Honestly, these Beatles songs make it impossible to post on youtube without automatic flagging. Plus WHO WANTS TO HEAR ALL THE LONELY PEOPLE THREE TIMES A WEEK????? PLEASE for god's sake, as a Former Beatle fan due to this repetition could you stop Michelle ma Belle, All the Lonely People, and all these cliche, worn out songs? Please, Silence, a ticking clock, commercials, ANYTHING.....! Also, given the Tavistock information, do you get the painful irony that compounds the tedium? THANKS JIM...other than that YOUR SHOW IS BRILLIANTLY FUN!!!!!
Really? You can't post shows on YouTube because of the Beatles songs? That comes as news to me. I suppose that would be true of Bob Dylan, Carley Simon, Barbra Streisand or any other prominent figure. Am I not right?
Interesting fun fact. Depending on the count we are in month 63 or 64 of current stock bull market. 64 is a fractal number. Many parabolic structures fail in 64 months. Mother Nature at work.
How about Across The Universe, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Come Together, A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Back In The USSR, Norwegian Wood, Yellow Submarine, just mix it up a bit and feature some different songs? The Beatles recorded enough to not have to repeat anything for a few months I think.
Alien Agenda IV: Alien Ultimatum or Final Warning ? by Preston James
"Lately this strategy has started failing as the staged mass shootings (done by Mind-kontrol) and the phony simulated ones are becoming completely exposed by astute researchers such as Professor James Fetzer with his amazing Sandy Hook work."
I find it highly disturbing that Fetzer's work is mentioned in such an article. In my mind, this seems to be attempt to undermine Fetzer's research. Connecting him with the Alien Agenda and the Draco myth.
Smells like another psi-op to me. Every year there is some big event predicted that never happens. Just like the June 22 prediction Fetzer has been touting.
Round and round we go. Where we stop nobodies knows.
Really? You can't post shows on YouTube because of the Beatles songs? That comes as news to me. I suppose that would be true of Bob Dylan, Carley Simon, Barbra Streisand or any other prominent figure. Am I not right?
I don't think they're flagged for the songs. Whole songs get posted. However, I could be wrong. Maybe cut them out if posting. -- But yes, there are more songs in the repertoire; perhaps a bit of change-up would be nice for listening pleasure (though I have no problem with Eleanor Rigby and many of the others, which fit the sadness). -- Tavistock has nothing to do with it until much later (after Paul was killed) except possibly in promotions areas.
When a copyrighted song is uploaded. It doesn't have to be the complete song. The uploader will receive a tag "matched third party copyright".
At time they block the audio to the entire clip. Other time they block access to the video. Other times it is blocked in areas of the USA or in other countries.
Other times the tag is all that happens.
I do not know how they determine how to treat the clip.
Clip out the music, then. Many people do use copyrighted materials, though. Maybe it's only if full song? And even then, how do so many vids get put up with full songs?
Clare why do you think the Tavistock had nothing to do with it until after Paul was killed. I would have thought that when paul was alive would have been when the Tavistock had most to do with it.
Why on earth would Paul McCartney and John and the others be into weirdness and spooks (knowingly), when they were amazing young friends on a roll?
PR stuff, people trying to get John on drugs, that kind of thing, yes, maybe. But not the way later, when now-Sir "McCartney" was involved, interested in (as he put it) "magic with a k", and the swinging 60s scene (cognate to Laurel Canyon in many ways) got going.
Always, too, a scene is many things to many people, even when set up and roughly corralled ("an op"). It is not "just an op" ever.
What's the problem with the Beatles music? If you don't like it - skip it!! Nobody is forcing you to listen to the music..... or to the podcasts in general. Use a video or audio player like the BSplayer app for cell phone that allows you to skip what you don't want to hear.
ngant17, all you said is Jews are Jews. Agreed. Now define 'Jews'.
Jews define themselves as individuals who choose to identify as members of the the race/nation/religion ingroup that adheres to the historic Jewish race/nation/religion identity that defined itself as a race/nation or a religion defined by supremacism, genocidal triumphs, chosen-ness, slave-holder status over all other races/nations/religions, and a few other objectively un-nice/very Jewish features.
Convoluted paragraph above, but the Jews are not a normal people. They're the only atypical people. Everyone else just sorta wants to live free and easy in their own place under the sun.
It is important to understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism.
Israel is a Zionist state rather than a Jewish one.
Far from all Jews are Zonists.
There exist Jewish organisations opposed to Zionism and the state of Israel.
Lumping all Jews together as bad people is akin to saying all Italians are gangsters because of the Italian Mafia, or saying all Catholics abuse children because many Catholic clergy are guilty of such.
Ian said ... "The Talmud is actually a collection of commentaries by senior rabbis, not a war-plan against Gentiles."
Why should we not expect a collection of commentaries by senior rabbis to be a war-plan against 'gentiles'? (The Jews' label for all non-Jews, as a foreign word, should be in quotes or italicized)
Having read most of the Talmud and come-and-hear.com that's precisely how it appeared to me.
This is non-responsive unless you quantify. I could be wrong about pretty much all Jews being Zionists or otherwise supportive of political programs that in the long-run will decimate all other nations. I could be wrong about and Jewishness being inherently disposed and designed to bring about those ends. But you don't answer those charges at all.
I repeat my viewpoint: Almost all Jews are Zionists, but even so, Zionism is known only to be a problem for Palestinians. Zionism is not a problem in Bradford, where I live. Jew-control of Britain is the problem, and race-replacement genocide is the primary symptom.
I repeat again: Jewishness is defined by adherence to an identity to that even without Zionism includes as integral and traditional elements, supremacism, race-hate, slavery, genocide, subversion of other cultures and other typically Jewish features (long before Zionism came along).
***
If Italians traced their roots to a founding event related to 'Italianist' criminality; then had made a religion of out of Mafioso 'Italianism' for thousands of years; and throughout had adhered to an ideology of gangsterism, murder, theft and so on, that they called 'being Italian'; and Italians today still chose to call themselves Italian, and so keep these destructive impulses alive and destroying, I would bitch about ongoing Italian-ness.
BUT LIKE I SAID, no other people has these elements of hate, supremacism, criminality, genocide, theft, and so on, bound up in their national identity. It would be quite wrong to associate the average Italian with the Mafia.
Not so with the average Jew, who chooses not to reject Jewishness the way the average Italian rejects the far less harmful on a global scale Mafia (despite Italians outnumbering Jews even in diaspora). Jews cleave to that supercharged-mafioso-like identity, even though its religious festivals celebrate genocide, even though its centrist politics mean ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the genocide of White people.
By any objective measure Jews are a damn site worse than the Italian Mafia, Ian.
Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
If we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots.
The maxim 'know thy enemy' is very true, therefore we should try to develop an understanding of what we are up against and I can see from some of the comments here that is not the case.
It's not a case of IF Israel will use nukes in a false flag again, but WHEN.
Prediction is fraught with danger, but it seems inevitable to me that some large and horrific event is in the works. Dick Cheney has predicted something that will be 'far deadlier' than 9/11 is coming:
Nukes are just fiction, Ian. You cannot even find an epicenter or any Ground Zero in Hiroshima, in ANY of the historical films or photos from that event. The smoke plume that reportedly rose to 40000 feet must have consisted of materials from the ground, but not any traces of any huge mega explosion there. The evidence is clearly consistent with firebombing. Just go to Google Images and search for hiroshima ground zero, and you will see that nothing that can resemble 1 huge explosion there will come up - nothing. That Hiroshima was nuked, is just a rumor. So when was the first real nuke blast then? How about never?
If you study the reported story on the Hiroshima nuke bombing, you will see that it is just like a movie script. We have this huge task that had to be done in a oh so short time. But there were heroes, and they struggled and struggled, and was able to complete the project just in time. It all went so well - just like in the movies. Very thrilling story.
After you understand that nukes are fiction, you will look at the news in a very different way.
The Hiroshima bomb exploded at an altitude o 1,900 feet destroying everything in a 1 mile radius and causing fires that destroyed 4.4 square miles. The only buildings left standing were a few reinforced concrete structures that had been built very strongly so as to survive earthquakes.
Anyways, it's pointless arguing with el bullshito because he's nothing more than a lowlife shill who's purpose is to spread disinfo about nuclear weapons because the Zionist pigs don't want people to find out they nuked NYC on 9/11.
Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
If we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots.
The gigantic smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the telegrams, and must have consisted of materials from the ground - many many thousands tons. 40000 feet is up there with the trans-continental jets, so it is a significant altitude for a smoke plume!
There should be some traces below the reported mega explosion, but there isn't. Again, no traces of any epicenter in any of the published films or photos from the event. Look for yourself. Here is a panorama compilation from Hiroshima: http://tinyurl.com/khpazf9
Where is that epicenter or Ground Zero there Ian? Why cant we spot it? Notice all the not so earthquake proof brick chimneys still standing, and the very clean streets. Will see the same in the aerial photos - very clean streets. The rubble should have been more evenly spread out from the epicenter, and across the streets, etc, but no. In other photos, you will see that all bridges were intact, and no damages to the riverfront, among other things.
I'll donate $100 to Jim if you can find or show us any traces of any epicenter or some discernable Ground Zero in any historical films or photos from the event, but you cant, Ian, you aren't able to, you cant do that, Ian. So no traces of this REPORTED mega explosion in any films or photos from that event, is what we have to conclude. Witnesses don't count, Ian - don't bother.
I have a business acquaintance who is Jewish and also a friend. A small Torah or Mezuzah scroll is kept in front of the door to her house. A kind and honest person. She is not Orthodox, but more of a Liberal. Normal values, could be your neighbor next door.
It's sad to read so much hate about someone's ethnicity here.
El Buggo said :"Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
If we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots....."
I had to laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of Greenhorn's comment- good to see you notice it as well and hurl it right back in his face, Bug; you beat me to it. :-)
@ Ian; The Hiroshima bomb exploded at an altitude o 1,900 feet destroying everything in a 1 mile radius and causing fires that destroyed 4.4 square miles. The only buildings left standing were a few reinforced concrete structures that had been built very strongly so as to survive earthquakes.
Anyways, it's pointless arguing with el bullshito because he's nothing more than a lowlife shill who's purpose is to spread disinfo about nuclear weapons because the Zionist pigs don't want people to find out they nuked NYC on 9/11.
Wherever it was meant to explode, in the air or on the ground,it would have had to explode at one location. The devastation should have been epicentric, away from the impact, as is the case with impact explosions. This is not the case judging from the photos. One has to assume that authentic imagery was used to sell it rather than fully fabricated. At any way, the pictures are the answer, which is a shame since it was the only visible prove of nuclear weapons, non counting nuclear submarines that is.
Look at it from this perspective. As you search Manhattan Project almost every name that pops up is Jewish. Zion is selling you porkies. Bon Appetite amigo.
“I never heard an enlisted man in the 509th use the words ‘atom bomb’ or ‘atomic bomb’ or ‘A-bomb.’ Everyone in the squadron called it ‘The Gimmick.’ During the months of their secret work they had to have a name for the vague something that they were supposed to be working on, and when somebody referred to it as ‘The Gimmick’ that name stuck.” — From the article, “The Week the War Ended,” LIFE magazine, 7/17/1950
Read more: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Photos From the Ruins, 1945 | LIFE.com http://life.time.com/history/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-photos-from-the-ruins/#ixzz35c0Ckts1
Well, those that need to know and whose opinions actually matter, they know full well I'm no shill or Jew lover or whatever else I'm being labelled. Those that are pointing fingers are most likely shills themselves so I don't care.
If they weren't so disgusting, your words would be hilarious.
People like you who are ignorant, bigoted and filled with hate are precisely what we don't need.
One major reason being that it makes it all the more easy for the Zionists and their Jewish brethren to dismiss our criticisms of them as nothing more that ignorant, irrational, bigoted hatred.
Ian The Jew Cannot Stop Lying & Denying Obvious Fact He's Jew, Ho Ho Ho
Ian: didn't I just essentially PROVE, by means of inductive logic and evidence, u're Jew w. capital J? Ho ho ho--and u don't disprove it either, do u?--lying and whining, name-calling and more lying.
And u'e soooooooooooooo wounded, u can't leave the issue over ur being obvious Jew alone, can u?--even as u insistently and repeatedly deny it's "important," ho ho ho ho ho
"The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”- Joseph Goebbels
I suppose a person's ethnicity is largely determined by native language. So someone whose native language is Hebrew or Yiddish (German mixed into Hebrew), then you could that person a Jew.
But I am sure there are Jewish atheists(i.e., Karl Marx, Isaac Asimov, Franz Kafka, et. al) or Jewish agnostics(Edward Teller, Richard Faynman, et.al) who speak Hebrew as their native tongue, so you couldn't define them by religion per se, as apsterian is suggesting.
People are basically good, no matter what culture or ethnic group they come from. We as humans do tend to have a self-destructive gene which is symptomatic by our bellicose, war-mongering nature, but I believe we will eventually evolve to a more peaceful species.
Hilarious, Shack accusing us of the exact same tactic he has been employing for years!
You're not only a liar Shack but you're also a coward, every time you get challenged to a debate you hide behind pathetic excuses like 'me so sorry, I no speekee the good Engleesh' when what you really mean is you're not so stupid as to attempt to defend your untenable bullshit on front of an audience against someone who would tear you into pieces by using logic and presenting properly research facts.
A condensation cloud a.k.a. Wilson cloud needs air temperatures of below the dew point to form, yet for supposed atom bomb explosions Wilson clouds form despite the alleged massive heat radiation. How does that compute? My guess is that atom bomb explosions have been faked by using several tons of ordinary explosives, hence the formation of Wilson clouds.
Rubbish. The largest explosion of conventional explosives was by the Royal Navy when they blew up the former u-boat base on the island of Heligoland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland#Explosion
That was 6,700 tonnes of explosives and even that was nothing like an atom bomb, no mushroom cloud, no heat and blast waves as seen from nuclear explosions.
There have been a few bigger conventional explosions, but they were all explosions of ships full of munitions of fertiliser, again they looked nothing like a nuclear explosion.
Here is the newsreel of the Heligoland explosion, it looks absolutely nothing like any nuclear explosion:
Nothing like an atomic explosion, no pyroclastic cloud, this is just utter nonsense.
This Nuke Hoax hypothesis is based on squinting at some videos and photographs and perceiving some inconsistencies that are perhaps best explained by deciding that the videos and photos have been faked in some way then jumping to the conclusion that if the imagery is fake, then the existence of nuclear technology is a hoax.
Clearly, such a hypothesis is untenable because it is based on invalid research.
In order to make his research into nuclear technology valid, Shack must greatly widen the scope of his research so that it includes a great deal of other evidence and information. Once he has carried out an exhaustive program of research that attempts to include and assess every possible piece of evidence then he can attempt to form a valid hypothesis.
Unless Shack carries out a program of research which adheres to the proper scientific method, then his 'Nuke Hoax' hypothesis is not worthy of even a cursory examination, in short, it is just spurious nonsense that we shouldn't give the time of day to.
Off the top of my head, some avenues of research that Shack should explore:
The physical evidence of nuclear explosions, which includes:
the many craters that exist in the Nevada desert and Khazakstan as a reslt of the nuclear explosions carried out by the USA and USSR. vitfrified soils and rocks produced by the intense heat of these nuclear explosions the sunken ships in the lagoon of Bikini Atoll sunk in hydrogen bomb tests the large hole in Bikini Atoll created by a hydrogen bomb test the existence of radiation, fallout, rare isotopes and other by-products of nuclear explosions the huge numbers of birth defects in Khazakstan as a result of exposure of parents to the effects of atmospheric nuclear testing the seismograph readings that show earth tremors occurring at the same time as nuclear tests were stated to have taken place the huge numbers of birth defects and rare forms of cancer suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the existence of enriched uranium in hair samples taken from the parents of babies born with birth defects in Fallujah in the last few years the existence of a large number of decommissioned and rusting nuclear submarines at several sites throughout the former USSR the presence of persistent forms of radiation within the Chernobyl exclusion zone
The eyewitness testimony of people who were involved in the development and testing of nuclear technologies, people such as: Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who, in the 1980s revealed the true nature of the work being carried out at the Dimona facility in the Negev Desert and who has been persecuted and imprisoned ever since the tens of thousands of American, Russian, British, Australian and French ex-military who witnessed or participated in nuclear tests the writings of scientists who were involved in the development of nuclear weapons, in particular Andrei Sakharov and J Robert Oppenheimer, two of the leading scientists in the USSR and USA nuclear weapons programmes who later deeply regretted their involvement and spoke out against the nuclear arms race.
