Monday, August 25, 2014

A debate with Kevin Barrett

On Richard Gage and A&E911


  1. Thermite: WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner --

    Thermite: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
    Center Catastrophe --

  2. Richard Gage is deliberately being unscientific in claiming that the Towers were brought down by conventional explosives and thermite when he has admitted to being aware of contradictory information (seismographic records, toasted cars, so much paper and a lack of much office furniture, ...), but he has said it would be confusing to discuss those details that he says he can't explain. He also knows about September Clues and says it raises some important issues for further research (media fakery), yet he gatekeeps discussion of it from his audiences.

    1. I think Richard Gage wants to avoid speculation. I myself believe the papers were planted inside the towers and the toasted cars, the jet parts etc also planted, but that's just my speculation.

    2. Witnesses reported seeing the cars burst into flames and one thousand people get vaporized.

      FYI: paper is "planted" in every office building.

  3. Gage it would appear to be a gatekeeper a&e have not progresses the paradigm in the last 5-10 years.

  4. This was a good discussion that covered some ground that AE911 won't touch with a 10 foot pole. However, Kevin has mistakenly cast Richard Gage, Steve Jones, Niels Harrit and Chris Bollyn et al as actual truth seekers promoting 9/11 Truth. They're true purpose is to deny the use nuclear weapons on 9/11 by any and all means necessary and attack anyone who promotes the Nuclear Demolition Theory. Nanothermite is merely a ruse to distract from the nukes that actually destroyed the WTC buildings on 9/11. Nanothermite doesn't exist, was never produced and cannot explain the destruction of the Twin Towers and the other WTC buildings.

    The recent 9/11 conference call Jim and I were on with Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger has caused me to question their motivations. Dwain's claims keep getting more outlandish. Dwain now admits that the barium and strontium found at Ground Zero are indicative of fallout from nuclear devices but he says that it was the Nevada nuke test from the 1960s that was responsible for the presence in the USGS dust samples. That’s just embarrassing. Barium and strontium levels were off the charts in the USGS dust samples – both were over 3000 ppm in one of the samples. If the levels from the 1960s Nevada tests were that high in Lower Manhattan in 2001 what would they have been in the Midwest? Why was uranium found at sky levels on the girder coatings of the Towers in 2001? Nukes detonated inside the Towers explain the dust samples perfectly while Dwain and Niels are grasping at straws. Niels makes the outrageous claim that there was no radiation detected at Ground Zero. Uranium and thorium were present in the dust and those two elements are ALWAYS radioactive. Some isotopes of uranium and thorium have very long half-lives but they are still radioactive. Tritium was found in the basement of building 6 at levels 55 times greater than background. Tritium is a rare isotope of hydrogen and is radioactive. Tritium is also the smoking gun of a thermonuclear explosion. Niels Harrit is a liar and a complete fraud.

    Honegger is now claiming that there were two covert underground nuclear power plants at Ground Zero and that explains the dust samples. This is also a complete joke. Another fig leaf for the nuke denying crowd. The uranium used in a power plant is much lower grade than what is used in bombs and cannot possibly explain the destruction of the WTC buildings. Not to mention no evidence has never been uncovered for the existence of these nuclear power plants.

    Israel nuked New York and the Pentagon on 9/11. THAT is 9/11 Truth. It’s ugly and very politically incorrect but that is indeed what happened. Half measures and steering away from controversy will get you nowhere which is what AE911Truth is designed to do – go nowhere.

    9/11 is a very complicated subject. You have to do your own homework especially when it comes to the nuclear physics stuff. There isn’t going to be a big name scientist publicly endorsing the Nuclear Demolition Theory. I’ll have another article posted soon on the USGS dust samples that will hopefully connect the dots a little better but there are no EASY answers to the destruction of the WTC buildings. But if you put in the time you can figure it out for yourselves.

    1. Don Fox - " Nanothermite doesn't exist, was never produced"

      Ignition of Nanocomposite Thermites by Electric Spark and Shock Wave

    2. Nice try. Gordon Duff has stated that a few grams of nanothermite were produced in zero gravity on the International Space Station that was explosive and that Los Alamos produced some 10 micron particles that couldn't blow a hole in a piece of paper.

      Next time post a link that shows us where the thousands of metric tons of nanothermite that would have been needed to destroy the WTC buildings were produced.

    3. I was trying to show. That you need to refine your state concerning "Nanothermite doesn't exist, was never produced".

      I am on board with it not being the cause of the tower's destruction.

      I think Fetzer observation that the towers were taken out 10 floors at a time is fallacious. We can obvious see that is not the case.

