house, I can prove this beyond any question. Thats my real name up there and I currently reside in Las Vegas, Nevada
I was born at Carswell AFB. I lived there on 22 November, 1963. My father handled that plane when Kennedy was there. That was his job. Plus he knew Curt LeMay, personally. 8th Air Force buddies. My parents had dinner at his house on any number of occasions. My brother got pulled out of his classroom by the FBI in the spring of '64 for running his mouth. My father got into a lot of trouble for it.
My mom was a charge nurse for labor and delivery for the base hospital on swing shift. She knew people at Parkland. Those people were traumatized for the rest of their lives by what happened.
You cant know because its all just some theoretical thing for you.
For my family this was entirely too real
Kennedy died. The military and lots of others wanted him dead. Not disappeared. Dead. Not faked. Dead. And they got him dead.
So, I mean its cool. You can of course keep keeping on. No harm really. But your just as wrong about this as you could possibly be.
have you been through culto's research? i posted the links above.
Deleteand everything you have just written is heresay.
the nation was traumatised according to jim, not to mind people you know.
very few would have had to have been aware of the true nature of the hoax.
LOL, dude...of course its heresay. If I could prove it I would be dead too. Suffice it to say my father had a very high clearance and all the right friends
Delete.
Im not trying to convince you of anything.
I am saying I know better
I have indeed looked at cultos research.
One thing I agree with completely is that girlfriend has no where near enough blood on her little butt. Not sure what that means in a larger context.
She mugs for the camera after the funeral. Was she glad she was done with the banger of teenagers in her bed? Im sure she was. Jack was a full blown asshole to his her.
LOL, everybody wanted the sumbitch dead
I have my own thoughts about the Panthers culpability but it is after the fact and not before.
But to quote other worthy folk, you cant base research on a provably faked film.
Which the Z film is.
Anything drawn from it is akin to nothing at all. Showing the Panther pop a squib on the film proves nothing at all.
Its all fake. But you know that
Chris, what did your brother say, to get him pulled out of class?
DeleteAs to the photo of Jackie's back of skirt:
it is not in light, it is low quality reproduction of the photo, and blood is not too dark on pink wool, unless the wool is saturated.
More blood and brains would be on the front and even then, not much, since most of his headwound went out the back and the rest of the bloodloss (which was not huge, since he was not lying down) would have gotten onto the seat on her side after she got out and people tried to lift JFK out.
Culto's assumptions are based not on the general sense of the case or of Jackie's outrage and grief, which comes through in all her actions and statements at the time.
She was not happy with him, but deep down she wanted him.
Clare, my brother was I believe a junior in high school and was telling anyone who would listen that there was a conspiracy. That there were multiple shooters. Had been since it happened.
DeleteThey were big Kennedy supporters stuck in hicksville where everybody hated Jack, I can only imagine my brother arguing with the cracker nation
It was no secret in my parents house what happened. People hadnt started to die yet so they didnt worry about it, I suppose.
My brother said one afternoon in the spring of '64 two guys showed up in his class, pulled him out, flashed the FBI badges and told him to stop talking about it or there would be trouble for him and his family. It was short and to the point
He stopped, as one can imagine
My father got a stern talking to by base security but he never told me exactly what they said.
Of course any doubt they had, which was none, was dispelled by this.
Madeline told Jim it was all over Dallas. It was. Fort Worth too.
As far as the Panther? I dunno. You splain things like a champ Clare but girlfriend should have more blood on her, I have to agree with Culto on that. Doesnt prove anything one way or t'other to me, however
Other than we really dont know what happened in the car.
She wanted him ...dead.
Clare if your husband was hitting everything that casts a shadow. Including teenagers. In your bed. And dropping L and smoking weed and discussing world politics with his soul mate while you raise his kids, worry about his political future and redecorate his white house?? All while your friends chuckle at your misfortune???
You'd want his scrotum on a stick
Jackie would not have masses of blood on her unless Jack were dripping it directly on her.
DeleteAlso, she knew Jack was a friendly but faraway-life player (living a public life, and going with other women). She loved him, was probably utterly depressed and furious, alternating with loving and independence-seeking, for her own sanity and to prove herself to him. She grew up to respect external standards of others, and would have been strongly cautioned and cajoled during the years together, by others.
Not everyone who is cheated on responds with pure jealousy of the mate.
clare, he was supposed to be on her lap with massive holes in his head. this was not a nose-bleed. there should have been pints of blood covering her. it is all akin to jeff bauman in the wheelchair and his bloodless stumps. all faked as fuck.
Deleteyou seem to know a lot about how Jackie really felt. where did you read all this?
it is all scripted nonsense. and to constantly denigrate culto's work as you do, is not cool. his research is most excellent.
Clare, everyones touching a different part of the elephant.
DeleteSome have missed the elephant entirely and are in fact feeling up the tree next to the elephant.
And saying to themselves, who would have thought they have such a rough hide?
But they are still trying. And as such should be given some benefit of some doubt.
Culto for instance. Anything he ties to the Z film is well...problematic at best but....and this is a big but, or actually in this case a small butt, girlfriend does not have enough blood on hers.
That does not in any way, shape or form mean that she had any clue of what was going to happen.
But it is an anomaly. It is. Im sorry, it really is.