That's very far from an exhaustive list of things that need to be considered and researched before being able to form a valid hypothesis regarding the existence of nuclear technologies but even this incomplete list clearly illustrates the massive task it would be to properly research the subject, for one person working alone, it would take a lifetime of dedication.
Simply squinting at imagery then dreaming up a radical hoax hypothesis simply won't cut it, sensible, rational people should only consider hypotheses that have been formed from careful study and evaluation of a vast body of research.
So again, I must point out that Shack's hypothesis is utterly untenable because he has completely overlooked the vast majority of available evidence and made no attempt whatsoever at applying proper scientific research methodologies.
I am not attacking Shack on a personal level, I am attacking the hypothesis he puts forward and the research (or lack of it) that supports his hypothesis, both of which are so utterly flawed and invalid that they are deserving of nothing more than scorn and derision for attempting to masquerade as worthwhile and valid.
Isn't it odd Ian, that the biggest explosion in the history of war didn't leave a trace of it on the ground? Did you know that Ian, no traces on the ground of the biggest explosion in the history of war? How can you make yourself believe something like that Ian? And even worse, how can you expect us to believe this nonsense? No traces of the biggest reported explosion in the history of war, and no traces of it on the ground. No crater, no epicenter and no Ground Zero in any of the historical films or photos of the event. Yet, the gigantic smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the reports.
I offered to donate $100 to Jim if you could point out this epicenter or Ground Zero in the footage, but even you couldn't do it. How about $200 Ian?
Every film you have watched of these nuclear bomb test are silly Disney animations, created in the Lookout Mountain Studio by animation artists. Every one of them have obviously fake audio track - we still don't know what a nuke explosion sounds like. You can locate that video, Ian.
Don't forget that all the Hiroshima reports we have came from the same very controlled source; US Military. The censorship in Japan was severe in the time after the occupation. What a perfect environment this was for another Große Lüge. Still fiercely defended by people like you, Ian.
Again Ian, I suspect you as usual will behave like the Black Knight in this Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Ian, we don't have to investigate all what you suggest. If they lied about Hiroshima, the rest of the story could be a lie too, of course. We should investigate how the story begun, and how it developed. This is the advise Aristotle gave us. And Hiroshima was the first public demonstration of this new monster weapon, they have claimed. And we don't have so many other nuclear wars to study you know. According to the gospel, the weapon is too dangerous to be demonstrated or used I wars - so they are able to keep the bombes in their bunkers, without people getting suspicious.
I have a much more dangerous weapon in my basement, but I'm not going to tell you about it or demonstrated it, but stay away from me, or else...
One of the funniest part of these nuke reports is the vastly different crater sizes these reported explosions created. Caste Bravo: "crater is 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (76 m) in depth": http://14mev.blogspot.no/2013/10/blog-post.html
While the Hiroshima crater has never been found, and the Trinity crater is just a joke: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_001.jpg
Have a look at that incredible stupid cartoonish animation of that test explosion too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Trinity_Test_Fireball_16ms.jpg
There isn't any seismograms to be found of any nuke tests, Ian, and that is one of the huge problems with the story. No seismograms from any of the hundred earthquake stations in Japan, nothing after the Tsar bomb, and nothing for Castle Bravo. How often have you seen they have promoted seismograms in these stories, Ian? How about never? For one or another reason they aren't promoting seismograms in this hoax. I guess it is because they have a hard time controlling all these earthquake stations everywhere. Earthquakes are never only detected by 1 seismograph, and they kind of have to be somewhat consistent to be credible. So no seismograms are available of any nuke test anywhere. Very fishy too.
Ian, El Buggo has exposed himself as a typical bargaining, wheedling Jew with his offer of $100 and now $200. Ian, ignore this flat foot desert nomad El Buggo and his 30 pieces of stolen silver. Goddamnit, Ian! You're British and you're not for sale - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. Never!!
No matter how many times you repeat the same old bullshit about Hiroshima it remains bullshit.
I've answered these questions before so it would just be a waste of my time to repeat those answers, not least because you will just ignore them yet again.
Why does Simon Shack promote his hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a hoax when it is very clear that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary?
Who would stand to gain from convincing people that nuclear weapons don't exist? - Obviously, it is those who are using nuclear weapons to commit horrific crimes of terrorism and mass murder.
Let me suggest what the most obvious answers (to me, at least) are:
The Zionists, primarily those in Israel (the global HQ of the Zionists) and those who have infiltrated and subverted the US government plus their mostly Jewish Neocon allies/servants in the US are those who are using nuclear weapons, we have very strong evidence that they have used nuclear weapons in Oklahoma City (the destruction or the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building), NYC (the destruction of the WTC), Washington, DC (the bombing of the Pentagon), Baghdad Airport and Fallujah, Iraq, Homs and at least one other locale in Syria.
Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
El Buggo is nothing more than a shill who works to spread the Shack 'Nuke Hoax' BS.
Yiddish was corrupted Lower German, modern Hebew is a construct created just after the foundation of Israel from Yiddish, English and Ancient Hebrew.
No-one apart from a small number of Rabbis and scholars spoke Hebrew, it was a dead language, the Judaic scriptures were written in it, but it wasn't spoken anymore, much like Aramaic which is the language some of the Christian scriptures are written in but has been a dead language for a very long time.
The reason for creating modern Hebrew was to make it seem like these European Ashkenazi Khazar Jews were actually descended from the Ancient Hebrews - it wuld have seemed very suspicious if they were still speaking Yiddish, German, Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Russian, Ukranian, all Eastern European languages that have no link to Hebrew.
For the same reason, the European Jews who migrated to Israel changed their names to sound Hebrew rather than Eastern European. For instance, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi was born Yitzhak Shimshelevich in Russia, Zalman Shazar was born Zalman Rubashov in Belarus and Ephraim Katzir was born Efraim Katchalski in Ukraine.
The other reason for changing their names was part of the Holocaust lie - a lot of the Jews who supposedly died just emigrated and changed their names.
The invention of modern Hebrew and the adoption of Hebrew names is all part of the big lie that Israel was founded on - you have a bunch of Eastern European Khazars masquerading as the descendants of the tribes of Israel when in fact they have zero ethnic or genealogical link and the only actual link is that their Khazar forebears adopted the Hebrew faith of Judaism in 740AD.
So when you see these Jewish Khazar settlers standing on the occupied territories shouting about how this is their land given to them by God, they are lying, a total and utter lie, their homeland if you trace their lineage is Eastern Europe and before that, the North Caucasus and Central Asian Steppe of Southern Russia from which they were driven out by the Rus over a millenia ago.
Ian, those that are pointing fingers are most likely shills themselves, I recently learned.
The problem is that we haven't gotten past Hiroshima yet. The evidence is clearly consistent with firebombing, and not any single huge explosion like an atomic bomb. It is pure fiction, according to the evidence. And we should study how the story begun and how it developed if we want to understand anything, that according to Aristotle.
You haven't explained it at all Ian, why there isn't any traces on the ground after the biggest explosion in the history of war. What we see is consistent with firebombing. Have a look at Tokyo and Yokohama - very consistent impressions. Isn't it annoying that you cant do that Ian? That you aren't able too? Even if Jim should get a not so insignificant donation to his causes?
One reason that you cannot do this Ian, is because there isn't anything to be found. Pretty simple explanation really.
So if they faked the Hiroshima story, when was the first real nuke blast then? Or did they simply lie abut the rest of the story too? Aviating yours, Ian.
It is raining nukes these days, according to you Ian. Why should we believe that, if you cannot event present a credible case for the Hiroshima nuking? No traces on the ground after the biggest explosion in the history of war? What's next? Another Spaghetti Monster?
Nuke revisionism started in the Liberty Forum in 2005: http://tinyurl.com/mxgzpvk
For more: NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews (1h52min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0
Ok, I'll tell you about it - it is a remote control for meteorites. When I find out where you live, I can steer the next incoming meteorite right at your position. Well, unfortunately, I cant tell how large the next incoming meteorite is, so I kind of have not total control on the size of the impact, so I may take out the entire island or worse, instead of only Yorkshire. So I have found it to be too dangerous to be used in a day to day fight. But I may change my mind if I get mad at you!
Why don't you believe my fairytale, but when someone else claim they have a weapon too dangerous to be used or demonstrated, you swallow it all?
Do you have any comments on why it is impossible to find or identify any traces on the ground after the biggest reported explosion in the history of war, in any of the published films or photos of the event? Why is this so impossible? Everybody knows that a nuke exploded in Hiroshima, and yet, the footage supports only plain old fasioned conventional firebombing. Weird, isn't it? What COULD it imply?
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire: the movie Dr. Strangelove was a propaganda hit piece devised to promote the idea that nuclear weapons are real. Ha ha.
You mean all those bomb pits north of the Las Vegas valley are fake?? Thats great!!
I'll run out this weekend to Southern Utah and tell all those families with the two headed babies and massive leukemia rates that every things just peachy keen.
Two headed babies aren't specific for nukes, nor is leukemia. You are hyperventilating again, chris.
Pits? You can make pits with excavators. Dig a deep hole, and blame it on a nuke. Almost everyone will believe that if you can get the story aired on the news networks a few million times.
Dude, you watched a video, I live in the middle of nuke detonation central.
My family flew the damn things around the periphery of the the old Soviet Union for a decade and a half and sat on 30 second stand by at Carswell in '62 ready to hit Cuba with 32 half megaton sparklers.
LeMay (my parents had dinner at his house and I'll bet everything I own yours didnt) wasnt ever going to sit by and watch the army invade Cuba, they were gonna sink the fewking island.
But prattle on my man. Dont know what you get out of peddling nonsense but you should go back and report that you cant get so much as a toe hold round these parts. Stir it up and muddy the water, certainly. But I havent seen y'all get even a second glance from the folk who wander through.
Oh and by the by, Hiroshima was a piddling 11.5 kt, Nagasaki was 22 kt. Hence Nagasaki and not Hiroshima was the largest explosion of the war. Im pretty sure Trinity was bigger then Hiroshima, wiki (lol) says 20 kt, so I'll take that with the wiki caveat
Oh so you live close to the Lügenfabrik. Fail to see exactly what advantage that should give you. Have you seen anything we haven't seen?
Possible that you family flew some boxes labeled nukes. That is one trick to make them appear as real. 30 seconds stand by? I bet they believed that is was real too.
Fail to see the relevance of that your family had dinner with LeMay. I'm closer to the Pope then you are, so what?
Yeah, I know you nuke hoax deniers are pissed.
Truman told us that they were both 20kt. I understand that there are some kt deflation to easier get away from the missing crater and epicenter and Ground Zero in Hiroshima. There isn't any traces of one huge explosion in Nagasaki either. Looks firebombed too, just like Tokyo and Yokohama and Hiroshima. So anyway, there isn't any specific traces on the ground created by the far biggest reported explosions in the history of war history.
Trinity crater was a total joke. Haven't you even noticed that?
"Just to throw some gasoline on the fire: the movie Dr. Strangelove was a propaganda hit piece devised to promote the idea that nuclear weapons are real. Ha ha."
Yes Anders, and did you know that the premiere (or first test screening) of "Dr Strangelove" was originally scheduled for November 22, 1963 - the day of the JFK shooting? I am sure you will enjoy reading this little article of mine :
DOCTOR STRANGELOVE and ...JFK http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2382583#p2382583
If Shack isn't a shill then he must be absolutely insane.
No other excuse for the utter nonsense that spews forth from him.
Dr Strangelove is a satire designed to be a protest against the madness of the policy of mutually assured destruction where the USSR and USA had targeted each other with thousands of nuclear warheads that if they ever used would bring an end to civilisation and most likely, human life on this planet. Kubrick was anti-war, hence he made Paths Of Glory in 1956,which stands alongside Lewis Milestone's All Quiet On The Western Front as the most powerful anti-war movie ever made.
Why does Simon Shack promote his hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a hoax when it is very clear that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary?
Who would stand to gain from convincing people that nuclear weapons don't exist? - Obviously, it is those who are using nuclear weapons to commit horrific crimes of terrorism and mass murder.
Let me suggest what the most obvious answers are:
The Zionists, primarily those in Israel (the global HQ of the Zionists) and those who have infiltrated and subverted the US government plus their mostly Jewish Neocon allies/servants in the US are those who are using nuclear weapons, we have very strong evidence that they have used nuclear weapons in Oklahoma City (the destruction of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building), NYC (the destruction of the WTC), Washington, DC (the bombing of the Pentagon), Baghdad Airport and Fallujah, Iraq, Homs and at least one other locale in Syria.
Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
WTF? "Jews are murderers" because of literal content in a holy book? This is the same as "Muslims are murderers" because -- and moreso right now -- some are literalists.
Christ. Or should I say, again, WTF?
You are not speaking truth, Apsterian or Steve.
FOCUS ON BANKSTER ELITES, INCL AND ESPECIALLY ROTHSCHILDS AND AFFILIATES - which includes fanatics in Israel - but each group incl parts of Isr, has own flavour and many are not Jewish, nor are all the Jewish affiliates thinking they're "working for Rothschilds and similar types".
And, of course, Stanley Kubrick's death (conveniently scheduled just before his Illuminati-expose'/celebration movie EYES WIDE SHUT was re-cut by Warners) took place precisely 666 days before the arrival of the Illuminati-festival year of 2001!
At last, I found answers to my all my questions to Dr. Fetzer about his 9/11 theory at Fakeologist's website. Greatest podcast ever. If you want some comic relief and education at the same time, tune into this:
You're so utterly, pathetically deluded to make such an obvious and crass attempt at promoting Shack and OBF who all the honest, rational and informed listeners here know full well are nothing more than a pair of ass clown who are worthy of nothing but scorn and derision because nothing they have ever said has been of any value whatsoever. Every theory they put forward is untenable nonsense based on wholly invalid research.They make zero attempt to follow the proper scientific method of research in any way, shape or form and have proved absolutely incapable of defending any of their nonsense against honest researchers.
They are utter clowns who contribute zero of value and give the truth movement a bad name by pretending to be serious researchers.
This shameless plugging of Shack and his cronies is the final nail in the coffin of your credibility Joan, you have shown us all your true colours now and we can all see exactly what you are and it's thoroughly unpleasant and disgusting, just like the people you are promoting.
@Joan Edwards I agree that the WTC towers were brought down by ordinary explosives (plus thermite). But Simon says that the footage of the tower collapses are fake! Here I agree with Jim Fetzer that the collapse videos and photos are real.
That CNN clip shows a collage of repeated moments of the collapse, with rewound sequences. It's similar to how explosions in Hollywood movies often are repeated several times.
The problem is that that was what was shown live, Anders. How can a producer edit something like that live? Can you make yourself believe this was an authentic broadcast Anders? It was prerecorded of course, not "live". They couldn't take a chance that the collapse sequence would not support the previous parts of the story. Prerecording=total control.
Hmm... It says 10:28 under the Live logo. Could have been live footage of the collapse. But those are feeds from separate cameras, each of which can have a different delay.
Ian, your uber-emotional, ad hominem attacks on the Shacksters (and well-meaning Joan) do not provide useful light, only extreme heat.
I too am distressed by their taunting ridicule of the (non-photographic) evidence for 9/11 nukes, and you've done some fine investigative work in this critical area.
But the massive evidence of 9/11 fakery the Clues Crew HAVE put forward, regarding bogus victims, planes, witnesses, phone calls, still photos and videos CANNOT be debunked by the sort of irrational ranting you seem to specialise in, whenever the name Shack is invoked.
So calm down and show us, if you can, precisely where they have erred in claiming fakery.
You've a very sharp mind, Ian, so let's see it perform in a more rational and far less emotional manner.
Well, I simply exhausted my patience for these people quite a while ago, so now I have nothing left for them but scorn and derision and to be honest, they don't deserve any better, they are truly disgusting entities who seek to aid those who perpetrated a horrific mass murder using weapons of mass destruction.
Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
Using nuclear weapons to incinerate two towers full of innocent Americans is both an event of mass murder and an attack on a sovereign nation by a foreign power. This is a clear justification for declaring war on the perpetrators and if the American public knew the truth - that Israel nuked NYC then they would have been clamouring to go to war with Israel, just as they were out for Japan's blood after Pearl Harbour.
Demolishing two empty towers with dynamite and not killing anyone in the process is a whole different kettle of fish. No murders were committed, no attack by a foreign power with WMDs was carried out. Demolishing empty towers behind a smokescreen would basically be a case of insurance fraud.