    4. Don Fox, I'm inclined to be persuaded by the nuke hypothesis, but when so much is made of the USGS samples, you must admit it'sodd, isn't it, that they were actually phoning Jeff Prager to update him on their readings?

      Why do you suppose they were so forthcoming?

    5. Jeff just picked up the phone and asked the questions. Nobody else bothered to do it. They figured out Jeff knew what he was talking about so they ended up calling him back a few times.

      The USGS is a public agency. Public agencies are supposed to be forthcoming with info. I know that's not what we typically see researching these types of events but in a perfect world that would be the norm not the exception.

    6. Don, can you explain the origins of the USGS stats? Were they looking for something else with the analysis of the dust, and stumbled upon the fall-out accidentally? Who realised it was due to a nuclear event? Anonymous Physicist? It's very interesting to see how something surfaces. Was it part of the FOIA request that was granted in 2008 with all the photos? Maybe you could write about it on your blog, or link to it if you already have.

    7. Ok, then he probably tells that story on FB.

    8. 10-floor cubes at the rate of one per second is an illustration to convey how mini-nukes might have been used. It may not be precisely how it was done but exemplifies the general account.

    9. OK, thanks Don.

      It's very odd.

      About what subject do you say the geologists could see Prager knew what he was talking about?

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. Don, you cite Gordon Duff as a source in this strand of the thread.

      Duff also says tall pale aliens - 'nordics' - run a large undersea base in the pacific in partnership with the Chinese. These two in alliance are apparently at war with the U.S.

      I may have the alien race wrong, and this week Duff might be saying the Chinese are in cahoots with the U.S. against the 'good' aliens. But you know how it is. Duff's story constantly changes because his audience is made up of morons who don't care, plus peace-seeking Iranians, veterans, truthers, antiwar online activists and others he clearly hopes to discredit.

      The first prominent advocate of the nuke theory was M.D. and radio personality Bill Deagle who claims to be earth's ambassador to ruler of the universe, Pindar, the alien with a ten foot dick. Ed Ward was often on his show,

      Why, if nuke theory is solid, are you, Ward, Fetzer and other seemingly sane people so willing to destroy any credibility you have by mixing with these obvious nuts?

      The safe, suited, conservative Gage method, even if it leaves out all of the complicated science, also leaves out the alien/ khazar / reptile / freemason / nazi bullshit that you nuke guys NEEDLESSLY envelop your message in.

  5. Here we go.................. again.

    Yet another "chain of fools" discussion between persons [Fetzer/Barrett] who, no differently from the person actually being discussed/complained about here [Gage] , all have the exact same unwavering faith in the veracity of the original "live" MSM 9/11 broadcasts [including that depicting the collapse of WTC 7] .

    None of them appears to be interested in the [methodologically] scientifically and legally essential requirements to first try to verify that those broadcasts were actually live, and furthermore none of them even knows how to even go about such a process- despite the fact that that process is actually fairly simple, and requires little more than common sense and a keen eye.

    For example :"Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All":

    and also:

    "9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples"

    And so we get endless assertions, interjected with Beatles music, about how "we" know for certain [or supposedly "should"] that "izrale nooked noo yawk on 9/11".

    I think I'll listen to Aretha instead- at least she can sing and had great backing musicians to boot:

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. Do you know where Alethea recorded her 1st hits?

      Ever heard of the Swampers?

    2. The birds clip is very impressive. But I can't understand a genuine researcher not properly citing the source, providing links, and showing that THEY are not the one who faked the footage.

      I wouldn't even bother to make that film without including such information. Who would? Even when it's innocent this shoddiness is typical of 9/11 truthers.

      Do you have a link to that clip in context from a neutral source, OBF? I think it's very strong evidence for your position if you do.


      'And so we get endless assertions, interjected with Beatles music, about how "we" know for certain [or supposedly "should"] that "izrale nooked noo yawk on 9/11".'

      - And there's your real beef, I think.

    3. I've looked at some of your work and listened to some of your interviews and am puzzled why Fetzer and co. are so hostile to you around here as I find your work VERY intriguing. Fetzer should to as he has repeatedly stated that he's open to examining all alternative hypotheses.

      One question about your version of events: do you believe that not only the videos of the planes were fake but the collapse videos were fake as well? In other words, are you saying we have no (video) evidence at all of the *real* collapse that did take place in real life (as obviously the buildings were destroyed)? And if so, all this examination of the video evidence is a futile waste of time as the collapse shown wasn't even real?

      What do you think happened on the ground that day? That the towers were just randomly were blown up with nothing flying into them, etc? That does seem risky to do in NYC because if even one camera was trained in on them the whole story about terrorists flying planes into them would be already disproved.