Now culto I guess thinks he discovered this but Ive had friends (and one girlfriend in particular who was a helluva little researcher) who pointed this out years ago.
The only thing it proves is that we dont know what happened in that car.
We really dont.
The only way we are going to ever know is to get that copy of the film Rich Delarossa and those other folk saw.
The real one.
Now if anyone wants to ever get down to business on this case and quit fewking around. They will quit squabbling, pool their resources and find that gawddamn film.
Then all hell will break loose.
Im getting older over here. Someone else is going to have to wake up and realize that film has to be found.
Has To Be Found
she got him clare. she moved to a greek island where he relocated.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're wayyy oversimplifying. Jackie suffered, and there is no evidence of her killing Jack and only counter evidence, for Culto's work is extremely ad hoc and flawed.
DeleteBob Bobson,
ReplyDeleteThere was a second (or third, if you count the Garrison trial) investigation into the JFK assassination--the House Select Committee in 1976 which was completely taken over by the CIA. Read about how they did it here:
Complete Book: "THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3", 1985
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/
Chapter 17, 1985: The House Select Committee (2), THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled The House Select Committee On Assassinations
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html
Despite all the hard (and hardened) feelings that have, sadly, developed between Mr. Shack and Dr. Fetzer, it really would behoove the latter to seriously examine Simon's latest 9/11 discovery.
ReplyDeleteIt's a section of good-quality video footage web-retrieved (after ABC's highly publicised 2010 FOIA suit) from the gigantic load of supposedly long-unseen (or never publicly screened) 9/11 videos that NIST (abetted by the FBI and "Camera Planet") claimed to have sucked up prior to NIST's protracted, multi-year "investigation" of the towers' demise.
The footage appears at "first glance" (hold it, OBF... not now!) to be "live, on-the-scene" coverage of the not-yet destroyed WTC by a local (ABC-owned) Channel Seven reporter. Apparently positioned so close to the still-standing, but recently "plane-struck" towers that he (and his cameraman) would surely have been crushed/burned/suffocated/"vapourised" by the explosive "collapse" that suddenly, violently interrupts his report -- he nevertheless MIRACULOUSLY survives and proceeds to interview other "lucky" bystanders a short while later, without any visible tower-dust on his natty attire or even a hair out of place on his pointy little head! And to top it all off, the reporter incongruously uses a "countdown" (instead of an "anchor cue") to begin his "live" reporting. (Although he did explain later that he was without his trusty microwave-link truck at the scene.)
So, the question naturally arises, WAS THIS SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE REPORT EVER AIRED AT ALL??? Did it only play locally on New York City's Channel Seven? Or was it part of some pre-fabricated "news coverage" ultimately rejected by the perps for real-time use due to its implausibility and only later resurrected (and edited down) to serve as justification for giving the (plot-compliant) reporter a huge raise, an important promotion, multiple awards, and ultimately the uber-prestigious position of PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES!!!
Simon says he doesn't recall seeing the dude's WTC-collapse report in any of the previously available recordings of "live" 9/11 network coverage and only discovered it recently, while combing through the virtual mountain of FOIA-mandated, NIST-released videos that didn't become publicly available until 2010.
If any of you recall seeing this report on the day of 9/11, please let Simon know.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1696&p=2389199&hilit=burkett#p2389199
There is nothing wrong with the footage; it is perfectly natural lighting and behaviour. He was inside during the actual main dustfall, and far away by the time the general dustiness came. The wind and his direction meant the main dust did not reach him.
DeleteThe destruction's being "like a movie" is different than that the planes were "like a movie".
The takedown, leaving almost no debris of size in situ, yet everyone's saying it "came straight down" means it DID blast in a bizarre way.
There are suspect footage sequences, but not ALL is.
It is likely this footage was unused because they had plenty of other footage on the day.
They may even have edited out things in this.
The Independence Day footage on that site is different: it is clearly not natural photography. This tower's component parts blasting away and the pieces are all very naturally lit.
Clare, you should know that "natural lighting" is what the expert, well-paid CGI artisans who "simulate reality" for movies and TV were already achieving at least a decade before 9/11. Ever watch "Seaquest DSV" back in 1993? The algorhythms for wire-framing (before rendering) not just (imaginary) solid objects, but also eye-fooling light streams, diffusions and shadows were worked out way back in the 1980s. Simon's (impressive) perceptions and intuitions (and yours, too) to the contrary -- video that "seems right" can STILL be totally bogus!
DeleteAnd the wild claims of local-reporter-cum-NATAS-prez Burkett, regarding his amazing 9/11 exploits and "escape" should be taken with the same, multi-grain "salt" we sceptics (not necessarily RADICAL, mind you) have well learned by now to apply to all sorts of war-on-terror pronouncements of the misleading media mavens.
Question for Jim and Don on controlled demolition by mini-nukes:
ReplyDeleteMini-nukers,
How were the buildings prepared for demolition? Did bombs EXPLODE or IMPLODE? According to this, people, desks, fixtures, etc. would have become flying projectiles. Why would 3,000 be inside buildings prepared for demolition?
NOVA Online/Kaboom!/Loizeaux Interview
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
So, according to the experts, in order to safely demolish a building with implosion techniques, everything, including non-bearing walls must be removed.