So, on the one hand, we have the crimes of mass murder and undeclared attack by a foreign power and on the other, we have the crime of insurance fraud. The latter being a far lesser crime than the former.
Shack and his work are a sick joke, and will always remain so unless he completely alters his way of working and actually does some scientifically valid research following proper scientific methods, i.e. including ALL available evidence in his study and forming a hypothesis based on ALL of that evidence, not just some cherry picked photos and also welcoming peer review. His nuke theory ignores all the physical evidence such as the craters in Nevada and Khazakhstan, the eyewitness testimony of tens of thousands of ex-servicemen, the hundreds of thousands of cases of cancers caused by nuclear tests, the hundreds of thousands of birth defects and any other form of evidence.
Bottom line, Shack has produced nothing of any worth or value, all he has done is waste a lot of people's time, therefore I think that the only question that really needs to be answered about him is whether he is just a hopelessly arrogant, conceited and incompetent idiot or if he is deliberately putting out his nonsense because he is being paid to do so. Either way, the man is nothing but a detriment to the truth movement.
Black Knight it is. Where are your supporters Ian? All there is is a bunch of uncivilized bumps. You are the last soldier standing or fallen for that matter. They didn't need to kill anyone, just pretend they did.
What happened to the hole in Hiroshima. The pictures show destruction spread equally over vast area with no focal centre anywhere. I don't want a hole in Canada or somewhere or "the vast body of evidence" just a hole in Hiroshima would do or epicentre of sorts. I didn't even see the pictures from Hiroshima. Your debunking is enough to convince me. So keep up the good work mate.
Ian, that the reported explosion went of at an altitude of 1800 feet, is not a good enough explanation for the missing traces on the ground. The smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the reports, and contained several thousand tons of materials from the ground. There must be some traces on the ground of this if their story is going to hang together. That it all hangs together is really important as you know.
That so-called atom bomb made less damage than the raid over Tokyo several months earlier. Aside the cost of building the B-29, the cost for firebombing Tokyo and destroying 4 times as much territory was just under one million dollars. Why would anyone build a billion dollar bomb to accomplish what several B-29 could accomplish for less than one million dollars? Nobody, because that is exactly how they destroyed Hiroshima, the same way they destroyed a huge chunk of Tokyo.
The pictures show destruction spread equally over vast area of what is Hiroshima. That is the crux of the matter. Even if something fictional like that exploded with that kind of destructive energy in the air it would still leave a pattern of destruction projected onto the ground. Hence the focal centre is still expected to have been found.
Besides why should it explode in the air and not on the ground. This weapons were apparently designed to have been triggered by impact. They chose Hiroshima because it is surrounded by hills to cause as much damage as possible. The blast wave would have been kept within the area. Why would they explode it in the air then? Now I feel like and idiot talking fiction as reality.
You are talking utter nonsense, quite clearly you have zero knowledge of the event and are just spouting whatever rubbish passes through your warped brain.
The bomb was set to detonate at a specific altitude as this would maximise the damage, but if you had actually researched he facts, you would know this.
Hiroshima was not chosen due to hills, neither was Nagasaki, although in the case of Nagasaki, the bomb was dropped off target and exploded over a valley so the damage was confined to that valley.
The story simply is impossible, Ian. You cannot destroy a city, with 1 big explosion, and expect rational people to believe that there should be no traces on the ground that could confirm this claim. We are talking about the biggest explosions in the history of war history here.
The boy who claimed that the dog ate his homework is more believable than this nuke story.
What is to be researched here? All is in the pictures and consistent with fire bombing destruction from other places from the second world war. Supposedly, a detonation in the air of a "nuke" would leave no pattern on the ground and that you could not tell apart such a place from another that was fire bombed. And there you have it. Perhaps a more peaceful sport for a change? https://www.gov.uk/buy-a-uk-fishing-rod-licence
Joan Edwards said:"At last, I found answers to my all my questions to Dr. Fetzer about his 9/11 theory at Fakeologist's website. Greatest podcast ever. If you want some comic relief and education at the same time, tune into this:
Thank you for reminding me about that show Joan. I had forgotten all about it, and how much fun we all had doing it, so it was good to hear it again.
Fakeologist [AbIrato] is a great host, a natural, I'd say, and deserves a far wider audience than he currently receives- it was an honor for me to be asked to be on his show, especially alongside Simon, and especially considering Simon's awesome, encyclopedic knowledge of nearly ALL of the to-date released 9/11 imagery- about which [obviously]he could have easily talked about and kept us all educated/entertained without any input whatsoever from myself, if needed.
Anders Lindman said: "@Joan Edwards I agree that the WTC towers were brought down by ordinary explosives (plus thermite). But Simon says that the footage of the tower collapses are fake! Here I agree with Jim Fetzer that the collapse videos and photos are real."
Have you studied the archived television footage shown live to the public on 9/11? I haven't. I was just reminded by listening to this podcast that the actual footage run by the networks was released to the public in 2010 under the FOIA. I didn't even know that.
This is the first true 9/11 evidence we have ever seen and no one knows about it. I have only been able to look at the first hours of the alleged plane hit and tower demolitions.
Shack, on the other hand, has devoted thousands of hours to studying these images. He mentions here he has just found six inconsistencies in the collapse videos.
The photography on the collapse is too ridiculous to believe. You'll have some laughs listening to how these shots were taken.
Why do you think so many people seem to know so much about what happened to the towers who haven't even seen the real evidence which is the archived footage?
Before scholars like Ian put down real researchers, they ought to do a little research of their own.
Joan Edwards said : "I was just reminded by listening to this podcast that the actual footage run by the networks was released to the public in 2010 under the FOIA. I didn't even know that. "
If I understood you correctly Joan, then I believe that you have misunderstood what Simon said in the interview concerned [easily done].
The network footage was originally archived on line long before 2010 [2003 I'd say, without actually re-checking].
That is , all of the claimed "live" footage from ABC,NBC,CBS Fox and CNN for the morning of 9/11.
What Simon was saying was that in 2009-10 a "pretend" [ie false] Freedom Of Information Act [F.O.I.A.] request was filed by, if I remember correctly, the N.I.S.T. itself, against ABC, claiming that that network still had unreleased 9/11 footage.
This gave the N.I.S.T. the "legitimate" excuse to then release a flood of higher definition videos in 2010, and to claim that this newly released material was all,until then being supposedly hidden by ABC.
The whole point of the fake FOIA request was to allow the N.I.S.T. to flood the internet and assorted media with a fresh shitload of new, higher def., 100% faked video imagery purportedly from that day, in order to further reinforce the "reality" of the psyop in the general publics "mind".
In other words, there was no video material that had been hidden by ABC, it was all a scam, just a handy excuse for the N.I.S.T. to dump more fake imagery into the public conciousness, imagery that had been manufactured en masse by the N.I.S.T. and cohorts , using the newer software by then available that would enable greater [fake] detail than was possible in the original fake "live" network imagery.
Oh, I get it, OBF. Now I remember. There was so much on that three hour cast to absorb. I had been looking for something "original" broadcast by the networks and must have assumed it didn't exist. Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies. SC clues did and that was in 2009, right?
Anyway, here's what I wrote because it is just recently I discovered the footage was sorted by network.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OBF, it all came together for me listening to that podcast--all of Dr. Fetzer's points such as "we have the toasted cars" etc. Yes, we have A PICTURE of toasted cars. There's also a bunch of them under a highway ramp looking as if just towed there.
I've been working on 9/11 since it happened. I knew immediately planes could not have been used. I have a long background reading books on the covert activities of the American Gestapo, the FBI/CIA, plus overt actions here at home by other agencies. I have followed all the alternative news I could find these past decades. So that may account for my non-surprise.
So, 9/11 was to me just another black operation to me. What bothered me was I didn't think it was important enough to tape. As I tried to research it, I really regretted it.
This is why I'm so thrilled with these videos which make research so much easier I only found out about them a year or so ago. Just the variation in the plane CGIs is enough to call these tapes simulated fakes.
I see the problem Shack has is in getting the message out. His graphics could be better. (I was taken by Ace Baker's videos. I didn't know at the time I watched it the message was different.) Baker was the first to do an accurate simulation of what would happen to a plane hitting the WTC. A good answer to the stupid Purdue simulation.
Joan Edwards said : "Oh, I get it, OBF. Now I remember. There was so much on that three hour cast to absorb. I had been looking for something "original" broadcast by the networks and must have assumed it didn't exist. Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies. SC clues did and that was in 2009, right? "
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here Joan, but I will attempt to answer anyway.
The mass of new , high res., post FOIA "request" NIST material [i.e re-rendered videos and still photos] was dumped on us [the general public] in 2010.
The differing plane trajectories were however, clearly visible [on comparison] in the original , lower res.,lower quality TV Network archives that had been on line since around 2003 or 4 at :
https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/
As far as I can recall, Simon had in fact uncovered those varying plane trajectories seen in the original "live" archived on line network footage well before 2009.
Joan Edwards said : "Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies."
To be clear, there were/are NO "planes inserted into any of the footage" .
As Simon has repeatedly demonstrated, ALL of the original network footage [archived on line], consists only of broadcasts of 100% digitally created, fake "live" footage - that is: the sky, the foreground, the background, all buildings , helicopters, birds, trees, explosions, fires, smoke etc. plus all images of Fl. 175 both before, during, and after collision with the WTC2 included.
All images seen were/are 100% digital fabrications.
The same is true for all original archived "live" imagery broadcast in 2001 after the "2nd strike" and before the building collapses, and also for all of the supposedly broadcast "live" building collapse sequences themselves [WTC1,2 and 7]
The exact same is true of all of the extant higher res. NIST FOIA footage [and stills thus derived] that was subsequently mass-released in 2010, the main purpose of which, as I previously stated, was to reinforce the psyop in the publics mind via the publication of more finely detailed [fake] imagery.
Back in the mid-1970s, when communications satellite links began to replace terrestrial microwave towers and buried coaxial cables for distributing TV network feeds to local stations in the USA, the paradigm of live-transmission (from whatever program streams were originating in each network's master-control room in NYC) continued virtually seamlessly.
Of course by the 1970s, those master-control program streams consisted mainly of the playback of previously created films or tapes rather than actual "live" material, the practise of telecasting "live" dramas, sitcoms, game shows, soap operas, etc. having been largely discontinued in the early 1960s.
Yet the vast majority of network newscasts, in which an anchor/presenter reads a news script (between various pre-recorded story segments) plus sporting events, awards shows (Emmy, Oscar, Tony, etc.) and high-profile "breaking news" coverage (where field correspondents report from the scene in "real time") continued to be done "live," with all the customary hazards of missed cues, wrong camera shots, microphones turned on (or off) at the wrong time, incorrect identifier-titles being superimposed, and playback equipment either jamming or being loaded with the wrong adverts, promos, theme music, or other pre-recorded segments.
And there was also the ever-present risk of an on-camera/on-microphone performer, guest, interviewer, commentator, or interviewee not just missing a cue or reading the wrong line in the script -- but spontaneously SAYING SOMETHING HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE (usually some prohibited-by-the-FCC obscenity/expletive) that would have embarrasing consequences for the network, necessitate a public apology (for offending sensitive viewers) and possibly even result in an FCC fine being levied on the licensed stations actually owned by the offending network.
The first widely employed means of reducing the "inappropriate comment" risk on live-TV programming was borrowed directly from telephone call-in shows on radio. It was the use of a specially modified tape recorder that continuously played back a loop of tape carrying live-program material recorded at least seven seconds earlier, so that there was a time delay in which a producer could decide to temporarily kill the program signal before it went out on the air, if "something risky" was said.
Adapting this method of "instant censoring" for television was less successful and more failure-prone than for radio, however, since a continuous loop of audio tape could hold up under several hours of use before it started to lose its oxide coating and the sound quality would deteriorate. Videotape was much more delicate, so the networks had to employ a more clumsy method of obtaining the same level of content control that talk radio already enjoyed: stationing two broadcast-quality video recorders (which were as big as upright pianos in the 1970s) next to each other and feeding an entire, hour-long reel of tape (coming out of the recording deck) into the playback deck. And because old-fashioned videotape traveled at at least 15 inches per second, the "slack" build-up necessary to establish even a seven-second delay (between the two machines) had to be temporarily collected in a large basket placed between the recording and playback decks. And if the tape snarled (which it often did) while coming back up out of the basket, the producer had to immediately switch back to a direct transmission of the live program -- or the picture and sound would be lost for the viewers at home. Needless to say, this jury-rigged method of "instant censoring" live-TV programming was only used in the most risk-prone situations, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, even as video tape equipment was becoming smaller and more reliable. (continued...)
(continuing...) Finally, the arrival of what were called "digital delay" units in the 1990s completely did away with the need for tape-based mechanisms in the "instant censoring" of live television, and by 9/11/01 all the networks (and many local stations too) were fully equipped with them and capable of programming these units (depending on their memory capacity) to delay a live program stream for durations as short as a fraction of a second to an expanse of several hours. Because of the multiple signal paths many network program streams take in the modern era (sometimes involving huge racks of processing circuits and even multiple satellite uplinks and downlinks) these delay units are often used just to keep picture-and-sound "in sync," rather than to guard against inappropriate outbursts -- but their prevalence and widespread use in the TV industry has essentially "done away" with virtually ANYTHING on network TV reaching the viewers as a genuinely "live" stream (meaning that it travels from the point of original performance to the viewers at home at the universal-standard, electrical/vibrational speed of 186,000 miles per second). The next time Obummer speaks to the nation from the Oval Office, try listening to him on several radio and TV receivers (tuned to different stations) at the same time, and you'll see what I mean. Back when Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Reagan addressed the populace, there was only a very slight echo between the various network streams being heard at home in synchronization. Not so anymore.
Well, the point of all this historical/technical digression is that it is entirely possible, and moreover highly plausible, that virtually NOTHING that has come to us from network television, since the 1990s, has been truly "live". Instead, I would postulate that an array of vigilant, trained, and loyal network AND government censors, backed up by banks of digital-delay devices in strategic choke-point locations, has been "riding herd" to make sure that nothing "really inappropriate" reaches the masses via the TV mainstream. Oh yes, there may have been the occasional screw-up, since the human factor is still necessarily involved ("nose-out," anybody... or how about another "wardrobe malfunction?" ;) ) but the level of control is probably quite awesome and intense, and has been for more than a decade.
It won't be too much longer before "they" figure out how to apply it to the Internet too, which means Cass Sunstein's boys won't be needed anymore.
On the 9/11 morning, when a record-setting number of "war games" were covertly running in DC, NYC, and all throughout the Military-Industrial complex, those far-from-perfect computer simulations of the twin-towers attack (probably originally prepared for "Vigilant Guardian" et. al.) had to be hot-switched BY SOMEBODY into the national network feeds of each of the major TV networks. And all the other technicians, busily watching and adjusting their vision-and-audio mixers, preview-and-program monitors, vectorscopes, waveform monitors, frame synchronisers, microwave-linking hardware, and INSTANT REPLAY units just HAD to include some guys (far enough down the chain of authority not to have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with death) who either instantly, or eventually, realised that their live-program streams had been HIJACKED -- for at least a few minutes, if not the rest of the morning.
Now think about this: The broadcast-TV technicians' unions, in the nation's capitol and in the Big Apple, are among the strongest in the country. NOBODY touches a switch or adjusts a knob that's outside his closed-shop, contract-defined job classification and assignment. And these dudes stay in their jobs for decades, with iron-clad employment security. If even one of the many master-control or microwave-link technicians from that day is reading these comments, or if one of this website's readers knows somebody who knows somebody who was "on the inside" of big-time network TV technical operations on 9/11, then maybe we can get some details on JUST HOW the hot-switching was done and WHERE the substitute video/audio feeds came from?
WTC7 perhaps? Or possibly StratCom in Omaha -- next door to where lots of financial bigwigs were gathering that very morning, and where Dubya was "summoned" by the PTB later in the day. And if the feed point was out in Omaha, rather than at the soon-to-be-demolished WTC7, then maybe, just maybe, the playback tapes and transmission gear that were used still survives -- somewhere in the heart of DARPA-darkness. (It would make great material evidence at an international warcrimes tribunal someday.)