      Thanks for the time.

    4. There was a reply here from OBF to my query. It's not showing that it was deleted by the author. Was it deleted by someone else?

      It was a direction to the Fox archives from 9/11 at

      I found the reply rather lacking. OBF had posted Shack's video so I would have expected him first to have sought out (he'd have had to) and viewed the original version himself and been satisfied that Shack's claims were legit. Why didn't he post a link to other people who would quite sensibly expect to see proof when he passed on to them Shack's un-evidenced claims? I mean, you just would, wouldn't you, if you were a thinking, serious researcher?

      Not just: "They did this!" when "Look, they really did do this!" is easy enough.

      It may just be typical 9/11 truther ineptness when dealing with evidence and information, but then you have to wonder how inept became the standard in a community devoted to investigation and fact-finding.

  6. Nanothermite doesn't exist, end of story. Chris Bollyn provided Gordon Duff with the name of the supposed manufacturer. Duff contacted them and they were furious that Bollyn had made the claims he had regarding them, so mad they were going to take legal action. The manufacturer told us that they had produced less than a gram of nanothermite and it had been provided to the DOE for research purposes. They also described the properties of this nanothermite and confirmed that it was not explosive.

    A&E, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, Chris Bollyn and the rest of the thermite brigade are nothing more than disinfo scum. During VT's research into this issue, we discovered a lot about Steven Jones, he is a central figure in the 9/11 conspiracy.

    1. "Nanothermite doesn't exist,"

      This is just not a true statement.

      Ignition of Nanocomposite Thermites by Electric Spark and Shock Wave

    2. Gordon Duff call Los Alamos, which Christopher Bollyn had cited as his source, and they told him that they had only been able to create a minuscule quantity and it could not blow a hole in a piece of paper.

    3. T. Mark Hightower and I published three articles 2011 that proved what does exist does not have the explosive force to the job, either with concrete or with steel. Check 'em out.

    4. Jim is correct, only sub-gram amounts have been made in laboratories at great expense and it did not have any explosive properties. Nanothermite as regards 9/11 is a total non-starter and anyone who pushes nanothermite is simply full of shit, and probably paid to be so - i.e. a shill.

  7. Nick Dean said:"The birds clip is very impressive. But I can't understand a genuine researcher not properly citing the source, providing links, and showing that THEY are not the one who faked the footage. "

    Frankly,I don't see what the problem is here .

    On screen , at the start of the clip, the Fox5 station sign is clearly visible, as is the time: 9am.

    So I assume that Simon assumes that if they had any doubts, viewers would simply go to the original on-line archive for Fox5 and double-check what he is trying to point out, for themselves. [Makes sense to me, at least].

    Furthermore,in my own post the words:

    " the entire "live" TV network broadcast for 9/11 provided by the network in question from which the above extract was made", is linked directly to the Fox5 online archive, from which anyone can view the clip section in question for themselves, at their leisure.

    So why don't you just visit the archive in question:

    .....and take a close look yourself?

    [And let's not forget, Fox5 is also the original source of the Fl. 175 "nose out" sequence :-) :

    "Nosed Out" :

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Are people still pushing 'nose-out' in all seriousness?

  8. I find it strange that mr Fetzer who is so critical to the thermite theory, can not understand what a hologram is and why the planes could not be holographic projections.
    It is very puzzling...
    If Fetzer would apply the same scientific approach towards Holograms, he might find that holograms are something different than what he believes them to be.

    1. As long as there were witnesses reporting having seen (what they took to be) a plane, since it was performing feats that no real plane could perform, it has to be the image of a plane, not a real plane. I have explained this many, many times. Try, for example, "The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", Part 2.

    2. You have a problem, and solve it with magic?
      People claim all sorts of things, being abducted by aliens, talking to angels, and we expect to have plenty of false witnesses in a psyop, dont we?
      Holographic projections of planes sounds exciting, but physics dont allow for that because of fundamental properties of light. You have been decieved by videos you belived to show hologram demonstrations but were only live cgi demonstrations, computer graphics inserted in a live feed. It hurts to be wrong and to be decieved, but get used to it. In psychological warfare your inabillity to accept that you have been fooled is key, its tha pivot that the op runs round, in media, in legislation, in government, in byrocracy.

  9. Oh, and thermite has the same energy density as tnt.

    1. False. It is 1/13th as powerful as TNT. Did hi miss our early articles about this? Embarrassing.

    2. Your claim that the towers were taken down in 10 floor sections is a clearly fallacious hypothesis.

      I challenge you to demonstrate that point.