The two main reasons stated for this seem obvious, but important. The first, that they may "stiffen" the building, is explained well by Ms. Loizeaux.
The second is really two-fold. Objects which remain serve as literal "cannon fodder", that is, anything present at detonation is instantly propelled as a projectile. Smaller objects tend to be even more worrysome than large, because due to aerodynamics, large objects have a lower terminal velocity. Small objects are like bullets, their mass provides momentum which outweighs the aerodynamic slowing forces, due to little surface area.
The other reason many things are removed is for their recycled value. Often on demolition projects small and large, the proceeds of recycled steel, copper, and other items can offset or even cover the entire cost of the demolition.
The main reason though, is the first, removal of potential projectiles.
From Dmitri Khaselov;s Site: He basically says that modern ALL STEEL buildings such as WTC, can only be demolished by nukes. Why didn't you use this in your argument pro nukes?
ReplyDeleteNuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
So, how come that this old atomic demolition concept, despite of being known to be too costly and despite of having a too low performance index compare to a conventional controlled demolition by implosion was eventually revived and even implemented in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition scheme?
It happens because of a new generation of buildings has come into existence at the end of 60s - namely steel-framed buildings. Despite common misconception, there were no steel-framed skyscrapers ever been demolished by an implosion anywhere in the world.
So, despite common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme. In bygone days when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-paneled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders.........
However, it is no longer possible with modern steel-framed buildings - such as, for example former Twin Towers of the New Your World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7, or the Sears Tower in Chicago...........
That is why they were spared by GENERAL PULVERIZATION the Towers were subjected to during their demolitions, while virtually nothing, except MICROSCOPIC DUST remained of similar columns belonging to the lower parts of the Twin Tower structure.
Steel framed structures can be demolished conventionally, but they have to be prepared for demolition, many supporting structures are pre-cut, much is removed so that the structure is greatly weakened before the final demolition. Cutting charges are placed on the remaining steelwork. It is vastly more complex and time consuming to demolish a steel-framed structure due to the extensive pre-demolition work, Basically, whn you see a steel-framed structure being demolished, it is a greatly weakened shell of the former building that has been stripped to a shell and pre-weakened. This, quite clearly, dd not take place with the WTC.
DeleteHow could people be trapped if there were no planes, therefore, no fireballs and no gashes in walls? Had the buildings been stripped of partitions, furniture, fixtures?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the empty buildings be a tip off?
I would stop crucifying Judy Wood. Her work is based on false data. She studied CGI photos and concluded rightly that no known explosive could do what is seen in those videos and stills such as "lathering" and "wheat checks." She spent a lot of time making up names for all this weird phenomena.
Also,I find it hard to believe Father Morales was called to GZ to administer last rites. I don't think the FBI allowed anyone into GZ, Last rites to vaporized fragments of bodies? And, isn't anyone worried about radiation? How were they able to rebuild so quickly on radioactive ground?
Joan Edwards said : "... it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme."
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ, Joan. The Biltmore Hotel was a steel framed building which was demolished using conventional explosives in the 1970's :
"When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives. But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides."
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/biltmore-hotel
"The Biltmore was thirty-three stories high and was heralded as the state's tallest building. On October 16, 1977 the Hotel Biltmore was demolished by a team of demolition specialists. Hundreds of low-yield explosives were planted throughout the building so that it would collapse and fall inward into an acceptable area only slightly larger than the hotel's foundation. The purpose was both to break the materials into smaller pieces that would be easily transported away, and to contain the blast and debris within the area, in order to minimize damage to surrounding structures. The razing was recorded by hundreds of camera buffs.'"
http://www.okhistory.org/research/hmres ... ion=Search
"The Biltmore was certainly the largest building to fall during the Urban Renewal era. The explosion that took down the 26-story, 600-room hotel in 1977 was televised across the country, so certainly it made an impression."
http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-the-b ... le/3470180
"The building is enormous. It is concrete. It is full of steel. It reaches many stories into the turquoise sky. All around it is a teeming city. There is traffic in the streets. Huge and delicate office suites of glass and steel are right next door. And nearly a million people live nearby. Yet the building is decaying. It is abandoned and crumbling. Police have had to remove squatters several times. It is a danger to the city, and must be removed. But how to do so without creating even more of a threat? There is a sound of sirens, then a deep, almost subliminal explosion. And slowly, almost gracefully, the building seems to melt into itself. The glass suites are unharmed. The traffic hurries on. The million people barely notice".
http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/200 ... ction.aspx
regards, obf.
Yet again, an absolutely ludicrous, untenable viewpoint from OBF.
DeleteThis attempted comparison to the Biltmore ignores a VAST BODY OF EVIDENCE!
The WTC towers were not demolihed in any conventional sense, if they were, then there would have been a pile of rubble of 12 to 13 storeys in height. Instead, what was left was very little rubble and two smoking holes in the ground.
Half a million tonnes of concrete and steel was dustified, spreading out over Manhattan in a vast cloud.Dynamite, thermite or any other conventional explosive is incapable of this.
Very high temperatures persisted underground in the basement levels of the towers for at least 6 months after 9/11, molten steel was still persisting for months, lumps of fused concrete and steel that could only have been created in temperatures of several thousand degrees exist and are on display. The 'pothole' melted into the bedrock is another clear indicator of extremely high temperatures. None of this could be the result of dynamite.