In a very helpful video compilation that's been up on YouTube for years, showing four simultaneous network news streams (each filling 1/4th of the screen) and also displaying the precise time both before and after the second sim-hit, you can see each network SUPPOSEDLY choosing, INDEPENDENTLY, to execute replays of the sim-hit at various later intervals and from SUPPOSEDLY their own proprietary chopper or fixed-cam feeds of the Manhattan skyline. A careful analysis of these simultaneous network streams reveals, however, that some identical segments of the same "footage" show up, multiple times, on different network streams AND with different keyed-in logos! (continued...)
(continuing...) So, if some of these identical segments of proprietary footage were being borrowed from the rival networks' news streams (a courtesy arrangement that can and does occur in crisis situations) there should have been one logo layered upon another logo, or a "courtesy of" notice, each time the borrowings occured, but that is not the case -- strongly suggesting that all the networks' proprietary video shots of the sim-hit actually originated from a single, covert source. And although most of the network "choices" to replay the sim-hit do give the illusion of being the result of independent editorial/control-room decisions to activate a replay device (either a dedicated instant-replay unit or just a re-wound and re-cued video deck) with independently chosen starting and stopping points, a dead giveaway to there being an external, covert source for the "footage" occurs just before the networks all "decide" to switch to a pool feed from the Bushmaster's Florida photo-op.
Now get this: The last of the four networks to switch to the Florida feed shows one final replay of the sim-hit, and both the camera composition and the starting/stopping points are IDENTICAL to a replay shown earlier on another network -- but now the keyed-in logo is different!
It seems that the perps had a only a rather limited amount of pre-edited (with replays) sim-footage prepared for each network to show, with each of the sim-streams varied (in shot choices) just enough to create the illusion of separate switching decisions going on in the respective control rooms. However, the creators of the sim-footage (maybe working on a tight deadline... or just geting lazy) eventually started to repeat even the replay starting/stopping decisions, which meant that just before that overly repetitious point occurred in playing back the simulations, it was essential for all the network control rooms to "dump out" of the sim-footage and switch to Florida.
"In a very helpful video compilation that's been up on YouTube for years, showing four simultaneous network news streams (each filling 1/4th of the screen)..."
If you are referring to my "SYNCHED OUT", please know that the reason why I don't have it uploaded on my own YT channel is because it was banned TWICE - for inexplicable reasons - by the YT censors. A third ban would have put at risk my entire Youtube channel - so I had to desist. Fortunately, other friendly YT users were able to re-upload it some time later. Here's one of them:
SYNCHED OUT - by Simon Shack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk
So WHY, you may ask, was my SYNCHED OUT video banned twice, back in 2010 - within hours after I performed the uploads?. Well, I still do not know. Read all about the 'drama' here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=358&p=2194810#p2194810
As for your above 'essay', Andy - oh well... I'll have to put some time aside tomorrow to respond to it in detailed fashion.
What we are witnessing here in this thread is a clear example of the strawman - a bunch of crap being thrown at us in order to obfuscate the really important issue.
All this crap about the fakery of videos and TV is the strawman and the really important issue is that nuclear weapons were used in the middle of a major US city and they got away with it.
Simon Shack should be called Simon The Strawman because everything he says and writes is designed as a strawman - to distract people from the important stuff.
People who support Shack are either utter fools or also in on the disinfo game he is playing.
Shack is far from the most significant of the 9/11 disinfo crowd however, there are others like Christopher Bollyn, Steven Jones an Richard Gage who are far more prominent and have been far more effective in misleading the public.
Don Fox has written a superb article that lays out exactly why all these disinfo bastards and their nonsense about nanothermite and utter denial of the nuclear events of 9/11 clearly exposes them as shills:
Ian, MSM complicity in all these operations is the common denominator. Their agents in the Gov change every so often, and these days it is raining hoaxes, but the common denominator is still the MSM.
When they control the MSM, they also can control the election process, and are always able to pull their controllable puppet to the top and hand him the keys to the White House. Then they can get access for their agents wherever they want or need in the Gov. Before you understand this, you will just be spinning your wheels.
But I understand you don't want to warn people about the Weapon of Mass Deception. Looks more like you prefer to hide its significance and talk about anything else but this.
I don't think mainstream media knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. However IIRC a CNN boss was the first witness on CNN who claimed to have seen the first plane impact! So some people in media could have been in on it.
Some people within the MSM knew, no doubt about that, they were given scripts to follow, as made plain by the BBC's cock-up with Jane Standley and WTC7.
Of course, the above link goes to our longstanding Cluesforum thread titled "CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE" - which is now 31-pages long. However, if you are serious about your quest for 9/11 truth, I trust you will enjoy the read.
I found the MSNBC clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2rZCHqY_M&t=26m10s
It looks that it might have been a wobble of the antenna. Watch when the camera zooms out and you can see that the antenna is falling to the left. I think it's real footage.
Of course it's real footage. You have the most spectacular and downright intimidating event taking place so what earthly reason could there be to not show it? No need to fake anything about the destruction, all they needed to do was make sure they had the cameras rolling when it took place.
A large part of the reason for the destruction of the WTC was to scare and traumatise people, therefore they showed the destruction in all it's 'glory' so that the message was sent out loud and clear.
The footage of the plane strikes was faked, the footage of the destruction is real, no honest researcher has ever offered any reason why the destruction footage isn't real,only disinfo scum like Shack and his cronies keep insisting that everything shown was faked. Bear in mind that Shack also insists the towers were brought down in a standard controlled demolition with dynamite, which is absolute nonsense and is contradicted by a vast body of evidence that he either ignores or laughs away by simply stating it is 'fake'.
So, as you have now demonstrated / confirmed for yourself, the apparent camera angles of the two shots (NBC and SAURET) are quite similar (both appear to be filmed from a Northern vantage point). Now, as you can see in the SAURET clip, at NO time does the antenna lean Westwards (towards the right of your screen) - whereas it clearly does lean Westwards in the initial frames of the NBC clip. Yet, as the NBC shot ZOOMS OUT, the antenna is suddenly / 'magically' leaning Eastwards. Yes, it indeed appears to wobble as you rightly noted. But see - it does NOT wobble at all in the SAURET shot. You have just helped proving that the two shots cannot both be real.
By the way, thank you for bringing to my attention that even that yellowish NBC shot of the "WTC1 collapse" features a ZOOM OUT motion - immediately after collapse initiation. Please compare it with these other 6 WTC1 "ZOOMED OUT SHOTS" credited to six different amateur videographers :
Anyhow, Anders - I don't think this comment section is an appropriate place for us to debate all this. Again, please take your time - no need to rush to hasty conclusions. You have a lot more to take in - stay cool.
As always, very sensible words from OBF. Have a listen to our recent interview with him here: http://fakeologist.com/2014/06/29/dustban-18/ Thanks again Onebornfree.
Ian Greenhalgh nukes themselves are most likely a fraud, never mind tiny blast point specific mini nukes. You're reaching out into the sci-fi realm to explain movie magic. The 9/11 footage is a forgery. The 'events' viewed from multiple angles don't line up, how many times must this be overlooked? The jig is up.
Nice to see Anders Lindman is still stuck halfway too. Keep at it, you'll get there!
Oh dear, only idiots and disinfo shills push this 'nukes are fake' nonsense. It is an utterly untenable viewpoint that flies in the face of a vast body of evidence.
Also, pushing the importance of whether the footage was faked or not is jut a misdirection tactic designed to keep attention away from the important aspects of the crime.
The nuclear events of 9/11 are proven beyond reasonable doubt, only a fool or a shill would deny it. Gordon Duff's recent articles make it very clear what happened:
Banazîr Galbasi said: "As always, very sensible words from OBF. Have a listen to our recent interview with him here: http://fakeologist.com/2014/06/29/dustban-18/ Thanks again Onebornfree. "
What a coincidence Banazir! I've just, moments ago logged out of my email account after sending you a message asking for a link to my interview with you guys- I guess there is no need for you to reply to my email now.
Anyhoo, thanks for having me on - I enjoyed talking to you guys and your callers- great show [just like Fakeologists is].
So I'm an idiot am I? Or a shill? I've got one post on here and you've come to this conclusion? How quick you resort to name calling. Tell me, if I'm the shill why are you the one acting like one?
It's perfectly simple, anyone who promotes the 'Nuke Hoax' has to be viewed with suspicion because it's such utter nonsense.
I accept that there may be some people who are stupid enough to believe such a theory, despite the vast amount of evidence disproving it, but I tend to think that most people are intelligent enough to know better; thus the other option is that those people are intentionally promoting an untenable theory - in short, spreading disinfo.
Ok, I'm no expert. Could be ordinary photo grains perhaps. The main problem I have is that the position of the top part of the mushroom cloud, although horizontally centered, looks artificially positioned.
Nothing looks artificial about that picture. Besides, just squinting at a single photo is hardly worthwhile research, there is a vast body of other evidence to be considered.
For research to be valid, it must follow the proper scientific method where ALL available evidence is gathered, collated, studied and evaluated; only then can a hypothesis be formed.
Only clowns like Simon Shack attempt to pass off the squinting at a few old pictures and newsreels as valid research.
Bannister was stationed in Butte, Montana in 1947:
"William Guy Banister was born in Monroe, Louisiana, on March 7, 1901, the oldest of seven children. He attended Louisiana State University and Soule College of New Orleans, then joined the Monroe Police Department, where he advanced to the position of Chief of Detectives.
In 1934, he joined the Justice Department's Division of Investigation, which soon was retitled the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He served briefly in Indianapolis, then was assigned to New York City. He worked over the northern part of the country on special assignment for approximately three years, and received special training in investigating the Communist Party.
In 1938, after a brief stint at the FBI's Newark, New Jersey office, Banister was promoted to Special Agent in Charge, and transferred to Butte, Montana. Researcher A. J. Weberman notes that Banister told an associate that he was sent to Butte because "at one time he had a visit by an FBI agent who told him that Mr. Hoover had asked for an honest appraisal of the Bureau from some of its top agents. Mr. Banister is alleged to have sent up a memo from Chicago that called the Bureau a prostitute that wanted keep her virginity."
Banister was stationed in Butte until October 1941, when he was transferred to Oklahoma City, but returned to Butte in 1943, where he remained until 1952, when he was transferred to Minneapolis, Minnesota. In January 1954 he was transferred to Chicago. He retired from the Bureau at the end of that year."
As for Garrison, in 1947 he was studying at the Tulane University Law School and didn't even join the FBI until after he graduated in 1949. He worked for the FBI for just two years, being based in Seattle and Tacoma.
So, it is obvious after just a very cursory bit of research that this claim of Bannister and Garrison working together for the FBI in 1947 is utter nonsense. Bannister was in Montana and Garrison was at law school in New Orleans.
Why did you post that piece of fiction Andy? Did you honestly think it would pass without being checked? Are you trying to spread disinfo?
That's a pretty poor excuse for spreading utter fiction as if it were fact.
Also, you accusation of Jim promoting aliens on the moon is very unfair, he merely had a guest on the show who put forward the idea and it was clear Jim was very sceptical about the whole thing.
Anyways, you shouldn't go round posting such rubbish as it makes you look like a disinfo agent and there is no lower form of life than such scum.
I've seen this piece of nonsense before, where you claim it's the same cloud, well any fool can see it's not, that time has elapsed between the two shots and the cloud has changed.
So don't bother trying to patronise me with your bullshit Shack, it turns my stomach.
You never did answerme about why you hav ignored ALL of the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony an instead based your 'Nuke Hoax' BS on nothing more than squinting at a few photos and newsreels.
Your work is beyond pathetic, your theories are so paper-thin and untenable that they are either the product of a retarded brain or are intended as deliberate disinfo.
You should stick to making bad music and stupid music videos with frogs raping women, even though you're not good at that, it's a lot less embarassing and disgusting than your pathetic attempts at disinfo.
"So don't bother trying to patronise me with your bullshit Shack, it turns my stomach."
I'm sorry to hear about your upset stomach, Ian. Have you ever tried watching TV? It helps expelling all of your gastric contents in short order - through your mouth. Seeing how full of dung you are, you might find it helpful to expel it through two orifices - instead of only one.
Norwegian said : "Seeing how full of dung you are, you might find it helpful to expel it through two orifices - instead of only one. "
Very good advice, for all those serious shit-eaters out there [like Greenhorn], Mr Shack! I must say I'm astounded by your in-depth dietary and medical knowledge! :-)
Honestly, these Beatles songs make it impossible to post on youtube without automatic flagging. Plus WHO WANTS TO HEAR ALL THE LONELY PEOPLE THREE TIMES A WEEK????? PLEASE for god's sake, as a Former Beatle fan due to this repetition could you stop Michelle ma Belle, All the Lonely People, and all these cliche, worn out songs? Please, Silence, a ticking clock, commercials, ANYTHING.....! Also, given the Tavistock information, do you get the painful irony that compounds the tedium? THANKS JIM...other than that YOUR SHOW IS BRILLIANTLY FUN!!!!!
ReplyDeleteReally? You can't post shows on YouTube because of the Beatles songs? That comes as news to me. I suppose that would be true of Bob Dylan, Carley Simon, Barbra Streisand or any other prominent figure. Am I not right?
ReplyDeleteInteresting fun fact. Depending on the count we are in month 63 or 64 of current stock bull market. 64 is a fractal number. Many parabolic structures fail in 64 months. Mother Nature at work.
DeleteHow about Across The Universe, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Come Together, A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Back In The USSR, Norwegian Wood, Yellow Submarine, just mix it up a bit and feature some different songs? The Beatles recorded enough to not have to repeat anything for a few months I think.
DeleteI have to AGREE with superfun! I have begged you in the past. To stop playing the same Beatles tunes over, over, over ...
DeleteI love the Beatles. But hearing the same songs repeated and repeated is TORTURE!!
Plus. half the time the volume levels on the songs are much higher than interviews.
I get the impression. Your producer is just lazy.
Yes, youtube flags all copyrighted songs automatically.
Speaking as a recorded artist, why the hell are you using copyrighted material without permission!
If you want to buy the rights to the songs you play. Go to the Harry Fox Agency website.
DeleteI have to pay to use other people's music.
You are supposed to as well.
The second guest name is David Goodman not David Robinson. At least that was his name back in April.
DeleteAlien Agenda IV: Alien Ultimatum or Final Warning ?
Deleteby Preston James
"Lately this strategy has started failing as the staged mass shootings (done by Mind-kontrol) and the phony simulated ones are becoming completely exposed by astute researchers such as Professor James Fetzer with his amazing Sandy Hook work."
I find it highly disturbing that Fetzer's work is mentioned in such an article. In my mind, this seems to be attempt to undermine Fetzer's research. Connecting him with the Alien Agenda and the Draco myth.
Smells like another psi-op to me. Every year there is some big event predicted that never happens. Just like the June 22 prediction Fetzer has been touting.
Round and round we go. Where we stop nobodies knows.
I want to order the piggies. Its my favorite, followed by Helter Skelter, for obvious reasons
ReplyDeleteReally? You can't post shows on YouTube because of the Beatles songs? That comes as news to me. I suppose that would be true of Bob Dylan, Carley Simon, Barbra Streisand or any other prominent figure. Am I not right?
ReplyDeleteI don't think they're flagged for the songs. Whole songs get posted. However, I could be wrong. Maybe cut them out if posting. -- But yes, there are more songs in the repertoire; perhaps a bit of change-up would be nice for listening pleasure (though I have no problem with Eleanor Rigby and many of the others, which fit the sadness). -- Tavistock has nothing to do with it until much later (after Paul was killed) except possibly in promotions areas.
ReplyDeleteWhen a copyrighted song is uploaded. It doesn't have to be the complete song. The uploader will receive a tag "matched third party copyright".
DeleteAt time they block the audio to the entire clip. Other time they block access to the video. Other times it is blocked in areas of the USA or in other countries.
Other times the tag is all that happens.
I do not know how they determine how to treat the clip.
Clip out the music, then. Many people do use copyrighted materials, though. Maybe it's only if full song? And even then, how do so many vids get put up with full songs?
DeleteClare why do you think the Tavistock had nothing to do with it until after Paul was killed. I would have thought that when paul was alive would have been when the Tavistock had most to do with it.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would Paul McCartney and John and the others be into weirdness and spooks (knowingly), when they were amazing young friends on a roll?
DeletePR stuff, people trying to get John on drugs, that kind of thing, yes, maybe. But not the way later, when now-Sir "McCartney" was involved, interested in (as he put it) "magic with a k", and the swinging 60s scene (cognate to Laurel Canyon in many ways) got going.
Always, too, a scene is many things to many people, even when set up and roughly corralled ("an op"). It is not "just an op" ever.
What's the problem with the Beatles music?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like it - skip it!!