      North Tower Exploding

    3. That was an illustration to exemplify the idea of having a sophisticated arrangement of mini nukes do the job--not a claim that that was how it was done in its exact details.

    4. "That was an illustration to exemplify the idea of having a sophisticated arrangement of mini nukes do the job--not a claim that that was how it was done in its exact details."

      Nice Dance! Do you do the cha cha too?


    5. TNT at thermite both have 4Mj of energy released per kg, look it up, I did. Maybe that TNT releases the energy 13 times faster, but thats something different. You are getting sloppy with your facts Mr Fetzer.
      I will help you look the facts up:
      TNT pack very little energy, burning wood releases 4 times the energy of TNT. WOOD, mr Fetzer, 4 times the energy of TNT. You need to get a better grip on physics, your understanding of the science in physics is not impressive.

    6. OBF, Shack is the researcher. Then you re-posted the Shack video, so I assume you have checked the claims -- and I wonder why you didn't link them with your re-post?

      I would have both checked and sourced and referenced the original. What else would a serious researcher do?

      You guys are ZERO for THREE. Will you fix it?

  10. Don Fox said:
    "Witnesses reported seeing the cars burst into flames and one thousand people get vaporized."

    One thousand people got vaporized? I've never even heard that one before, not even from you. Where were these "witnesses" standing when they saw this amazing sight? Didn't they get "vaporized" even a little bit standing that close to the buildings?

    Who are these witnesses? Have they made statements under oath and where can we find their names and testimony?

    From whence came the material used by the USGS in its report? How many samples were taken and from where? I expect you have a complete breakdown of this information. Do share it with us.

    The sad part about your nuke theory is that you have zero evidence to support it. ZERO. I hope you are aware that he who makes the allegation has the burden of proof.
    Before making more unsubstantiated claims, please back up all of your allegations with proof including Israel's involvement. Or is that "classified"?

    Video footage of the event isn't reliable because there is no proof where or when pictures were taken. "Cars bursting into flame" could have been file footage for all you know. Also, there are plenty of techniques to create all kinds of special effects including unburned paper stuck on tree branches. Suddenly appreciating the work of Judy Wood after trashing her work earlier amazes me. And now you are making the mistake she did by ASSUMING all the video broadcast footage is authentic.

  11. Don Fox said:
    Joan you don't anything about nuclear physics. ZERO. So why don't you go have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up juice?

    Don, if you can't handle criticism, you shouldn't be making claims you can't back up with proof.

    1. Joan I've bashed you over the head with proof time and time again but you simply do not have the mental faculties to comprehend it. 9/11 is too complex of an event for you to comment on.

      You should go post on September Clueless or the Fakeologist's forum

  12. 1000 9/11 victims 'never identified',

    From correspondents in New York

    THE remains of as many as 1,000 people lost in the World Trade Centre attack might never be identified, according to the forensic biologist leading the monumental DNA identification project.

    The city medical examiner's office has identified slightly more than half of the 2,792 people killed in the attack - only about 100 of those in the last year - as technicians struggled with DNA degraded and damaged by fire and the elements.

    Robert Shaler, chief of forensic biology, had once hoped to make 2,000 identifications, but he said he no longer considers that a realistic goal.

    Now, Shaler said he hopes for about 1,700 identifications - 1,800 at the outside - by the time the office exhausts available DNA matching methods within a year. City officials recently notified victims' families of the outlook.

    "I think once we've done all of the testing on all of the remains using the technology we have, I think we're finished," Shaler said.

    The NYC medical examiner said that they couldn't identify over 1,000 people and classified them as "vaporized."

    Go listen to the Father Frank Morales clip on my blog. He talks about the 1,000 people being vaporized.

    Then check out Witnesses Saw People “Vaporized” on 9/11

    1. Witnesses Saw People “Vaporized” on 9/11

      Witnesses Saw “Planes” on 9/11.

      Witnesses Saw “Men Land on the Moon”.

      Witnesses Saw “A UFO".

      So Friggin' What!

  13. Don Fox said:
    "The NYC medical examiner said that they couldn't identify over 1,000 people and classified them as "vaporized." '

    Oh well, Don, if the NYC medical examiner said so, it must be true. Good sleuthing.

  14. Hahaha Don. That is just the perps lightning the workload, by saying they are vaporized that is 1000 less vicsims to fake. How you can't see through this scan with all the information handed to you on a plate is laughable. And you go around calling everyone stupid?!? Haha

  15. Anonymous said: "One question about your version of events: do you believe that not only the videos of the planes were fake but the collapse videos were fake as well?"