Large pieces of the WTC facade, weighing thousands of tonnes were blasted outwards upto a block away - most clearly seen in the large fragment that struck the Winter Gardens. Dynamite could not have done this.
Then there are is all the other evidence of nuclear fusion and fission having taken place such as the tritiated water, the USGS dust samples, the toasted cars, the way the office furniture and bodies of workers were blasted into small pieces.
Of course, OBF will cry 'FAKE' at any evidence that doesn't fit with his crackpot theories, but we all know, that is nothing more than an attempt to mislead people and obfuscate the truth.
I'd like to try out the Sept Clues "everything is fake" nonsense on this stack of bills sitting on my desk. The next time Wells Fargo calls looking for a payment I'll just tell them that all of the photos of their buildings are fake and haven't been authenticated by OBF therefore they don't exist.
Deleteask wells fargo, your electricity suppliers etc. to send you, the living and lawful flesh and blood man Donald FoxDuck (not DONALD FOXDUCK) a true bill for next time, and not an account statement Don. it is already paid, see ,from the trust set up when the artificial entity DONALD FOXDUCK was created with your birth certificate. give it a go, all!
DeleteQuestion: How Do Giant Buildings "Dustify" Without "Dustifying"?
ReplyDeleteAnswer:
Simple, dear reader -they follow the tried and true Don Faux /Judy Wood dustifying by not dustifying process! [It's easy when you know how:-) ].
Example:
Don Faux claims: "The Winter Garden was completely destroyed by North Tower debris and had to be rebuilt. "
And yet, in his VT article : "Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs":
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews/
.... concerning what he alleges is depicted in the allegedly " live" tower collapse videos, in direct contradiction of that claim about the Winter Garden, he claims :
"...The [WTC] buildings are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust....."
You cannot have it both ways, Faux [or Wood].
Either the nuke explosions [or D.E.W.]converted everything, "top down", "into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" , as Faux/Wood claim, or the explosions instead hurled giant pieces of NOT-converted-to-dust debris 100's of yards, destroying other buildings, like the Winter Garden, as you also claim.
So which is it?
Furthermore, if everything _was_ converted to very fine dust as claimed, what about all of those supposedly "real" post collapse photos showing gigantic sections of girders till standing in the debris pile, as well as all of the girder sections lying around with firemen gallantly standing on them?
How come they were not all "converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" also? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? [ Hint: the post collapse debris photos are as fake as the collapse sequence videos .]
Very selective, these Faux mini nukes, it seems, in what they decide to convert "into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" .
Apparently just as selective as J. Wood's alleged direct energy weapons, it would appear :-)
As to the trustworthiness of _any_ of the WTC1 collapse sequence videos, here's Simon's analysis of 3 entirely contradictory alleged "live" WTC1 collapse sequences, from "PENTTBOM" , Ettiene Sauret, and NBC:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2353593&hilit=Sauret#p2353593
Notice how from the same viewpoint, the WTC1 antenna falls in one direction in the Sauret video, yet in the opposite direction in the NBC sequence of the same event.
Enjoy :-) obf.
Wow, the bullshit is flowing very freely out of OBF today...
DeleteNo-one claimed the entirety of the materiel of the WTC was dustified, it was around half. Many large pieces were blasted a good distance away, the large pieces that hit the Winter Gardens are one of the clearest examples of this. The amount of force required to throw a fragment weighing thousands of tonnes a whole NYC block is one of the pieces of data that refute's OBF's conventional demolition BS.
Here is a picture showing the crushed atrium of the Winter Gardens with the large fragment of WTC lying on top of it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg
It's over 400 feet from the WTC to the Winter Gardens, just think how much energy was required to hurl all that debris so far.
There are many more photos showing the destruction of the Winter Gardens.
onebornfreeberg said "Furthermore, if everything _was_ converted to very fine dust as claimed.."
DeleteI have never claimed that EVERYTHING was converted to dust or vaporized. 1/3 of the Twin Towers were completely vaporized. 2/3 were converted to dust and other assorted chunks of debris. Larger chunks were ejected hundreds of feet out. That's what destroyed the Winter Garden and damaged the Amex building. Big Nukes would have vaporized the whole WTC complex.
But it would have been painfully obvious what happened so they used mini-nukes instead which has kept the public guessing for 12+ years now.
can you prove this photo is authentic ian? because I don't believe it is. it looks, from an overall p.o.v. to be fabricated. it doesn't ring quite true,
ReplyDeletewhy is a blue sky reflected in the windows of the building to the left while a white white sky is seen directly? tinted windows?
and shouldn't all the glass in the dome be shattered following such a violent and long distance impact?
the building on the right doesn't look quite the part either.
aren't you a cgi expert? please apply your skills, friend.
what year was this photo released to the public ian? i'm betting 2010!
cogent answers ian please. we are on the same side after all, aren't we?
greetings, don. keep up the good work spreading the septemberclues word. much appreciated.
Don't claim we are on the same side then spout BS about JFK not being dead and repeat Shack's disgusting fakery theories.