Nobody is forcing you to listen to the music..... or to the podcasts in general. Use a video or audio player like the BSplayer app for cell phone that allows you to skip
what you don't want to hear.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/time-monk-radio-exposing-the-jewish-shtick-many-new-ideas.html
ReplyDeleteThis is simply not true because far from all Jews follow the Talmud.
ReplyDeletengant17, all you said is Jews are Jews. Agreed. Now define 'Jews'.
ReplyDeleteJews define themselves as individuals who choose to identify as members of the the race/nation/religion ingroup that adheres to the historic Jewish race/nation/religion identity that defined itself as a race/nation or a religion defined by supremacism, genocidal triumphs, chosen-ness, slave-holder status over all other races/nations/religions, and a few other objectively un-nice/very Jewish features.
Convoluted paragraph above, but the Jews are not a normal people. They're the only atypical people. Everyone else just sorta wants to live free and easy in their own place under the sun.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is a Zionist state rather than a Jewish one.
Far from all Jews are Zonists.
There exist Jewish organisations opposed to Zionism and the state of Israel.
Lumping all Jews together as bad people is akin to saying all Italians are gangsters because of the Italian Mafia, or saying all Catholics abuse children because many Catholic clergy are guilty of such.
Ian said ... "The Talmud is actually a collection of commentaries by senior rabbis, not a war-plan against Gentiles."
ReplyDeleteWhy should we not expect a collection of commentaries by senior rabbis to be a war-plan against 'gentiles'? (The Jews' label for all non-Jews, as a foreign word, should be in quotes or italicized)
Having read most of the Talmud and come-and-hear.com that's precisely how it appeared to me.
Ian: I gave my citations/sources--which we see an ignoramus like urself omits, u merely spouting assertions.
ReplyDeleteTruth is hate to those who, like u, Ian, hate the truth--u're obviously Jew-friendly shill trolling the site, eh?
This is non-responsive unless you quantify. I could be wrong about pretty much all Jews being Zionists or otherwise supportive of political programs that in the long-run will decimate all other nations. I could be wrong about and Jewishness being inherently disposed and designed to bring about those ends. But you don't answer those charges at all.
ReplyDeleteI repeat my viewpoint: Almost all Jews are Zionists, but even so, Zionism is known only to be a problem for Palestinians. Zionism is not a problem in Bradford, where I live. Jew-control of Britain is the problem, and race-replacement genocide is the primary symptom.
I repeat again: Jewishness is defined by adherence to an identity to that even without Zionism includes as integral and traditional elements, supremacism, race-hate, slavery, genocide, subversion of other cultures and other typically Jewish features (long before Zionism came along).
***
If Italians traced their roots to a founding event related to 'Italianist' criminality; then had made a religion of out of Mafioso 'Italianism' for thousands of years; and throughout had adhered to an ideology of gangsterism, murder, theft and so on, that they called 'being Italian'; and Italians today still chose to call themselves Italian, and so keep these destructive impulses alive and destroying, I would bitch about ongoing Italian-ness.
BUT LIKE I SAID, no other people has these elements of hate, supremacism, criminality, genocide, theft, and so on, bound up in their national identity. It would be quite wrong to associate the average Italian with the Mafia.
Not so with the average Jew, who chooses not to reject Jewishness the way the average Italian rejects the far less harmful on a global scale Mafia (despite Italians outnumbering Jews even in diaspora). Jews cleave to that supercharged-mafioso-like identity, even though its religious festivals celebrate genocide, even though its centrist politics mean ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the genocide of White people.
By any objective measure Jews are a damn site worse than the Italian Mafia, Ian.
Get your head out your ass.
Apologies for typos, 22:55 here. Not a time for proof-reading, time for bed.e
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots.
The maxim 'know thy enemy' is very true, therefore we should try to develop an understanding of what we are up against and I can see from some of the comments here that is not the case.
liked the show, esp the orwell stuff ... Jim you get nuked? haha, stop the fear mongering, leave it to the other idiots or you become one
ReplyDeleteIt's not a case of IF Israel will use nukes in a false flag again, but WHEN.
DeletePrediction is fraught with danger, but it seems inevitable to me that some large and horrific event is in the works. Dick Cheney has predicted something that will be 'far deadlier' than 9/11 is coming:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=99747
Nukes are just fiction, Ian. You cannot even find an epicenter or any Ground Zero in Hiroshima, in ANY of the historical films or photos from that event. The smoke plume that reportedly rose to 40000 feet must have consisted of materials from the ground, but not any traces of any huge mega explosion there. The evidence is clearly consistent with firebombing. Just go to Google Images and search for hiroshima ground zero, and you will see that nothing that can resemble 1 huge explosion there will come up - nothing. That Hiroshima was nuked, is just a rumor. So when was the first real nuke blast then? How about never?
DeleteIf you study the reported story on the Hiroshima nuke bombing, you will see that it is just like a movie script. We have this huge task that had to be done in a oh so short time. But there were heroes, and they struggled and struggled, and was able to complete the project just in time. It all went so well - just like in the movies. Very thrilling story.
After you understand that nukes are fiction, you will look at the news in a very different way.
Utter bullshit and you know it.
DeleteThe Hiroshima bomb exploded at an altitude o 1,900 feet destroying everything in a 1 mile radius and causing fires that destroyed 4.4 square miles. The only buildings left standing were a few reinforced concrete structures that had been built very strongly so as to survive earthquakes.
Anyways, it's pointless arguing with el bullshito because he's nothing more than a lowlife shill who's purpose is to spread disinfo about nuclear weapons because the Zionist pigs don't want people to find out they nuked NYC on 9/11.
Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
DeleteIf we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots.
The gigantic smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the telegrams, and must have consisted of materials from the ground - many many thousands tons. 40000 feet is up there with the trans-continental jets, so it is a significant altitude for a smoke plume!
There should be some traces below the reported mega explosion, but there isn't. Again, no traces of any epicenter in any of the published films or photos from the event. Look for yourself. Here is a panorama compilation from Hiroshima: http://tinyurl.com/khpazf9
Where is that epicenter or Ground Zero there Ian? Why cant we spot it? Notice all the not so earthquake proof brick chimneys still standing, and the very clean streets. Will see the same in the aerial photos - very clean streets. The rubble should have been more evenly spread out from the epicenter, and across the streets, etc, but no. In other photos, you will see that all bridges were intact, and no damages to the riverfront, among other things.
I'll donate $100 to Jim if you can find or show us any traces of any epicenter or some discernable Ground Zero in any historical films or photos from the event, but you cant, Ian, you aren't able to, you cant do that, Ian. So no traces of this REPORTED mega explosion in any films or photos from that event, is what we have to conclude. Witnesses don't count, Ian - don't bother.
Cracker Box Palace.
ReplyDeleteI have a business acquaintance who is Jewish and also a friend. A small Torah or Mezuzah scroll is kept in front of the door to her house. A kind and honest person. She is not Orthodox, but more of a Liberal. Normal values, could be your neighbor next door.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad to read so much hate about someone's ethnicity here.
El Buggo said :"Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to criticise a people, then we must be accurate in our criticism otherwise it is all too easy to dismiss the criticism and make us look like ignorant bigots....."
I had to laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of Greenhorn's comment- good to see you notice it as well and hurl it right back in his face, Bug; you beat me to it. :-)
Regards, obf.
@apsterian "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth, eh?" PRECISELY
ReplyDelete@ Ian; The Hiroshima bomb exploded at an altitude o 1,900 feet destroying everything in a 1 mile radius and causing fires that destroyed 4.4 square miles. The only buildings left standing were a few reinforced concrete structures that had been built very strongly so as to survive earthquakes.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it's pointless arguing with el bullshito because he's nothing more than a lowlife shill who's purpose is to spread disinfo about nuclear weapons because the Zionist pigs don't want people to find out they nuked NYC on 9/11.
Wherever it was meant to explode, in the air or on the ground,it would have had to explode at one location. The devastation should have been epicentric, away from the impact, as is the case with impact explosions. This is not the case judging from the photos. One has to assume that authentic imagery was used to sell it rather than fully fabricated. At any way, the pictures are the answer, which is a shame since it was the only visible prove of nuclear weapons, non counting nuclear submarines that is.
Look at it from this perspective. As you search Manhattan Project almost every name that pops up is Jewish. Zion is selling you porkies. Bon Appetite amigo.
“I never heard an enlisted man in the 509th use the words ‘atom bomb’ or ‘atomic bomb’ or ‘A-bomb.’ Everyone in the squadron called it ‘The Gimmick.’ During the months of their secret work they had to have a name for the vague something that they were supposed to be working on, and when somebody referred to it as ‘The Gimmick’ that name stuck.” — From the article, “The Week the War Ended,” LIFE magazine, 7/17/1950
ReplyDeleteRead more: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Photos From the Ruins, 1945 | LIFE.com http://life.time.com/history/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-photos-from-the-ruins/#ixzz35c0Ckts1
Gimmick and Gadget were the codewords for the two bombs, in the military, everything secret gets a codeword.
DeleteWell, those that need to know and whose opinions actually matter, they know full well I'm no shill or Jew lover or whatever else I'm being labelled. Those that are pointing fingers are most likely shills themselves so I don't care.
ReplyDeleteIf they weren't so disgusting, your words would be hilarious.
DeletePeople like you who are ignorant, bigoted and filled with hate are precisely what we don't need.
One major reason being that it makes it all the more easy for the Zionists and their Jewish brethren to dismiss our criticisms of them as nothing more that ignorant, irrational, bigoted hatred.
Ian CONFIRMS He's Jew
DeleteIan: u're a Jew, without a doubt--look at how u lie, squirm, and wiggle--just like a Jew. And look at all ur name-calling too--just like a Jew, eh?
INDUCTION, Ian--ever hrd of it?--thus particulars build-up to a general conclusion, and inductive evidence screams u're Jew.
At this pt., u have to PROVE u're not Jew, ho ho ho ho
For the record, I'm not Jewish, but that's not important.
DeleteNot all Jews are bad people, only bigotted, ignorant idiots like you would think so.
This sort of bigotry and irrational hatred is precisely the sort of thing that all rational people should abhor and oppose.
Ian The Jew Cannot Stop Lying & Denying Obvious Fact He's Jew, Ho Ho Ho
DeleteIan: didn't I just essentially PROVE, by means of inductive logic and evidence, u're Jew w. capital J? Ho ho ho--and u don't disprove it either, do u?--lying and whining, name-calling and more lying.
And u'e soooooooooooooo wounded, u can't leave the issue over ur being obvious Jew alone, can u?--even as u insistently and repeatedly deny it's "important," ho ho ho ho ho
"The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”- Joseph Goebbels
I suppose a person's ethnicity is largely determined by native language. So someone whose native language is Hebrew or Yiddish (German mixed into Hebrew), then you could that person a Jew.
ReplyDeleteBut I am sure there are Jewish atheists(i.e., Karl Marx, Isaac Asimov, Franz Kafka, et. al) or Jewish agnostics(Edward Teller, Richard Faynman, et.al) who speak Hebrew as their native tongue, so you couldn't define them by religion per se, as apsterian is suggesting.
People are basically good, no matter what culture or ethnic group they come from. We as humans do tend to have a self-destructive gene which is symptomatic by our bellicose, war-mongering nature, but I believe we will eventually evolve to a more peaceful species.
Hilarious, Shack accusing us of the exact same tactic he has been employing for years!
ReplyDeleteYou're not only a liar Shack but you're also a coward, every time you get challenged to a debate you hide behind pathetic excuses like 'me so sorry, I no speekee the good Engleesh' when what you really mean is you're not so stupid as to attempt to defend your untenable bullshit on front of an audience against someone who would tear you into pieces by using logic and presenting properly research facts.
A condensation cloud a.k.a. Wilson cloud needs air temperatures of below the dew point to form, yet for supposed atom bomb explosions Wilson clouds form despite the alleged massive heat radiation. How does that compute? My guess is that atom bomb explosions have been faked by using several tons of ordinary explosives, hence the formation of Wilson clouds.
ReplyDeleteHere is an example of a fake atom bomb explosion with a Wilson cloud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S53IdBc-_Xc&t=1m10s
DeleteAlso notice the clouds before and after the explosion. The clouds remain intact! Pretty sturdy clouds, eh? :D
Rubbish. The largest explosion of conventional explosives was by the Royal Navy when they blew up the former u-boat base on the island of Heligoland:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland#Explosion
That was 6,700 tonnes of explosives and even that was nothing like an atom bomb, no mushroom cloud, no heat and blast waves as seen from nuclear explosions.
There have been a few bigger conventional explosions, but they were all explosions of ships full of munitions of fertiliser, again they looked nothing like a nuclear explosion.
Here is the newsreel of the Heligoland explosion, it looks absolutely nothing like any nuclear explosion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6hKwjoKa-c
Here is an explosion from 1945 where lots of conventional explosives was used to form a small mushroom cloud:
Delete100 tons of TNT -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VANyY87-_Q
Nothing like an atomic explosion, no pyroclastic cloud, this is just utter nonsense.
DeleteThis Nuke Hoax hypothesis is based on squinting at some videos and photographs and perceiving some inconsistencies that are perhaps best explained by deciding that the videos and photos have been faked in some way then jumping to the conclusion that if the imagery is fake, then the existence of nuclear technology is a hoax.
Clearly, such a hypothesis is untenable because it is based on invalid research.
In order to make his research into nuclear technology valid, Shack must greatly widen the scope of his research so that it includes a great deal of other evidence and information. Once he has carried out an exhaustive program of research that attempts to include and assess every possible piece of evidence then he can attempt to form a valid hypothesis.
Unless Shack carries out a program of research which adheres to the proper scientific method, then his 'Nuke Hoax' hypothesis is not worthy of even a cursory examination, in short, it is just spurious nonsense that we shouldn't give the time of day to.
Off the top of my head, some avenues of research that Shack should explore:
DeleteThe physical evidence of nuclear explosions, which includes:
the many craters that exist in the Nevada desert and Khazakstan as a reslt of the nuclear explosions carried out by the USA and USSR.
vitfrified soils and rocks produced by the intense heat of these nuclear explosions
the sunken ships in the lagoon of Bikini Atoll sunk in hydrogen bomb tests
the large hole in Bikini Atoll created by a hydrogen bomb test
the existence of radiation, fallout, rare isotopes and other by-products of nuclear explosions
the huge numbers of birth defects in Khazakstan as a result of exposure of parents to the effects of atmospheric nuclear testing
the seismograph readings that show earth tremors occurring at the same time as nuclear tests were stated to have taken place
the huge numbers of birth defects and rare forms of cancer suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
the existence of enriched uranium in hair samples taken from the parents of babies born with birth defects in Fallujah in the last few years
the existence of a large number of decommissioned and rusting nuclear submarines at several sites throughout the former USSR
the presence of persistent forms of radiation within the Chernobyl exclusion zone
The eyewitness testimony of people who were involved in the development and testing of nuclear technologies, people such as:
Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who, in the 1980s revealed the true nature of the work being carried out at the Dimona facility in the Negev Desert and who has been persecuted and imprisoned ever since
the tens of thousands of American, Russian, British, Australian and French ex-military who witnessed or participated in nuclear tests
the writings of scientists who were involved in the development of nuclear weapons, in particular Andrei Sakharov and J Robert Oppenheimer, two of the leading scientists in the USSR and USA nuclear weapons programmes who later deeply regretted their involvement and spoke out against the nuclear arms race.
That's very far from an exhaustive list of things that need to be considered and researched before being able to form a valid hypothesis regarding the existence of nuclear technologies but even this incomplete list clearly illustrates the massive task it would be to properly research the subject, for one person working alone, it would take a lifetime of dedication.
Simply squinting at imagery then dreaming up a radical hoax hypothesis simply won't cut it, sensible, rational people should only consider hypotheses that have been formed from careful study and evaluation of a vast body of research.
So again, I must point out that Shack's hypothesis is utterly untenable because he has completely overlooked the vast majority of available evidence and made no attempt whatsoever at applying proper scientific research methodologies.
I am not attacking Shack on a personal level, I am attacking the hypothesis he puts forward and the research (or lack of it) that supports his hypothesis, both of which are so utterly flawed and invalid that they are deserving of nothing more than scorn and derision for attempting to masquerade as worthwhile and valid.