    Yes, the "live" MSM collapse videos [ncluding WTC7] were all faked, in my opinion, and therefore, as you put it :

    "we have no (video) evidence at all of the *real* collapse that did take place in real life (as obviously the buildings were destroyed)" .

    And, as you also said: " all this examination of the video evidence is a futile waste of time as the collapse shown wasn't even real". Exactly right.

    You ask: "What do you think happened on the ground that day? "

    For an answer outlining my own speculations vis a vis some of your questions, please see :

    "9/11 Video & Victim Fakery and"The Matrix", Versus Your Freedom":

    Regards, onebornfree.

  16. Don Fox says: "The NYC medical examiner said that they couldn't identify over 1,000 people and classified them as "vaporized."

    "Expert -Textperts" [J. Lennon]

    You are referring to statements made by NYC Chief Medical Examiner, Charles Hirsch.

    And yet somehow, in an Dec 4th. 2001 AP story, reporter Richard Pyle wrote [concerning statements made by the NYC state's Chief Forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden] :

    "Dr. Michael Baden*, the state's chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, said in September that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires - while hot enough to melt steel - did not reach the 3,200-degree, 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body. Borakove said her office agrees with Baden's calculation - as applied to a full body. "But when the planes hit the buildings, the bodies that were in the planes as well as some of the bodies that were in the buildings were fragmented upon impact, and those fragments burn more quickly," she said.

    *Michael Baden is a former NY Chief Medical Examiner. He is a famed forensic pathologist, involved with many high-profile cases: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, O.J. Simpson, John Belushi, Sid Vicious, Anne Nicole Smith, etc..."

    As Simon Shack comments on his site:

    "So, in other words, Chief Examiner Charles Hirsch was suggesting that a great many victims were “vaporized”, while his illustrious predecessor Michael Baden stated that this was not just not possible. Whom are we, mere mortals, supposed to believe? Or are the two perhaps just staging a dog-and-pony show to uphold the all-important notion (the Greatest 9/11 Lie) that people died in the WTC towers? "

    As someone else around here keeps saying: "Ho, ho, ho!"

    Regards, onebornfree.

  17. Nick Dean wrote:

    "The birds clip is very impressive. But I can't understand a genuine researcher not properly citing the source, providing links, and showing that THEY are not the one who faked the footage. I wouldn't even bother to make that film without including such information. Who would? Even when it's innocent this shoddiness is typical of 9/11 truthers."

    Nick, the link to the relevant FOX5 source material (complete with exact timeline - 29min08sec) is - and has always been - to be found in my video description, right beneath the video itself (on my personal YT channel 'simonshack').


    I will assume that you watched some mirrored version of 'SOME BIRDS' (re-uploaded by some other YT user) - which lacked the said source links. But ultimately, you have no excuses whatsoever for failing to find the TV archive sources to that short clip - or indeed to ANY 9/11 imagery aired on TV that day. Especially not if you're going to lament about this issue - on a deliberately shoddy "9/11 truther blog" such as "" ! :-D

    It is now my turn to ask why a genuine researcher (like yourself?) cannot even bother to look up my duly provided sources - something which I have always painstakingly endeavored to provide for my countless 9/11 imagery analyses - for over half a decade now. This is also a strict rule (for all our members to cite the sources of any examined material) which we've been 'enforcing' on Cluesforum ever since its inception.

    As I made September Clues back in 2007, a prime concern of mine was, in fact: "how am I going to source-reference every single 9/11 clip used in my movie - so that folks won't say that I might have faked those images myself?" Now, even if this would have been theoretically possible to do (but - ugh - it would have made for a horribly text-cluttered movie!) I decided against it, confident that ANY SERIOUS 9/11 researchers would obviously know how to verify the source material used in September Clues. How wrong I was... Here we are, thirteen years later (and seven years after I released my SC movie) still debating whether the TV NETWORKS actually stand by / acknowledge / take credit for the utterly absurd (because entirely digitally-crafted) imagery they showed us on 9/11.

    Well, for those still unaware that this is actually the case, please DO spend some time perusing the below link. Better still, spend a full week watching ALL of the TV NETWORKS 9/11 archive material :


    Nick, for anyone suspect me of faking any 9/11 video myself is, quite frankly - and after all these years - downright silly, and not something I would expect from anyone calling him/ herself a serious 9/11 researcher. As for the "typical shoddiness of 9/11 truthers"" that you mentioned, please let me know where you have seen any of that in my own posts at - or else, please specify that you are not including yours truly (and my research methods / deontology) in that generic & demeaning statement of yours.


    Simon Shack

    1. You've provided the answer I sought. It should be provided in the video, of course.

      I am very impressed with this.