DeleteThe Winter Gardens was badly damaged by fragments of the WTC facade, that is not in doubt, so drop the BS about fake photos, go do some proper research, I won't waste my time on your usual inane crap.
so I was right about you ian. you are a right cunt. thanks for the cogent and respectful answers, mate.
DeleteI take the seeking of truth seriously, therefore I have zero respect for people like you who spread disinfo and outright lies everywhere you go, you deeply disgust me and I have nothing but derision and scorn for you.
Delete"...The [WTC] buildings are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust....."
ReplyDeleteDon Fox-http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews/
obf.
Jim actually wrote that part. But the gist of what he said is correct - MOST of the Towers were converted into dust which conventional charges cannot account for. That doesn't mean that SOME chunks weren't ejected as well because they obviously were.
DeleteIan said: "Steel framed structures can be demolished conventionally, but they have to be prepared for demolition......"
ReplyDeleteSo why on earth would they use nukes instead of dynamite? Why would the steel need to be turned to dust when it could be sold for scrap, thereby paying for the demolition?
Has anyone thought to look up the records of how much steel scrap was sold and to whom? Much was sold to salvage yards in New Jersey--I looked it up.
Remember the article in "Fire Engineering" which protested what they called the too fast selling of the evidence without investigation? There was talk of it going to China. Also, wasn't a battleship made of recycled steel from the WTC? Didn't flatbed trucks carry sections of steel from the 47 core columns, out of New York?
I think the nukers are trying to fit theory of 9/11 to the 103 minute videos. This is why Judy Wood failed and that is why Fetzer and Fox will fail.
The 103 minute Hollywood news video had to match the official story of planes hitting the towers, which trapped 3,000 in the upper floors due to fires from the impact of "hits."
The photos are too good to be true. What is the likelihood of forty or fifty cameramen catching on film pictures of a 500 MPH plane at the exact moment it hit the south tower? What is the probability of these people being there at all since this was allegedly a surprise attack? What are the odds of these same people catching the collapse of the towers from every imaginable angle?
Since we now know there were no planes hitting the towers on 9/11, no gashes in the facades could have occurred and no fire and smoke could have poured out of the top floors, how can researchers like Fetzer and Fox hold that these videos are "evidence"?
The photographs of the exploding towers with plumes of pyroclastic flow coming from the top, matches the scenario of plane hits, fireballs and 3,000 helpless, trapped victims in the upper floors.
No way does this "collapse" look like the controlled demolition that researchers have come to believe happened. Please study what happens in actual controlled demolitions. Notice how there is no dust coming out of the tops of the buildings as the walls fall inward creating an implosion and a fall into its own footsteps:
? "CDI - The Art of Demolition" - YouTube#t=260
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TARNVwF7Yg#t=260
The only evidence for 9/11 is the fact that there is no evidence. The news videos shown that day were made for tv.
This is the evidence and we should not be trying to fit the facts to fake evidence.
Instead of rubble piles being too small, I submit that they might have been too large. The WTC tower facades were made of steel. There were hundreds of modules of six columns and horizontal spandrels--three of each, 47 thick core beams and steel pans and trusses as flooring. There was very little concrete--only 4" deep in the floor pans.
The buildings could have been prepared for a standard demolition by removing fixtures and furniture by chutes in the core. I believe Jayhan;s work which shows the WTC might not have been totally completed.
I forgot to mention that in the videos of CDIs, there are some of all steel structures such as bridges. Notice these are blasted apart at the bolts leaving the steel intact. Why would they do this and not convert it to dust? Preserving the scrap for sale?
ReplyDeleteBob BobsonFebruary 19, 2014 at 4:24 AM
ReplyDelete(Repeating what was so well said by Bob):
"Let's just consider for a moment the mechanics that would have had to go into creating fake "live" imagery. Certainly, the imagery we have seen wasn't created in real-time and on the fly. So therefore, the 9/11 live footage of plane impacts must have been created in advance of that day (most likely by months or years).
(.......)
"And as for the witnesses, what on Earth are you talking about? Firstly, the police do a little thing called BACKGROUND CHECKS. They don't take any old witness statement as being gospel. A cop drama is just that: a drama. In a court of Law, if the available physical evidence contradicts the witness statements, then the case will proceed in favour of the physical evidence. ALWAYS. This is because witnesses can be easily bought and paid for, lie, omit, forget, misinterpret, become confused, etc, etc.
(.......)
"Furthermore, there is NO witness consistency in regards to 9/11, so what point are you trying to make? The witness statements are a mish-mash of accounts all claiming such a wide variety of different things to the point where NOTHING is verifiable from these statements.
Thank you for your support, Joan. I appreciate the compliments. Of course, none of my points were ever approached for discussion in any intellectual or intelligent manner by the various clowns here. Instead they prefer to act like fools and tools; viciously throwing ad hominem around and ridiculing, ignoring and refusing to ever deal with the subject in a frank, unbiased and logical manner.
ReplyDeleteThis is where the idea of the 'scientific method' REALLY comes into its own. The investigator, who by all accounts should be attempting to remain as unbiased as possible, must abandon preconceptions and be willing to examine ALL theories and factors for merit, regardless of differing opinion. The fact that Ian, Don, Fetzer and others absolutely CANNOT bear doing this speaks volumes for their integrity and ability as true researchers.