Isn't it odd Ian, that the biggest explosion in the history of war didn't leave a trace of it on the ground? Did you know that Ian, no traces on the ground of the biggest explosion in the history of war? How can you make yourself believe something like that Ian? And even worse, how can you expect us to believe this nonsense? No traces of the biggest reported explosion in the history of war, and no traces of it on the ground. No crater, no epicenter and no Ground Zero in any of the historical films or photos of the event. Yet, the gigantic smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the reports.
DeleteI offered to donate $100 to Jim if you could point out this epicenter or Ground Zero in the footage, but even you couldn't do it. How about $200 Ian?
Every film you have watched of these nuclear bomb test are silly Disney animations, created in the Lookout Mountain Studio by animation artists. Every one of them have obviously fake audio track - we still don't know what a nuke explosion sounds like. You can locate that video, Ian.
Don't forget that all the Hiroshima reports we have came from the same very controlled source; US Military. The censorship in Japan was severe in the time after the occupation. What a perfect environment this was for another Große Lüge. Still fiercely defended by people like you, Ian.
Again Ian, I suspect you as usual will behave like the Black Knight in this Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Ian, we don't have to investigate all what you suggest. If they lied about Hiroshima, the rest of the story could be a lie too, of course. We should investigate how the story begun, and how it developed. This is the advise Aristotle gave us. And Hiroshima was the first public demonstration of this new monster weapon, they have claimed. And we don't have so many other nuclear wars to study you know. According to the gospel, the weapon is too dangerous to be demonstrated or used I wars - so they are able to keep the bombes in their bunkers, without people getting suspicious.
DeleteI have a much more dangerous weapon in my basement, but I'm not going to tell you about it or demonstrated it, but stay away from me, or else...
One of the funniest part of these nuke reports is the vastly different crater sizes these reported explosions created. Caste Bravo: "crater is 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (76 m) in depth": http://14mev.blogspot.no/2013/10/blog-post.html
While the Hiroshima crater has never been found, and the Trinity crater is just a joke: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_001.jpg
Have a look at that incredible stupid cartoonish animation of that test explosion too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Trinity_Test_Fireball_16ms.jpg
There isn't any seismograms to be found of any nuke tests, Ian, and that is one of the huge problems with the story. No seismograms from any of the hundred earthquake stations in Japan, nothing after the Tsar bomb, and nothing for Castle Bravo. How often have you seen they have promoted seismograms in these stories, Ian? How about never? For one or another reason they aren't promoting seismograms in this hoax. I guess it is because they have a hard time controlling all these earthquake stations everywhere. Earthquakes are never only detected by 1 seismograph, and they kind of have to be somewhat consistent to be credible. So no seismograms are available of any nuke test anywhere. Very fishy too.
Ian,
DeleteEl Buggo has exposed himself as a typical bargaining, wheedling Jew with his offer of $100 and now $200. Ian, ignore this flat foot desert nomad El Buggo and his 30 pieces of stolen silver.
Goddamnit, Ian! You're British and you're not for sale - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. Never!!
No matter how many times you repeat the same old bullshit about Hiroshima it remains bullshit.
DeleteI've answered these questions before so it would just be a waste of my time to repeat those answers, not least because you will just ignore them yet again.
Why does Simon Shack promote his hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a hoax when it is very clear that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary?
Who would stand to gain from convincing people that nuclear weapons don't exist? - Obviously, it is those who are using nuclear weapons to commit horrific crimes of terrorism and mass murder.
Let me suggest what the most obvious answers (to me, at least) are:
The Zionists, primarily those in Israel (the global HQ of the Zionists) and those who have infiltrated and subverted the US government plus their mostly Jewish Neocon allies/servants in the US are those who are using nuclear weapons, we have very strong evidence that they have used nuclear weapons in Oklahoma City (the destruction or the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building), NYC (the destruction of the WTC), Washington, DC (the bombing of the Pentagon), Baghdad Airport and Fallujah, Iraq, Homs and at least one other locale in Syria.
Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
El Buggo is nothing more than a shill who works to spread the Shack 'Nuke Hoax' BS.
Yiddish was corrupted Lower German, modern Hebew is a construct created just after the foundation of Israel from Yiddish, English and Ancient Hebrew.
ReplyDeleteNo-one apart from a small number of Rabbis and scholars spoke Hebrew, it was a dead language, the Judaic scriptures were written in it, but it wasn't spoken anymore, much like Aramaic which is the language some of the Christian scriptures are written in but has been a dead language for a very long time.
The reason for creating modern Hebrew was to make it seem like these European Ashkenazi Khazar Jews were actually descended from the Ancient Hebrews - it wuld have seemed very suspicious if they were still speaking Yiddish, German, Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Russian, Ukranian, all Eastern European languages that have no link to Hebrew.
For the same reason, the European Jews who migrated to Israel changed their names to sound Hebrew rather than Eastern European. For instance, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi was born Yitzhak Shimshelevich in Russia, Zalman Shazar was born Zalman Rubashov in Belarus and Ephraim Katzir was born Efraim Katchalski in Ukraine.
The other reason for changing their names was part of the Holocaust lie - a lot of the Jews who supposedly died just emigrated and changed their names.
The invention of modern Hebrew and the adoption of Hebrew names is all part of the big lie that Israel was founded on - you have a bunch of Eastern European Khazars masquerading as the descendants of the tribes of Israel when in fact they have zero ethnic or genealogical link and the only actual link is that their Khazar forebears adopted the Hebrew faith of Judaism in 740AD.
So when you see these Jewish Khazar settlers standing on the occupied territories shouting about how this is their land given to them by God, they are lying, a total and utter lie, their homeland if you trace their lineage is Eastern Europe and before that, the North Caucasus and Central Asian Steppe of Southern Russia from which they were driven out by the Rus over a millenia ago.
Ian, those that are pointing fingers are most likely shills themselves, I recently learned.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we haven't gotten past Hiroshima yet. The evidence is clearly consistent with firebombing, and not any single huge explosion like an atomic bomb. It is pure fiction, according to the evidence. And we should study how the story begun and how it developed if we want to understand anything, that according to Aristotle.
You haven't explained it at all Ian, why there isn't any traces on the ground after the biggest explosion in the history of war. What we see is consistent with firebombing. Have a look at Tokyo and Yokohama - very consistent impressions. Isn't it annoying that you cant do that Ian? That you aren't able too? Even if Jim should get a not so insignificant donation to his causes?
One reason that you cannot do this Ian, is because there isn't anything to be found. Pretty simple explanation really.
So if they faked the Hiroshima story, when was the first real nuke blast then? Or did they simply lie abut the rest of the story too? Aviating yours, Ian.
It is raining nukes these days, according to you Ian. Why should we believe that, if you cannot event present a credible case for the Hiroshima nuking? No traces on the ground after the biggest explosion in the history of war? What's next? Another Spaghetti Monster?
Nuke revisionism started in the Liberty Forum in 2005: http://tinyurl.com/mxgzpvk
For more: NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews (1h52min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0
El Buggo,
ReplyDelete$300?........ $400? .........$500??
How much is your Hiroshima bullshit
worth to you, Hymie?
$600.....?
I think you two behave like this Black Knight in this Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
ReplyDeleteWatch it one more time, it is pretty good, and relevant actually.
El Buggo;
ReplyDelete"I have a much more dangerous weapon in my basement, but I'm not going to tell you about it or demonstrated it, but stay away from me, or else..."
You f***ing fruit cake.
Ok, I'll tell you about it - it is a remote control for meteorites. When I find out where you live, I can steer the next incoming meteorite right at your position. Well, unfortunately, I cant tell how large the next incoming meteorite is, so I kind of have not total control on the size of the impact, so I may take out the entire island or worse, instead of only Yorkshire. So I have found it to be too dangerous to be used in a day to day fight. But I may change my mind if I get mad at you!
DeleteWhy don't you believe my fairytale, but when someone else claim they have a weapon too dangerous to be used or demonstrated, you swallow it all?
And why are you so emotional, Robert? Can you explain that?
DeleteDidn't your momma tell you never to swallow, honey?
ReplyDeleteEl Buggo,
ReplyDelete" But I may change "my mind" ......"
First, get a f***ing mind.
You are just another tar-baby, Robert.
DeleteThis El Buggo guy is even
Deleteflakier than Simon Pimon and his donkey!
Hi Dave,
DeleteDo you have any comments on why it is impossible to find or identify any traces on the ground after the biggest reported explosion in the history of war, in any of the published films or photos of the event? Why is this so impossible? Everybody knows that a nuke exploded in Hiroshima, and yet, the footage supports only plain old fasioned conventional firebombing. Weird, isn't it? What COULD it imply?
Who knows, pal? I was just passing and heard loud banging on a computer keyboard. I just dropped in to tell them to keep the noise down.
DeleteJust to throw some gasoline on the fire: the movie Dr. Strangelove was a propaganda hit piece devised to promote the idea that nuclear weapons are real. Ha ha.
ReplyDeleteYou mean all those bomb pits north of the Las Vegas valley are fake?? Thats great!!
DeleteI'll run out this weekend to Southern Utah and tell all those families with the two headed babies and massive leukemia rates that every things just peachy keen.
Two headed babies aren't specific for nukes, nor is leukemia. You are hyperventilating again, chris.
DeletePits? You can make pits with excavators. Dig a deep hole, and blame it on a nuke. Almost everyone will believe that if you can get the story aired on the news networks a few million times.
Dude, you watched a video, I live in the middle of nuke detonation central.
DeleteMy family flew the damn things around the periphery of the the old Soviet Union for a decade and a half and sat on 30 second stand by at Carswell in '62 ready to hit Cuba with 32 half megaton sparklers.
LeMay (my parents had dinner at his house and I'll bet everything I own yours didnt) wasnt ever going to sit by and watch the army invade Cuba, they were gonna sink the fewking island.
But prattle on my man. Dont know what you get out of peddling nonsense but you should go back and report that you cant get so much as a toe hold round these parts. Stir it up and muddy the water, certainly. But I havent seen y'all get even a second glance from the folk who wander through.
Oh and by the by, Hiroshima was a piddling 11.5 kt, Nagasaki was 22 kt. Hence Nagasaki and not Hiroshima was the largest explosion of the war. Im pretty sure Trinity was bigger then Hiroshima, wiki (lol) says 20 kt, so I'll take that with the wiki caveat
Thanks, dude.
DeleteOh so you live close to the Lügenfabrik. Fail to see exactly what advantage that should give you. Have you seen anything we haven't seen?
Possible that you family flew some boxes labeled nukes. That is one trick to make them appear as real. 30 seconds stand by? I bet they believed that is was real too.
Fail to see the relevance of that your family had dinner with LeMay. I'm closer to the Pope then you are, so what?
Yeah, I know you nuke hoax deniers are pissed.
Truman told us that they were both 20kt. I understand that there are some kt deflation to easier get away from the missing crater and epicenter and Ground Zero in Hiroshima. There isn't any traces of one huge explosion in Nagasaki either. Looks firebombed too, just like Tokyo and Yokohama and Hiroshima. So anyway, there isn't any specific traces on the ground created by the far biggest reported explosions in the history of war history.
Trinity crater was a total joke. Haven't you even noticed that?
Chris, you simply don't have anything.
Anders Lindman wrote:
ReplyDelete"Just to throw some gasoline on the fire: the movie Dr. Strangelove was a propaganda hit piece devised to promote the idea that nuclear weapons are real. Ha ha."
Yes Anders, and did you know that the premiere (or first test screening) of "Dr Strangelove" was originally scheduled for November 22, 1963 - the day of the JFK shooting? I am sure you will enjoy reading this little article of mine :
DOCTOR STRANGELOVE and ...JFK
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2382583#p2382583
Simon Shack
Aldous Huxley author of A Brave New World died on November 22 1963 at almost the same time as JFK was assassinated.
DeleteIf Shack isn't a shill then he must be absolutely insane.
DeleteNo other excuse for the utter nonsense that spews forth from him.
Dr Strangelove is a satire designed to be a protest against the madness of the policy of mutually assured destruction where the USSR and USA had targeted each other with thousands of nuclear warheads that if they ever used would bring an end to civilisation and most likely, human life on this planet. Kubrick was anti-war, hence he made Paths Of Glory in 1956,which stands alongside Lewis Milestone's All Quiet On The Western Front as the most powerful anti-war movie ever made.
Why does Simon Shack promote his hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a hoax when it is very clear that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary?
Who would stand to gain from convincing people that nuclear weapons don't exist? - Obviously, it is those who are using nuclear weapons to commit horrific crimes of terrorism and mass murder.
Let me suggest what the most obvious answers are:
The Zionists, primarily those in Israel (the global HQ of the Zionists) and those who have infiltrated and subverted the US government plus their mostly Jewish Neocon allies/servants in the US are those who are using nuclear weapons, we have very strong evidence that they have used nuclear weapons in Oklahoma City (the destruction of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building), NYC (the destruction of the WTC), Washington, DC (the bombing of the Pentagon), Baghdad Airport and Fallujah, Iraq, Homs and at least one other locale in Syria.
Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
WTF? "Jews are murderers" because of literal content in a holy book? This is the same as "Muslims are murderers" because -- and moreso right now -- some are literalists.
ReplyDeleteChrist. Or should I say, again, WTF?
You are not speaking truth, Apsterian or Steve.
FOCUS ON BANKSTER ELITES, INCL AND ESPECIALLY ROTHSCHILDS AND AFFILIATES - which includes fanatics in Israel - but each group incl parts of Isr, has own flavour and many are not Jewish, nor are all the Jewish affiliates thinking they're "working for Rothschilds and similar types".
Ho ho ho--sticks and stones will break my bones, but Jewwy babbling will not hurt me, Ian-the-Jew who lies and says he's not, ho ho ho
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, Stanley Kubrick's death (conveniently scheduled just before his Illuminati-expose'/celebration movie EYES WIDE SHUT was re-cut by Warners) took place precisely 666 days before the arrival of the Illuminati-festival year of 2001!
ReplyDeleteGo figure...
At last, I found answers to my all my questions to Dr. Fetzer about his 9/11 theory at Fakeologist's website. Greatest podcast ever. If you want some comic relief and education at the same time, tune into this:
ReplyDeleteSimon Shack and OBF Answer Fetzer
http://fakeologist.com/2014/01/19/ep85-simon-shack-and-obf/
LOL
DeleteYou're so utterly, pathetically deluded to make such an obvious and crass attempt at promoting Shack and OBF who all the honest, rational and informed listeners here know full well are nothing more than a pair of ass clown who are worthy of nothing but scorn and derision because nothing they have ever said has been of any value whatsoever. Every theory they put forward is untenable nonsense based on wholly invalid research.They make zero attempt to follow the proper scientific method of research in any way, shape or form and have proved absolutely incapable of defending any of their nonsense against honest researchers.
They are utter clowns who contribute zero of value and give the truth movement a bad name by pretending to be serious researchers.
This shameless plugging of Shack and his cronies is the final nail in the coffin of your credibility Joan, you have shown us all your true colours now and we can all see exactly what you are and it's thoroughly unpleasant and disgusting, just like the people you are promoting.
@Joan Edwards I agree that the WTC towers were brought down by ordinary explosives (plus thermite). But Simon says that the footage of the tower collapses are fake! Here I agree with Jim Fetzer that the collapse videos and photos are real.
DeleteExplain then Anders, why the LIVE CNN collapse lasted 19 seconds, while only 11 seconds on the other networks. Aviating yours, Anders.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A
That CNN clip shows a collage of repeated moments of the collapse, with rewound sequences. It's similar to how explosions in Hollywood movies often are repeated several times.
DeleteThe problem is that that was what was shown live, Anders. How can a producer edit something like that live? Can you make yourself believe this was an authentic broadcast Anders? It was prerecorded of course, not "live". They couldn't take a chance that the collapse sequence would not support the previous parts of the story. Prerecording=total control.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHmm... It says 10:28 under the Live logo. Could have been live footage of the collapse. But those are feeds from separate cameras, each of which can have a different delay.
DeleteHas the penny dropped yet Anders?
Delete@Jim Hollander No, if you mean that even the WTC collapse videos and photos are fake I don't believe that. I still believe they are real.
DeleteIan, your uber-emotional, ad hominem attacks on the Shacksters (and well-meaning Joan) do not provide useful light, only extreme heat.
ReplyDeleteI too am distressed by their taunting ridicule of the (non-photographic) evidence for 9/11 nukes, and you've done some fine investigative work in this critical area.
But the massive evidence of 9/11 fakery the Clues Crew HAVE put forward, regarding bogus victims, planes, witnesses, phone calls, still photos and videos CANNOT be debunked by the sort of irrational ranting you seem to specialise in, whenever the name Shack is invoked.