      The smoke is the other moving factor but the pluming doesn't seem to accelerate at all, never mind as dramatically.

    2. If there are any other such elegant demonstrations of seeming TV fakery it would be worth posting them here, SS.

      I'd like to have more than one example to chew on, and it would put your detractors on the spot more directly than 4 hours of OBF's ramblings managed.

      Direct and simple is the winning thing.

  18. Simon Shack said: "I will assume that you watched some mirrored version of 'SOME BIRDS'"

    My fault, Simon, I believe.

    I embedded your movie in a post of mine, but because I had a Firefox script editor running, I never saw your full comment underneath giving the exact time details for the clip.

    I've now re-edited my post to include the time reference plus [yet another] link to the Fox archives:

    "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"":

    As I pointed out to Nick in a previous post here, the Fox clip itself displays the moniker "Fox5", plus a time of "9am", and so I just assumed that a doubter would have the initiative to go to the official Fox5 archive and start viewing the archive segment for that 9am time window.

    Oh well, live and learn I guess :-).

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. "so I just assumed"
      When I was 19. I used this point to reflect away from my negligence.

      My boss pointed out.
      "assume", Means you made an ass out of you and me.

      Come On Children!!

  19. Idiot "Debates" About Nothing (Relatively)--Excellent Distraction As ZOG Rolls Onwards

    Prof. Fetzer: here's the problem--u post there's a "debate," but don't say what it's about for any specificity, there's no summary for what was talked about, and the up-shot is, as Judy Wood rightly pt.s out, all that happens for folks is the issue is SUBMERGED within "controversy"--which serves ZOG's purposes.

    Don Fox does good enough job working to demonstrate presence of nuke residues, which indicates nukes, BUT does it definitively rule-out DEWs?--how could it, since we know of no actual DEWs?

    So u got one group of NERDS/geeks on one hand insisting on DEWs, and on the other hand another group jumps up and down for nukes--what diff. does it really make?--WE KNOW JEWS are at bottom of it all--didja hear George Galloway took a public beating fm one of those psychopaths?--that'll teach u goyim to complain about Israel, eh?

    Then of course, u got the dis-info shills like "one-born-brainless" insisting upon problems w. photos and vids--when we KNOW Jews are at bottom of it all.

    So stupid gentiles keep babbling back-and-forth about stupid crap and obscure, moronic details--while NOTHING GETS DONE ABOUT the obvious problem, the Jews and the satanistic conspiracy they head, beginning w. US Federal Reserve Bank COUNTERFEITING, etc.

    Gentile people MUST achieve some kind of UNITY, beginning w. SENTIMENT--and there's nothing better than the REAL, hence anti-Semitic, Christianity which worships TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH above all/any other precept (Gosp. JOHN 14:6). Why can't otherwise smart people like Fetzer FIGURE THIS OUT?

    1. Running around yelling "the jews did it" will not get us anywhere. If there is going to a Real Scientific Investigation, "the jews did it" just will not fly.

      The debate and arguing are part of the scientific process.

  20. A Real Scientific Investigation?

    If "we" are going to insist on a real scientific investigation.

    Assumptions need to be approved or else eliminated.

    At this point in time, much of our investigations has been based on the assumption. That video footage in our possess is real video of the towers destruction.

    I assert that their needs to be a professional analysis of all the video footage available to everyone. Even that is going to be a mine field to cross.

    Both sides of this argument real or fake are all based on assumptions. We as individual feel justify our position. Yes, we all reach conclusions. Our conclusion need more than our own individual word/perspective.

    Let's fund an effort to eliminate this controversy!

  21. NEWSFLASH: assumption cannot be proven, brain-ful one. Some assumptions are necessary; they only need be few as possible. So why don't U list the FACTS, so as to arrive at accurate "conclusions."

  22. 911truthnc wrote:

    "At this point in time, much of our investigations has been based on the assumption. That video footage in our possess is real video of the towers destruction."

    Well, that's precisely the point I have been trying to make for about seven years now... (*sigh*)... The TV footage (and the so-called "amateur" videos) in our possession is not real video. It was ALL computer-generated - much like those Hollywood movies we have all seen in the movie halls. Just how difficult is this to understand ?

    And yes, that includes the "WTC COLLAPSE IMAGERY". In fact, all the various clips depicting the Tower collapses - from any given angle - are evidently just different (slightly rotated & re-rendered) versions generated out of a "master" 3-D template.