It's quite simple Bob, your theories have been discredited long ago.
DeleteThey have already been examined and weighed in light of the available evidence and found to be untenable.
Yet, for all your talk of the theory being 'untenable', you cannot produce a single convincing counter-argument; further, will not enter into debate, nor will you engage any of these factors on an intellectual level. Hell, you say these theories are discredited, but you cannot provide evidence of such, nor articulate how that is so. Simply saying that something is 'discredited' does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
DeleteWhat exactly are you 'weighing' in light of the available evidence? Present the solid, tangible evidence you are using to support your hypothesis, please. Oh wait, it's the unverified video record and unverified witness statements that you are suggesting as the "available evidence" isn't it?! So, what exactly are you measuring this theory up against?
Really, I'd love to know the deep investigation and verification procedures you have undertaken to conclusively prove the authenticity of the imagery and witnesses, in order to consider them 'tangible evidence'. After all, this is what you are claiming has been done, when in reality, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Clare Kuehn said: "CGI planes can be pre-set to run over whatever footage would be gotten of a missile, using matching points, that is: take a clip, have a CGI plane image ready to overlay, and set where it starts from, where it ends."
ReplyDeleteI am, of course, well aware of this theory (which is the same one that is espoused by Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds and a few others), and on first glance it certainly appears as if it could be possible (if you believe that purely the plane strikes were engineered and almost everything else is genuine). But, the question is, is it logical or probable? What is the likelihood weighed up against the risks of inserting the CGI and animation LIVE?
I actually happen to have a background in animation, CGI, and 3D Graphic Design. I have many high level qualifications in the subject, years of training and have worked for various video imaging companies. While it is definitely physically possible to insert graphics onto a live shot (most commonly carried out in the form of banners over news feeds, etc.), there is big difference between inserting an image overlay onto a feed and rendering an object to move from one key-frame to another within the actual shot.
Firstly, the image would HAVE to be pre-made (which poses the question, if you're going to pre-make SOME of it, why not ALL?) so that all the operator needs to do is just set two key-frame points (start and end) and then run the animation at a particular point. It almost sounds simple in execution, and in a way it would be, but what is the likelihood that it would actually work out?
The first problem with this theory is that it is acting many complete assumptions and relying mainly on blind luck to pull off! Does that sound like how these perps tend to operate? Because it doesn't to me! The reason for this is simple, the camera operator could so EASILY balls it up. The animator has an image that CANNOT change size, so therefore the camera operator HAS to train the camera at an EXACT angle and an EXACT zoom at the tower in order for the animation to look correct. What if the camera operator had zoomed out again at the exact point the animator had queued? You would instead have seen a MASSIVE and obviously inserted plane image dwarf the tower! What if the operator hadn't zoomed at all, or zoomed in too much, or too little? Leaned or panned to the right, instead of the left or decided to focus on something specific?
There are simply way, way too many risks involved with this strategy. Firstly, the camera operator HAS to be knowingly involved. The operator NEEDS to be completely aware of the ENTIRE plot, that when he focuses on the tower, an animator in a control room is going to insert the image of a plane over his shot and that he needs to zoom in to a particular point and then hold steady.
How many times have tried to complete something that needed pin-point accuracy under pressure, only to mess it up the first time around? If the camera operator fluffs it, the jig is up, so to speak. So, this theory seems to me to be so over-reliant on LUCK and the ability of others to keep their cool and have pin-point precision, that it just wouldn't be feasible. So many factors could have affected that live shot (and I have only mentioned a few) in order to COMPLETELY mess up the game! And I just don't that these people would plan 9/11 so intensely and intricately, yet leave the most important shot up to CHANCE! That just doesn't fly with me. I personally believe the drifting to the right was initially deliberate, as was the nose-out "fiasco" (both are red herrings, in my opinion, to fuel various theories). And that shot, like all the others, was entirely pre-created in advance of 9/11. Working on the actual day to finalise what you would consider the most important shot of 9/11 would be ludicrous, in my opinion. The probability of failure would be so high, as for it to simply be unworkable.
You ask: if you're going to "pre-make" some of it, why not all?
DeleteThis is ludicrous. There will be some live footage captured, so that things are real enough for people to agree upon locally.
Also, perpdom doesn't tend to preplan all things. It's not like that. There are plans and there are intersections with reality. Things happen.
Sandy Hook was a bit different: it was a completely controlled event, and could be.
As to pre-setting the images of the plane:
fact is, one can set an image which occurred to have a CGI added AFTER the missile goes in. It's not hard. You don't actually have to pre MAKE the footage.
Just have a mask ready on the towers and a CGI ready to adjust the set-points for where it hits, to match the blast point.
Ironically: pre-making all footage is actually too "smart" for real people who would do this. People tend to think in ad hoc manners even when planning.
Normal newsroom and faking types would tend to think how to present the event in a controlled manner, adding things, taking away, faking some things into it to control it. They would not tend to make 103 minutes in entirety, and there are plenty of indications they did not.
But to appreciate that fact, one has to stop asking if they COULD have faked it all and say, even if they COULD have, would they really? No. No they wouldn't. It's not natural to fake a representation of all aspects.
It's more natural to have some fake witnesses on scene, some images reprocessed, some crews in the know and some not, etc.