So calm down and show us, if you can, precisely where they have erred in claiming fakery.
You've a very sharp mind, Ian, so let's see it perform in a more rational and far less emotional manner.
Please.
Well, I simply exhausted my patience for these people quite a while ago, so now I have nothing left for them but scorn and derision and to be honest, they don't deserve any better, they are truly disgusting entities who seek to aid those who perpetrated a horrific mass murder using weapons of mass destruction.
DeleteShack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.
Using nuclear weapons to incinerate two towers full of innocent Americans is both an event of mass murder and an attack on a sovereign nation by a foreign power. This is a clear justification for declaring war on the perpetrators and if the American public knew the truth - that Israel nuked NYC then they would have been clamouring to go to war with Israel, just as they were out for Japan's blood after Pearl Harbour.
Demolishing two empty towers with dynamite and not killing anyone in the process is a whole different kettle of fish. No murders were committed, no attack by a foreign power with WMDs was carried out. Demolishing empty towers behind a smokescreen would basically be a case of insurance fraud.
So, on the one hand, we have the crimes of mass murder and undeclared attack by a foreign power and on the other, we have the crime of insurance fraud. The latter being a far lesser crime than the former.
Shack and his work are a sick joke, and will always remain so unless he completely alters his way of working and actually does some scientifically valid research following proper scientific methods, i.e. including ALL available evidence in his study and forming a hypothesis based on ALL of that evidence, not just some cherry picked photos and also welcoming peer review. His nuke theory ignores all the physical evidence such as the craters in Nevada and Khazakhstan, the eyewitness testimony of tens of thousands of ex-servicemen, the hundreds of thousands of cases of cancers caused by nuclear tests, the hundreds of thousands of birth defects and any other form of evidence.
Bottom line, Shack has produced nothing of any worth or value, all he has done is waste a lot of people's time, therefore I think that the only question that really needs to be answered about him is whether he is just a hopelessly arrogant, conceited and incompetent idiot or if he is deliberately putting out his nonsense because he is being paid to do so. Either way, the man is nothing but a detriment to the truth movement.
You are hyperventilating again, Ian.
DeleteBlack Knight it is. Where are your supporters Ian? All there is is a bunch of uncivilized bumps. You are the last soldier standing or fallen for that matter. They didn't need to kill anyone, just pretend they did.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the hole in Hiroshima. The pictures show destruction spread equally over vast area with no focal centre anywhere. I don't want a hole in Canada or somewhere or "the vast body of evidence" just a hole in Hiroshima would do or epicentre of sorts. I didn't even see the pictures from Hiroshima. Your debunking is enough to convince me. So keep up the good work mate.
Ian, that the reported explosion went of at an altitude of 1800 feet, is not a good enough explanation for the missing traces on the ground. The smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, according to the reports, and contained several thousand tons of materials from the ground. There must be some traces on the ground of this if their story is going to hang together. That it all hangs together is really important as you know.
DeleteThat so-called atom bomb made less damage than the raid over Tokyo several months earlier. Aside the cost of building the B-29, the cost for firebombing Tokyo and destroying 4 times as much territory was just under one million dollars. Why would anyone build a billion dollar bomb to accomplish what several B-29 could accomplish for less than one million dollars? Nobody, because that is exactly how they destroyed Hiroshima, the same way they destroyed a huge chunk of Tokyo.
The pictures show destruction spread equally over vast area of what is Hiroshima. That is the crux of the matter. Even if something fictional like that exploded with that kind of destructive energy in the air it would still leave a pattern of destruction projected onto the ground. Hence the focal centre is still expected to have been found.
ReplyDeleteBesides why should it explode in the air and not on the ground. This weapons were apparently designed to have been triggered by impact. They chose Hiroshima because it is surrounded by hills to cause as much damage as possible. The blast wave would have been kept within the area. Why would they explode it in the air then? Now I feel like and idiot talking fiction as reality.
ReplyDeleteYou are talking utter nonsense, quite clearly you have zero knowledge of the event and are just spouting whatever rubbish passes through your warped brain.
DeleteThe bomb was set to detonate at a specific altitude as this would maximise the damage, but if you had actually researched he facts, you would know this.
Hiroshima was not chosen due to hills, neither was Nagasaki, although in the case of Nagasaki, the bomb was dropped off target and exploded over a valley so the damage was confined to that valley.
The story simply is impossible, Ian. You cannot destroy a city, with 1 big explosion, and expect rational people to believe that there should be no traces on the ground that could confirm this claim. We are talking about the biggest explosions in the history of war history here.
DeleteThe boy who claimed that the dog ate his homework is more believable than this nuke story.
Is there a pattern of destruction left on the ground or there is no pattern of destruction left on the ground in Hiroshima as per pictures and videos?
ReplyDeleteand how the explosion in the air would max the damage to the city? The theory is as innovative as the nukes itself..
What is to be researched here? All is in the pictures and consistent with fire bombing destruction from other places from the second world war. Supposedly, a detonation in the air of a "nuke" would leave no pattern on the ground and that you could not tell apart such a place from another that was fire bombed. And there you have it. Perhaps a more peaceful sport for a change? https://www.gov.uk/buy-a-uk-fishing-rod-licence
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoan Edwards said:"At last, I found answers to my all my questions to Dr. Fetzer about his 9/11 theory at Fakeologist's website. Greatest podcast ever. If you want some comic relief and education at the same time, tune into this:
ReplyDeleteSimon Shack and OBF Answer Fetzer
http://fakeologist.com/2014/01/19/ep85-simon-shack-and-obf/ "
Thank you for reminding me about that show Joan. I had forgotten all about it, and how much fun we all had doing it, so it was good to hear it again.
Fakeologist [AbIrato] is a great host, a natural, I'd say, and deserves a far wider audience than he currently receives- it was an honor for me to be asked to be on his show, especially alongside Simon, and especially considering Simon's awesome, encyclopedic knowledge of nearly ALL of the to-date released 9/11 imagery- about which [obviously]he could have easily talked about and kept us all educated/entertained without any input whatsoever from myself, if needed.
Good times indeed. Regards, onebornfree.
Anders Lindman said: "@Joan Edwards I agree that the WTC towers were brought down by ordinary explosives (plus thermite). But Simon says that the footage of the tower collapses are fake! Here I agree with Jim Fetzer that the collapse videos and photos are real."
ReplyDeleteHave you studied the archived television footage shown live to the public on 9/11? I haven't. I was just reminded by listening to this podcast that the actual footage run by the networks was released to the public in 2010 under the FOIA. I didn't even know that.
This is the first true 9/11 evidence we have ever seen and no one knows about it. I have only been able to look at the first hours of the alleged plane hit and tower demolitions.
Shack, on the other hand, has devoted thousands of hours to studying these images. He mentions here he has just found six inconsistencies in the collapse videos.
The photography on the collapse is too ridiculous to believe. You'll have some laughs listening to how these shots were taken.
Why do you think so many people seem to know so much about what happened to the towers who haven't even seen the real evidence which is the archived footage?
Before scholars like Ian put down real researchers, they ought to do a little research of their own.
Joan Edwards said : "I was just reminded by listening to this podcast that the actual footage run by the networks was released to the public in 2010 under the FOIA. I didn't even know that. "
ReplyDeleteIf I understood you correctly Joan, then I believe that you have misunderstood what Simon said in the interview concerned [easily done].
The network footage was originally archived on line long before 2010 [2003 I'd say, without actually re-checking].
That is , all of the claimed "live" footage from ABC,NBC,CBS Fox and CNN for the morning of 9/11.
What Simon was saying was that in 2009-10 a "pretend" [ie false] Freedom Of Information Act [F.O.I.A.] request was filed by, if I remember correctly, the N.I.S.T. itself, against ABC, claiming that that network still had unreleased 9/11 footage.
This gave the N.I.S.T. the "legitimate" excuse to then release a flood of higher definition videos in 2010, and to claim that this newly released material was all,until then being supposedly hidden by ABC.
The whole point of the fake FOIA request was to allow the N.I.S.T. to flood the internet and assorted media with a fresh shitload of new, higher def., 100% faked video imagery purportedly from that day, in order to further reinforce the "reality" of the psyop in the general publics "mind".
In other words, there was no video material that had been hidden by ABC, it was all a scam, just a handy excuse for the N.I.S.T. to dump more fake imagery into the public conciousness, imagery that had been manufactured en masse by the N.I.S.T. and cohorts , using the newer software by then available that would enable greater [fake] detail than was possible in the original fake "live" network imagery.
I hope this clarifies.
Regards, onebornfree.
Oh, I get it, OBF. Now I remember. There was so much on that three hour cast to absorb. I had been looking for something "original" broadcast by the networks and must have assumed it didn't exist. Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies. SC clues did and that was in 2009, right?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's what I wrote because it is just recently I discovered the footage was sorted by network.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OBF, it all came together for me listening to that podcast--all of Dr. Fetzer's points such as "we have the toasted cars" etc. Yes, we have A PICTURE of toasted cars. There's also a bunch of them under a highway ramp looking as if just towed there.
I've been working on 9/11 since it happened. I knew immediately planes could not have been used. I have a long background reading books on the covert activities of the American Gestapo, the FBI/CIA, plus overt actions here at home by other agencies. I have followed all the alternative news I could find these past decades. So that may account for my non-surprise.
So, 9/11 was to me just another black operation to me. What bothered me was I didn't think it was important enough to tape. As I tried to research it, I really regretted it.
This is why I'm so thrilled with these videos which make research so much easier I only found out about them a year or so ago. Just the variation in the plane CGIs is enough to call these tapes simulated fakes.
I see the problem Shack has is in getting the message out. His graphics could be better. (I was taken by Ace Baker's videos. I didn't know at the time I watched it the message was different.) Baker was the first to do an accurate simulation of what would happen to a plane hitting the WTC. A good answer to the stupid Purdue simulation.
Joan Edwards said : "Oh, I get it, OBF. Now I remember. There was so much on that three hour cast to absorb. I had been looking for something "original" broadcast by the networks and must have assumed it didn't exist. Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies. SC clues did and that was in 2009, right? "
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure what you are saying here Joan, but I will attempt to answer anyway.
The mass of new , high res., post FOIA "request" NIST material [i.e re-rendered videos and still photos] was dumped on us [the general public] in 2010.
The differing plane trajectories were however, clearly visible [on comparison] in the original , lower res.,lower quality TV Network archives that had been on line since around 2003 or 4 at :
https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/
As far as I can recall, Simon had in fact uncovered those varying plane trajectories seen in the original "live" archived on line network footage well before 2009.
Joan Edwards said : "Strange no one caught the planes inserted into the footage and all the other anomalies."
To be clear, there were/are NO "planes inserted into any of the footage" .
As Simon has repeatedly demonstrated, ALL of the original network footage [archived on line], consists only of broadcasts of 100% digitally created, fake "live" footage - that is: the sky, the foreground, the background, all buildings , helicopters, birds, trees, explosions, fires, smoke etc. plus all images of Fl. 175 both before, during, and after collision with the WTC2 included.
All images seen were/are 100% digital fabrications.
The same is true for all original archived "live" imagery broadcast in 2001 after the "2nd strike" and before the building collapses, and also for all of the supposedly broadcast "live" building collapse sequences themselves [WTC1,2 and 7]
The exact same is true of all of the extant higher res. NIST FOIA footage [and stills thus derived] that was subsequently mass-released in 2010, the main purpose of which, as I previously stated, was to reinforce the psyop in the publics mind via the publication of more finely detailed [fake] imagery.
And so it goes ;-)
Regards, onebornfree
Is Black Knight dead yet!
ReplyDeleteSimon Pimon said : "Is Black Knight dead yet!"
ReplyDeleteMaybe its a dead parrot? :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj8RIEQH7zA
Regards, onebornfree
Back in the mid-1970s, when communications satellite links began to replace terrestrial microwave towers and buried coaxial cables for distributing TV network feeds to local stations in the USA, the paradigm of live-transmission (from whatever program streams were originating in each network's master-control room in NYC) continued virtually seamlessly.
ReplyDeleteOf course by the 1970s, those master-control program streams consisted mainly of the playback of previously created films or tapes rather than actual "live" material, the practise of telecasting "live" dramas, sitcoms, game shows, soap operas, etc. having been largely discontinued in the early 1960s.
Yet the vast majority of network newscasts, in which an anchor/presenter reads a news script (between various pre-recorded story segments) plus sporting events, awards shows (Emmy, Oscar, Tony, etc.) and high-profile "breaking news" coverage (where field correspondents report from the scene in "real time") continued to be done "live," with all the customary hazards of missed cues, wrong camera shots, microphones turned on (or off) at the wrong time, incorrect identifier-titles being superimposed, and playback equipment either jamming or being loaded with the wrong adverts, promos, theme music, or other pre-recorded segments.
And there was also the ever-present risk of an on-camera/on-microphone performer, guest, interviewer, commentator, or interviewee not just missing a cue or reading the wrong line in the script -- but spontaneously SAYING SOMETHING HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE (usually some prohibited-by-the-FCC obscenity/expletive) that would have embarrasing consequences for the network, necessitate a public apology (for offending sensitive viewers) and possibly even result in an FCC fine being levied on the licensed stations actually owned by the offending network.
The first widely employed means of reducing the "inappropriate comment" risk on live-TV programming was borrowed directly from telephone call-in shows on radio. It was the use of a specially modified tape recorder that continuously played back a loop of tape carrying live-program material recorded at least seven seconds earlier, so that there was a time delay in which a producer could decide to temporarily kill the program signal before it went out on the air, if "something risky" was said.
Adapting this method of "instant censoring" for television was less successful and more failure-prone than for radio, however, since a continuous loop of audio tape could hold up under several hours of use before it started to lose its oxide coating and the sound quality would deteriorate. Videotape was much more delicate, so the networks had to employ a more clumsy method of obtaining the same level of content control that talk radio already enjoyed: stationing two broadcast-quality video recorders (which were as big as upright pianos in the 1970s) next to each other and feeding an entire, hour-long reel of tape (coming out of the recording deck) into the playback deck. And because old-fashioned videotape traveled at at least 15 inches per second, the "slack" build-up necessary to establish even a seven-second delay (between the two machines) had to be temporarily collected in a large basket placed between the recording and playback decks. And if the tape snarled (which it often did) while coming back up out of the basket, the producer had to immediately switch back to a direct transmission of the live program -- or the picture and sound would be lost for the viewers at home. Needless to say, this jury-rigged method of "instant censoring" live-TV programming was only used in the most risk-prone situations, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, even as video tape equipment was becoming smaller and more reliable. (continued...)
(continuing...)
ReplyDeleteFinally, the arrival of what were called "digital delay" units in the 1990s completely did away with the need for tape-based mechanisms in the "instant censoring" of live television, and by 9/11/01 all the networks (and many local stations too) were fully equipped with them and capable of programming these units (depending on their memory capacity) to delay a live program stream for durations as short as a fraction of a second to an expanse of several hours. Because of the multiple signal paths many network program streams take in the modern era (sometimes involving huge racks of processing circuits and even multiple satellite uplinks and downlinks) these delay units are often used just to keep picture-and-sound "in sync," rather than to guard against inappropriate outbursts -- but their prevalence and widespread use in the TV industry has essentially "done away" with virtually ANYTHING on network TV reaching the viewers as a genuinely "live" stream (meaning that it travels from the point of original performance to the viewers at home at the universal-standard, electrical/vibrational speed of 186,000 miles per second). The next time Obummer speaks to the nation from the Oval Office, try listening to him on several radio and TV receivers (tuned to different stations) at the same time, and you'll see what I mean. Back when Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Reagan addressed the populace, there was only a very slight echo between the various network streams being heard at home in synchronization. Not so anymore.
Well, the point of all this historical/technical digression is that it is entirely possible, and moreover highly plausible, that virtually NOTHING that has come to us from network television, since the 1990s, has been truly "live". Instead, I would postulate that an array of vigilant, trained, and loyal network AND government censors, backed up by banks of digital-delay devices in strategic choke-point locations, has been "riding herd" to make sure that nothing "really inappropriate" reaches the masses via the TV mainstream. Oh yes, there may have been the occasional screw-up, since the human factor is still necessarily involved ("nose-out," anybody... or how about another "wardrobe malfunction?" ;) ) but the level of control is probably quite awesome and intense, and has been for more than a decade.
It won't be too much longer before "they" figure out how to apply it to the Internet too, which means Cass Sunstein's boys won't be needed anymore.