    On we have analyzed all the available "WTC COLLAPSE" imagery for several years now. You may wish to set aside some of your time to check out our conclusions on this important matter:


    Simon Shack

    1. OneEyedFreak and Shimon Shackelstein still banging on about irrelevacies such as birds and video fakery....

      Surely everyone realises by this point that these lowlife scum are nothing more than disinfo agents who are trying to stall serious investigation by wasting our time with their irrelevant nonsensical twaddle.

      Shackelstein pushes his 'nukes are a hoax' BS because e has been told to try to obfuscate the use of nukes on 9/11; he tried to make people focus on the video imagery because no amount of study of that will ever lead to any answers.

      Just ignore these bastards, they are disinfo scum, pure and simple.

    2. Serious investigations like making fake interviews with imaginary people?

      The video has lead you, Jim and Don to believe that the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds or did eye witnesses count how long it took the buildings to come down as they were running for their lives?

    3. Regardless of other nukes and other issues, Ian, what do you say about the birds here from 29:07?

      They appear to accelerate unnaturally.

      To your knowledge, have the speed of the birds or rate of acceleration ever been determined to be within normal ranges?

  23. Ian Greenhalgh wrote:

    "Surely everyone realises by this point that these lowlife scum are nothing more than disinfo agents who are trying to stall serious investigation by wasting our time with their irrelevant nonsensical twaddle."

    Surely, Ian, surely... Good luck with that. As for the "irrelevant nonsensical twaddle" that you mention - we all know you as a champion of this dubious art form.

    So how exactly am I a "lowlife scum" and a "disinfo agent", Ian? Would you care to explain? Do you have proof to support such outlandish, libelous claims? Would you like me to track you up in that psychotic, power-obsessed little island called "Great Britain" and drop a libel suit upon you? Nah, don't worry - I couldn't care less.

    A most pathetic clown you are, Mr Greenhalgh. You are nothing but a retired military man trying to top your measly pension allowance with some extra goodies - by joining the well-funded 9/11 gate-keeping scheme..

    And - of course - so is Fetzer and all of his sock puppets at "Veterans Today" : a bunch of retired, "ex"-military old farts hoping to make an extra buck to live out their lives more comfortably.

    Simon Shack

    1. Nobody gets paid to write for Veterans Today. As long as our articles piss off you, OBF, Joan, Steve Jones, Chris Bollyn, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and the other shills that is reward enough for me :)

  24. You want to know about demolitions? Ask an expert like CDI (Controlled Demolitions, Inc.) They will tell you that for bringing down steel framed buildings like the WTC--not the Biltmore or Hudson's Dept. Store which are mostly concrete and steel--they use thermite cutter charges and that that's what was used on 9/11. Why would you need nuclear bombs to do the same job? I think Fetzer and associates are just playing for time with this "nukes" gimmick. Publicizing the fakery of the TV Wag the Dog broadcasts of 9/11 would put an end to their speaking fees, book deals and who knows what else. I don't think Greenhalgh kisses up for free either. Pathetic, really.

    BTW, Kevin Barrett has it right, I think, when he says thermite cutter charges were used. Not shown in the clip above is that charges could easily have been placed on the modules of the facades as well The whole building was made of steel except for the thin layer of concrete poured in the floor pans. How easy it would have been to dissemble the bathroom fixtures as the washrooms were situated next to the elevators.\
    WTC 2 - Cutter Charges and Cover-Up

    Here's what demolition experts use in steel framed buildings, the linear shaped charge ... It generates around 3,000,000 psi pressure ... at a speed in excess of 27,000 feet per second ... There are over 1000 different types of explosive ... With the use of delays we can control ... where the debris lands ... vibration ... noise level.
    WMV video download (680kB)

    The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. "The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and 'walk'"
    WMV video download (670kB)

    1. Thermite, RDX, etc., etc., could have been used in addition to the overall DEW or nukes or whatever which disintegrated ("dustified") the bldgs. But Judy Wood proved (by seismic evidence) most of the mass of the WTC bldgs. DIDN'T hit the ground.

    2. Judy is right that most of the Towers did not hit the ground. 1/3 of the buildings were vaporized by nukes. Judy gets a lot of right however at the key junctures she leads you astray.

      Judy vehemently denies nukes. But once you see the evidence for nuclear fission and fusion at Ground Zero, then you know she's full of it. Her true purpose is to keep a lid on 9/11 nukes.

    3. Why would she want to put lid on nukes? But regardless, remember, Judy has it easy for one thing: since there aren't any DEWs we know about, u can't rule it out, given evidence. U have problem in saying evidence indicates nukes AND ONLY nukes, right?

      Pictures show pieces dustifying and/or dis-integrating, turning into dust before our eyes--how did nukes do that?