Also, there is natural photography of the take-down of the towers; it is not "Independence Day" natural-like; it is camera-natural with white-enhancement in some shots.
DeleteThey took real images and different situations meant they doctored or partly messed up and covered up their layering tracks differently.
Ace Baker does not go far ENOUGH, but ALL-PREMADE goes too far.
Bob Bobson said :"
ReplyDeleteI am, of course, well aware of this theory (which is the same one that is espoused by Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds and a few others), and on first glance it certainly appears as if it could be possible (if you believe that purely the plane strikes were engineered and almost everything else is genuine). But, the question is, is it logical or probable? What is the likelihood weighed up against the risks of inserting the CGI and animation LIVE? "
Bob, if you have not already seen it you might want to take a look at my most recent blog post, which demonstrates 2 simple reasons as to why Ace Bakers hypothesis is wrong with [at least] regards to the famous Hezarkhani shot.
Reason 1]: the planes left wing disappears behind a building behind [i.e North of] the towers [i.e it's in the background], and..
2],in the latter part of the clip the plane image image remains completely[impossibly] stationary in the center of the frame, instead of continuing from left to right across the screen as it should,while the WTC face itself moves impossibly from right to left towards the plane image.
See :"9/11 Scams: Why Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker and Richard Hall Etc. Are Wrong About the Hezarkhani Video " : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html
Regards, obf.
The Hezarkhani video is a forgery, that has been discussed on Jim's show several times.
DeleteIt's a tiny part of the overall picture and you focus on it far too much.
So you saying Jim Fetzer is wrong about the Hezarkhani video is yet another lie, Jim has stated clearly that this video is fake, he had me on the show to discuss the fakery of this video, following up a discussion with Allan Weisbacker about the fakery of this video.
But OBF continues to lie and say Jim is wrong about this video.
The conclusion is clear- OBF is a liar.
Oh, Ian, you're being over the top as is OBF.
DeleteCome on: both of you are dealing with different decisions on the relative importance of video control and any faking (with one even saying "all fake"); you are not disagreeing as if there is no control or faking at all.
No Clare, OBF is deliberately misrepresenting what Jim said and making outright false statements.
DeleteThat makes him a liar, pure and simple.
Greenhalgh said : "But OBF continues to lie and say Jim is wrong about this video.The conclusion is clear- OBF is a liar."
ReplyDeleteHorseshit.
Fetzer's current position is that the Hez. video is genuine- that is, he claims it is a genuine video shot by Hezarkhani of a holographic plane image seen in real time performing the impossible feat of entry into the S. tower in the manner depicted.
He claims it is a genuine, real-time video with a holographic plane image that was being projected via a 2nd [cloaked] military plane, as per Richard Hall's hypothesis.
See: "Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique":
http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html
No regards, obf.
OBF, as I've stated before, your work on the Richard Hall issues is interesting, simply because some of the videos might not line up in how high the planes hit the towers,
Deletebut the fact is that if, aside from that, in some images possibly, missiles were being covered by CGI, that does not mean there was no cloaking of such missiles and no trajectories could match.
Technically this is not really a political-issues blog or an open-topic forum, but rather it is only a comment-thread site for reactions to episodes of The Real Deal. Nevertheless this site has, de facto, become an almost single-topic blog -- dedicated to answering the rhetorical question "How much conspiracy-fakery should/does Dr. Fetzer accept?"
ReplyDeleteAnd so... the fervent supporters and attackers of the Web's unrivalled video-fakery-exposing king, Simon Shack, have gravitated in droves to these highly contentious comment threads -- to use them as a battleground for the kind of lengthy and sometimes vicious (stupid and trolling) disputes that are impossible to sustain at Clues Forum (or even at Let's Roll) without falling victim to their moderators' lock-down or banning policies.
And because of her winning an enviable degree of "Fetzer Favor," Lady Clare has become a secondary focus of this verbally violent arena, what with its alternate cyber-fights centering instead on her brilliantly detailed explications of PID (or not) minutiae and grandiosities.
Of particular interest to me, a longtime (yes, obsessive) student of alternate/revisionist history, is the vehemence, simplicity and repetitiousness of so many of the personal attacks. While recent research now suggests that the worst web trolls are motivated primarily by sociopathy, the chronically anti-social mindsets of many of the most hostile visitors to this site likely account for only part of its recurrent "sh*tstorm" atmosphere, and the contributions of Mossadist/Sunstinian cubicle-warriors (with their standing orders to relentlessly attack anyone getting even remotely close to exposing mass-media fakery) should still be suspected as well.
Bless you Clare; bless you Dr. Fetzer, and bless all of you who are sincere in your searching (no matter how misguided) for the elusive and hidden truths of our troubled times. And curses upon all the trolls who would impede this search and drive away the open-minded and curious.
Honest debate, with reasoned and sourced assertions and rejoinders -- that's what we need much more of.
So Shack supporters take heart: Dr. Fetzer today accepts the likelihood of a GREAT DEAL MORE 9/11 (and elsewere!) FAKERY than he did only a couple of years ago.
And this is despite the impediments of the Shacksters' own passive/aggressive arrogance (at times) and ALL the nasty behaviour of the MSM-supporting TROLLS who keep posting here.