On the 9/11 morning, when a record-setting number of "war
ReplyDeletegames" were covertly running in DC, NYC, and all throughout the Military-Industrial complex,
those far-from-perfect computer simulations of the twin-towers attack (probably
originally prepared for "Vigilant Guardian" et. al.) had to be hot-switched BY
SOMEBODY into the national network feeds of each of the major TV
networks. And all the other technicians, busily watching and adjusting
their vision-and-audio mixers, preview-and-program monitors, vectorscopes,
waveform monitors, frame synchronisers, microwave-linking hardware, and INSTANT
REPLAY units just HAD to include some guys (far enough down the chain of
authority not to have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with death) who
either instantly, or eventually, realised that their live-program streams had
been HIJACKED -- for at least a few minutes, if not the rest of the
morning.
Now think about this: The broadcast-TV technicians' unions, in
the nation's capitol and in the Big Apple, are among the strongest in the
country. NOBODY touches a switch or adjusts a knob that's outside his
closed-shop, contract-defined job classification and assignment. And these dudes
stay in their jobs for decades, with iron-clad employment security. If
even one of the many master-control or microwave-link technicians from that day
is reading these comments, or if one of this website's readers knows
somebody who knows somebody who was "on the inside" of big-time network TV
technical operations on 9/11, then maybe we can get some details on JUST HOW the
hot-switching was done and WHERE the substitute video/audio feeds came from?
WTC7 perhaps? Or possibly StratCom in Omaha -- next door to where lots of financial bigwigs were gathering that very morning, and where Dubya was "summoned" by the PTB later in the day.
And if the feed point was out in Omaha, rather than at the soon-to-be-demolished WTC7,
then maybe, just maybe, the playback tapes and transmission
gear that were used still survives -- somewhere in the heart of
DARPA-darkness. (It would make great material evidence at an
international warcrimes tribunal someday.)
In a very helpful video compilation that's been up on YouTube for years, showing four simultaneous network news streams (each filling 1/4th of the screen) and also displaying the precise time both before and after the second sim-hit, you can see each network SUPPOSEDLY
choosing, INDEPENDENTLY, to execute replays of the sim-hit at various later
intervals and from SUPPOSEDLY their own proprietary chopper or fixed-cam feeds
of the Manhattan skyline. A careful analysis of these simultaneous
network streams reveals, however, that some identical segments of the same
"footage" show up, multiple times, on different network streams AND with
different keyed-in logos!
(continued...)
(continuing...)
ReplyDeleteSo, if some of these identical segments of proprietary footage were being borrowed from the rival networks' news streams (a courtesy arrangement that can and does occur in crisis situations) there should have been one logo layered upon another logo, or a "courtesy of" notice, each time the borrowings occured, but that is not the case -- strongly suggesting that all the networks'
proprietary video shots of the sim-hit actually originated from a single, covert
source. And although most of the network "choices" to replay the sim-hit
do give the illusion of being the result of independent editorial/control-room
decisions to activate a replay device (either a dedicated instant-replay unit or
just a re-wound and re-cued video deck) with independently chosen starting and
stopping points, a dead giveaway to there being an external, covert source for
the "footage" occurs just before the networks all "decide" to switch to a pool
feed from the Bushmaster's Florida photo-op.
Now get this: The last of the four networks to switch to the Florida feed shows one final replay of the sim-hit, and both the camera composition and the starting/stopping points are IDENTICAL
to a replay shown earlier on another network -- but now the keyed-in logo is
different!
It seems that the perps had a only a rather limited amount of pre-edited (with
replays) sim-footage prepared for each network to show, with each of the
sim-streams varied (in shot choices) just enough to create the illusion of separate
switching decisions going on in the respective control rooms. However, the
creators of the sim-footage (maybe working on a tight deadline... or just geting lazy) eventually started to repeat even the replay starting/stopping decisions, which meant that just before that overly repetitious point occurred in playing back the simulations, it was essential for all the network control rooms to "dump out" of the sim-footage and switch to Florida.
But one network was slightly too late.
Gotcha! :)
Andy Tyme wrote :
ReplyDelete"In a very helpful video compilation that's been up on YouTube for years, showing four simultaneous network news streams (each filling 1/4th of the screen)..."
If you are referring to my "SYNCHED OUT", please know that the reason why I don't have it uploaded on my own YT channel is because it was banned TWICE - for inexplicable reasons - by the YT censors. A third ban would have put at risk my entire Youtube channel - so I had to desist. Fortunately, other friendly YT users were able to re-upload it some time later. Here's one of them:
SYNCHED OUT - by Simon Shack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk
So WHY, you may ask, was my SYNCHED OUT video banned twice, back in 2010 - within hours after I performed the uploads?. Well, I still do not know. Read all about the 'drama' here:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=358&p=2194810#p2194810
As for your above 'essay', Andy - oh well... I'll have to put some time aside tomorrow to respond to it in detailed fashion.
Simon Shack
What we are witnessing here in this thread is a clear example of the strawman - a bunch of crap being thrown at us in order to obfuscate the really important issue.
ReplyDeleteAll this crap about the fakery of videos and TV is the strawman and the really important issue is that nuclear weapons were used in the middle of a major US city and they got away with it.
Simon Shack should be called Simon The Strawman because everything he says and writes is designed as a strawman - to distract people from the important stuff.
People who support Shack are either utter fools or also in on the disinfo game he is playing.
Shack is far from the most significant of the 9/11 disinfo crowd however, there are others like Christopher Bollyn, Steven Jones an Richard Gage who are far more prominent and have been far more effective in misleading the public.
Don Fox has written a superb article that lays out exactly why all these disinfo bastards and their nonsense about nanothermite and utter denial of the nuclear events of 9/11 clearly exposes them as shills:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/28/deconstructing-christopher-bollyn-and-steve-jones/
Gage is a pawn. The other two ??? Simon would be at the top in disinfo game, with people like Jesus Christ. Thats the pro level we are talking here.
DeleteIan, MSM complicity in all these operations is the common denominator. Their agents in the Gov change every so often, and these days it is raining hoaxes, but the common denominator is still the MSM.
ReplyDeleteWhen they control the MSM, they also can control the election process, and are always able to pull their controllable puppet to the top and hand him the keys to the White House. Then they can get access for their agents wherever they want or need in the Gov. Before you understand this, you will just be spinning your wheels.
But I understand you don't want to warn people about the Weapon of Mass Deception. Looks more like you prefer to hide its significance and talk about anything else but this.
I don't think mainstream media knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. However IIRC a CNN boss was the first witness on CNN who claimed to have seen the first plane impact! So some people in media could have been in on it.
DeleteSome people within the MSM knew, no doubt about that, they were given scripts to follow, as made plain by the BBC's cock-up with Jane Standley and WTC7.
DeleteAnders Lindman wrote:
ReplyDelete"No, if you mean that even the WTC collapse videos and photos are fake I don't believe that. I still believe they are real."
Anders,
You may wish to spend some time assessing for yourself the available evidence which shows that the tower collapse imagery cannot possibly be real.
You may start here...
http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml
...and continue here:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389192#p2389192
Of course, the above link goes to our longstanding Cluesforum thread titled "CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE" - which is now 31-pages long. However, if you are serious about your quest for 9/11 truth, I trust you will enjoy the read.
Take your time - no need to rush it! :O)
Simon Shack
This looks inconsistent: http://www.septemberclues.info/images/WTC1collapseSAURET_MSNBC.gif
DeleteBut couldn't that be a result of different camera angles? (I couldn't find the MSNBC clip.)
I found the MSNBC clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2rZCHqY_M&t=26m10s
DeleteIt looks that it might have been a wobble of the antenna. Watch when the camera zooms out and you can see that the antenna is falling to the left. I think it's real footage.
Of course it's real footage. You have the most spectacular and downright intimidating event taking place so what earthly reason could there be to not show it? No need to fake anything about the destruction, all they needed to do was make sure they had the cameras rolling when it took place.
DeleteA large part of the reason for the destruction of the WTC was to scare and traumatise people, therefore they showed the destruction in all it's 'glory' so that the message was sent out loud and clear.
The footage of the plane strikes was faked, the footage of the destruction is real, no honest researcher has ever offered any reason why the destruction footage isn't real,only disinfo scum like Shack and his cronies keep insisting that everything shown was faked. Bear in mind that Shack also insists the towers were brought down in a standard controlled demolition with dynamite, which is absolute nonsense and is contradicted by a vast body of evidence that he either ignores or laughs away by simply stating it is 'fake'.
Anders,
ReplyDeleteSo, as you have now demonstrated / confirmed for yourself, the apparent camera angles of the two shots (NBC and SAURET) are quite similar (both appear to be filmed from a Northern vantage point). Now, as you can see in the SAURET clip, at NO time does the antenna lean Westwards (towards the right of your screen) - whereas it clearly does lean Westwards in the initial frames of the NBC clip. Yet, as the NBC shot ZOOMS OUT, the antenna is suddenly / 'magically' leaning Eastwards. Yes, it indeed appears to wobble as you rightly noted. But see - it does NOT wobble at all in the SAURET shot. You have just helped proving that the two shots cannot both be real.
By the way, thank you for bringing to my attention that even that yellowish NBC shot of the "WTC1 collapse" features a ZOOM OUT motion - immediately after collapse initiation. Please compare it with these other 6 WTC1 "ZOOMED OUT SHOTS" credited to six different amateur videographers :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389192#p2389192
Anyhow, Anders - I don't think this comment section is an appropriate place for us to debate all this. Again, please take your time - no need to rush to hasty conclusions. You have a lot more to take in - stay cool.
As always, very sensible words from OBF. Have a listen to our recent interview with him here: http://fakeologist.com/2014/06/29/dustban-18/
ReplyDeleteThanks again Onebornfree.
Ian Greenhalgh nukes themselves are most likely a fraud, never mind tiny blast point specific mini nukes. You're reaching out into the sci-fi realm to explain movie magic. The 9/11 footage is a forgery. The 'events' viewed from multiple angles don't line up, how many times must this be overlooked? The jig is up.
Nice to see Anders Lindman is still stuck halfway too. Keep at it, you'll get there!
Banazir
Oh dear, only idiots and disinfo shills push this 'nukes are fake' nonsense. It is an utterly untenable viewpoint that flies in the face of a vast body of evidence.
DeleteAlso, pushing the importance of whether the footage was faked or not is jut a misdirection tactic designed to keep attention away from the important aspects of the crime.
The nuclear events of 9/11 are proven beyond reasonable doubt, only a fool or a shill would deny it. Gordon Duff's recent articles make it very clear what happened:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/
Banazîr Galbasi said: "As always, very sensible words from OBF. Have a listen to our recent interview with him here: http://fakeologist.com/2014/06/29/dustban-18/
ReplyDeleteThanks again Onebornfree. "
What a coincidence Banazir! I've just, moments ago logged out of my email account after sending you a message asking for a link to my interview with you guys- I guess there is no need for you to reply to my email now.
Anyhoo, thanks for having me on - I enjoyed talking to you guys and your callers- great show [just like Fakeologists is].
regards, obf
Gatekeeping 101. LOL.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm an idiot am I? Or a shill? I've got one post on here and you've come to this conclusion? How quick you resort to name calling. Tell me, if I'm the shill why are you the one acting like one?
It's perfectly simple, anyone who promotes the 'Nuke Hoax' has to be viewed with suspicion because it's such utter nonsense.
DeleteI accept that there may be some people who are stupid enough to believe such a theory, despite the vast amount of evidence disproving it, but I tend to think that most people are intelligent enough to know better; thus the other option is that those people are intentionally promoting an untenable theory - in short, spreading disinfo.
The Nagasaki mushroom cloud looks like cut and paste pre-Photoshop fakery: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't.
DeleteHa! Check out this zoom: http://s28.postimg.org/6307qtd3x/nagasaki_cloud.jpg
DeleteThe white part seems to have been painted manually by an artist.
No it doesn't, I see consistent grain structure and no sign of brushstrokes.
DeleteOk, I'm no expert. Could be ordinary photo grains perhaps. The main problem I have is that the position of the top part of the mushroom cloud, although horizontally centered, looks artificially positioned.
DeleteNothing looks artificial about that picture. Besides, just squinting at a single photo is hardly worthwhile research, there is a vast body of other evidence to be considered.
DeleteFor research to be valid, it must follow the proper scientific method where ALL available evidence is gathered, collated, studied and evaluated; only then can a hypothesis be formed.
Only clowns like Simon Shack attempt to pass off the squinting at a few old pictures and newsreels as valid research.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIgnoring all the sci-fi BS - do you have any evidence for this claim about Bannister and Garrison?
DeleteBannister was stationed in Butte, Montana in 1947:
Delete"William Guy Banister was born in Monroe, Louisiana, on March 7, 1901, the oldest of seven children. He attended Louisiana State University and Soule College of New Orleans, then joined the Monroe Police Department, where he advanced to the position of Chief of Detectives.
In 1934, he joined the Justice Department's Division of Investigation, which soon was retitled the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He served briefly in Indianapolis, then was assigned to New York City. He worked over the northern part of the country on special assignment for approximately three years, and received special training in investigating the Communist Party.
In 1938, after a brief stint at the FBI's Newark, New Jersey office, Banister was promoted to Special Agent in Charge, and transferred to Butte, Montana. Researcher A. J. Weberman notes that Banister told an associate that he was sent to Butte because "at one time he had a visit by an FBI agent who told him that Mr. Hoover had asked for an honest appraisal of the Bureau from some of its top agents. Mr. Banister is alleged to have sent up a memo from Chicago that called the Bureau a prostitute that wanted keep her virginity."
Banister was stationed in Butte until October 1941, when he was transferred to Oklahoma City, but returned to Butte in 1943, where he remained until 1952, when he was transferred to Minneapolis, Minnesota. In January 1954 he was transferred to Chicago. He retired from the Bureau at the end of that year."
As for Garrison, in 1947 he was studying at the Tulane University Law School and didn't even join the FBI until after he graduated in 1949. He worked for the FBI for just two years, being based in Seattle and Tacoma.
So, it is obvious after just a very cursory bit of research that this claim of Bannister and Garrison working together for the FBI in 1947 is utter nonsense. Bannister was in Montana and Garrison was at law school in New Orleans.
Why did you post that piece of fiction Andy? Did you honestly think it would pass without being checked? Are you trying to spread disinfo?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's a pretty poor excuse for spreading utter fiction as if it were fact.
DeleteAlso, you accusation of Jim promoting aliens on the moon is very unfair, he merely had a guest on the show who put forward the idea and it was clear Jim was very sceptical about the whole thing.
Anyways, you shouldn't go round posting such rubbish as it makes you look like a disinfo agent and there is no lower form of life than such scum.
Anders Lindman wrote:
ReplyDelete"The Nagasaki mushroom cloud looks like cut and paste pre-Photoshop fakery."
Anders,
Please meet Miss NAGA & Mr SAKI ... ;-)
http://www.septclues.com/NUKE%20HOAX/NAGA_and_SAKI_01.jpg
Ian,
How about printing out this artwork, poster-size, and hanging it in your living room? It makes for a great conversation piece!
Simon Shack
I've seen this piece of nonsense before, where you claim it's the same cloud, well any fool can see it's not, that time has elapsed between the two shots and the cloud has changed.
DeleteSo don't bother trying to patronise me with your bullshit Shack, it turns my stomach.
You never did answerme about why you hav ignored ALL of the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony an instead based your 'Nuke Hoax' BS on nothing more than squinting at a few photos and newsreels.
Your work is beyond pathetic, your theories are so paper-thin and untenable that they are either the product of a retarded brain or are intended as deliberate disinfo.
You should stick to making bad music and stupid music videos with frogs raping women, even though you're not good at that, it's a lot less embarassing and disgusting than your pathetic attempts at disinfo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OnL98rjvfY
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIan Greenhealth wrote :
ReplyDelete"So don't bother trying to patronise me with your bullshit Shack, it turns my stomach."
I'm sorry to hear about your upset stomach, Ian. Have you ever tried watching TV? It helps expelling all of your gastric contents in short order - through your mouth. Seeing how full of dung you are, you might find it helpful to expel it through two orifices - instead of only one.
As below - so above.
Norwegian said : "Seeing how full of dung you are, you might find it helpful to expel it through two orifices - instead of only one. "
ReplyDeleteVery good advice, for all those serious shit-eaters out there [like Greenhorn], Mr Shack! I must say I'm astounded by your in-depth dietary and medical knowledge! :-)
Regards, onebornfree.