(Progress is also being made by supporters of the mini-nukes theory in convincing at least SOME of the fakery theorists that bogus news imagery does NOT, necessarily, preclude 9/11 being a radioactive demolition.)
Just to be clear on the issue of what Fetzer currently believes about the Hezarkhani video, here is a direct quote [02/20/14- i.e. 4 days ago] he made in the comments section of John Friends "Realist Report":
ReplyDelete"The options seem to be CGI, video compositing, or the use of holograms. I have explained (in considerable detail) why I have tentatively concluded that the use of holograms appears to be the best explanation of the data,"
http://www.john-friend.net/2014/02/the-realist-report-dr-jim-fetzer-911.html
Funny/ironic that the halfwit Greenhalgh is less aware of his fearless Fuhrers' beliefs at the present time regarding that video than myself, but given his posting content to date, fully predictable, I guess :-) .
Regards [excluding Greenhalgh, that is] obf.
where have you and all the other cgi experts been over the years bob bobson? 9/11 video fakery detection is surely bread and butter stuff to all those who make a
ReplyDeleteliving in this area, yet the number of professionals who have chimed in on this raging issue over the years is very few and far between indeed.
the planes themselves were the set up.
the 'nose out' fiasco was deliberately included in the production to steer later video fakery conspiracy theorising into the ace baker holding position, while keeping the complete media complicity/all-is-fake camp at bay until the time was 'right'. (is it right, right about now?).
the 102 minute 9/11 movie was produced well in advance.
a couple of years ago, a poster over at ATS (who knew very little about 9/11 conspiracy) created a thread in which he wrote that he worked in the rehabilitation/counselling area and had regular meetings with an ex-prisoner who consistently swore blind that while in prison, after volunteering to go on an outside job, he and a van full of prisoners were driven to some remote location where they were all put into a room with a t.v., and while waiting, they witnessed 9/11 unfold 'live' where they sat, exactly as the rest of us watched it unfold 'live' a year or so later.
it is clear to me that 'they' tested their movie and it's impact on a test audience of prisoners because who would believe such an outlandishly tall tale from the mouth of anyone, not to mind the mouth of an ex-con!?
(how cruel, eh? what a mind-fuck for those prisoners!)
the prisoner was utterly convinced himself and related that he believed that he and the other prisoners were caught up in some sort of time-slip or something similar. fakery never came to mind .
(it might be difficult to locate this thread but i will try to if anyone should request it.)
so we have been said and lead all the way from the very beginning. it was all about delaying the fact that it was all pre-fabricated footage for as long as needed be, and lots of different actors and players were placed in lots of different different areas to cover all levels of our education regarding 9/11 truth.
the truth is now settled, and i am certain that sandyhook and boston were designed to nudge
us heavily towards this truth.
the game is up.
one comment on jim's inconsistency during the show. according to him judy wood's theory won't do because it can't account for all available evidence when looked at in it's totality (trintium, strontium, piffleium etc.), but when confronted with evidence that the mini-nuke theory couldn't account for (toasted cars, stairwell B survivors etc), he claimed that the mini-nuke theory accounted for the highest percentage of collated data and could therefore be considered the most probable means by which the twin towers were demolitions.
your position is flawed at a fundamental level, jim.
but i think you know this already!
said and lead baby. said and lead.
fakery fakery everywhere
and we lap it up.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eventstudytools.com/event-study-blueprint
When debating OBF and Shack, why does no one mention Niels Harrit and University of Copenhagen, and more importantly: RJ Lee Group?
ReplyDeleteAfter the towers collapsed Deutsche Bank sued WTC for cleanup costs, alleging that dust from the towers had coated its building's interior. WTC denied the dust resulted from the events of 9/11¸ so DB hired RJ Lee to test over 100,000 samples of dust.
RJL found that the dust was rife with molten iron spheres (evenly distributed in samples), 150x more than is normal in building dust, which corroborates both Harrit's and USGS. RJL also found evidence of vaporized lead which requires temperatures of 3,180 degrees F. The suit was settled and WTC paid for cleanup.
All three studies corroborate each other, so arguments about chain of custody, government documents being faked, etc, hold no water. All three sources corroborate each other, there is no history of fraud from the sources, and there is no confluence of interest whatsoever between the sources.
In my opinion, OBF, (along with Shack and Ace Baker, who tainted the evidence they presented by making themselves look mentally ill via bizarre music videos, fake suicides , and ridiculous song segues in psy opera), is a shill and should not be taken seriously. He is here to inflame people and divide the movement, evidenced by his trolling (taunting posters, laughing at them, etc) here and extremely rude antics (such as playing guitar in the background during the debate with Don Fox and then pretending he didn't realize it was audible).
Their theories of media fakery are partially correct, but they take it too far and lead the movement into the everything-is-fake -and-there-is-no-reliable-evidence-and-no-way-to-prove-anything trap. There was plenty of fakery, but IMO the buildings were nuked and at least some people died. IMO the no-planes-nuke theory (w possible aid of nanothermite in weakening structure pre-blast) is the only theory currently viable.
Please make mention of U of Copenhagen and especially RJ Lee Group in any discussion of USGS dust samples. Also, Jim Fetzer- please allow commenting without having to have Google, Facebook, or other corporate account.
Nice post
ReplyDelete