      Also, there's the Bankers Trust Bldg which was so affected--by something, surely not nukes--that it couldn't be saved and had to be dis-mantled.

    4. Judy is a Gatekeeper. She works for the other side. Her crew was attacking me before I ever went public.

      Nukes blast things into very small pieces. That's what it means to "get nuked." Check out

  25. Ian Greenhalgh said :"OneEyedFreak".

    Eye like it- might start using it.

    Just goes to show, even herr Greenhalgh has at least some creative talent. :-)

    Regards, oneyedfreak.

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. Jim Hollander said : "The video has lead you, Jim and Don to believe that the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds " .

    You know, if you think about it Jim, the fact that these three er, "persons" are actually promoting/pushing the official N.I.S.T. collapse time estimates of "approximately" 9 and 11 seconds for WTC 1 and 2 with straight faces:

    .... is actually pretty funny, if not downright hilarious.

    What say you?

    Regards, oneyedfreak.

  28. Yeah they are funny anyway you put it. But I always thought that they would be smart enough to at least have a cover story why they think the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds. Don keeps saying that he doesn't need video evidence to proove nukes. Ian keeps saying the video analysis is worthless and Jim says the same as both. But if you read any of the crap they put over on VT they keep saying 9 and 11 seconds without laughing. So i'm curious, without using video evidence how do we know that the towers callapsed in 9 and 11 seconds.

    I'm also trying to plug the absurdity of the 9 and 11 second coincidence at the same time, for all the folks that might have missed it.

    Ian Greenhalgh's profile on VT says he is a photographer.

    Ian please post a link to your portfolio because the trash you post on facebook account can only be the scraps that are not worthy. Show me one photo that couldn't have been taken with an iPhone.

    1. Hey jackwagon have you ever heard a witness describe the destruction of the Towers as taking longer than 9 or 11 seconds? Didn't think so. Moron.

  29. Has anyone read the last two articles submitted by Ian Greenhalgh over on VT, forget Southpark or the Simpsons... If you want a laugh please read the obviously faked interview with the anonymous nuclear man

    1. They let that creepy moron Greehaig post on VT?

  30. Jim Hollander said :"Has anyone read the last two articles submitted by Ian Greenhalgh over on VT,"

    I just took a quick look at his article[with Fox] dated July18 2014.

    Beneath a faked still-frame sequence of 4 "photographs" from the faked " spire disappearing in mid air " footage, a quote from Greenhalgh states:

    "It was Dr. James Fetzer that introduced me to Veterans Today. We had worked together on 9/11 where my expertise in photographic and image analysis helped his research."

    The same article also displays the totally fake "falling man" photo.

    But what did I expect from a self-proclaimed "photographic expert" plus another "expert" who claim,
    [just like the oh-so trustworthy N.I.S.T.], and with straight faces to boot, that WTC2 took approximately 11 secs to destruct, and WTC1 took 9 secs to accomplish the same?

    "Ho,ho, ho" :-).

    Highly entertaining.

    Regards, OneEyedFreak.

  31. They are obviously mocking us with this monotonous drone. BK and his buddies are like cats seating on a fence and mocking. You catch such a specimen and rub his nose in, like it is being done systematically, he will jump up somewhere else and keep doing the same. nukes, seismic data, not to mention the "vast body of evidence." Nothing to debate here and that's the point. You can't hit the target properly cause it moves like a fucking hologram. They are puffed up too as the masses still unaware for the most about mass fakery. It is about time to unleash the faze 2 of the operation. Global disclosure. That should wipe smug off their faces.

  32. I just listened to the above podcast again and hear Kevin Barrett talking about all the pulverized concrete. He and Fetzer are using the unauthenticated tv footage for their evidence for scenes of the aftermath of the CD. The mountains of dust have then to be steel dust--not concrete dust. What would the properties of all that STEEL DUST be? Certainly it would be different from that of concrete.

    Just to remind you again: the WTC towers were composed mainly of steel. There were 47 core columns and hundreds of hollow columns and horizontal spandrels prefabricated in modules of six pieces--three across and three vertical--making up the outer walls of the buildings.

    Spanning the core to the perimeter columns were steel floor pans which were filled with only 4" of concrete--the only concrete in the building.

    That these top, professional researchers will not take the time to review all of the archived footage, is very disturbing and now, they are looking once again into the Pentagon plane hit. Is this regressing or what?

    I may not have a degree in scientific reasoning and critical thinking, but I have enough common sense to know that something is very wrong when we jump from subject to subject and use different criteria in our arguments. There is a thing called "consistency"--a term used in the art world which measures artistic validity and quality. You musicians out there know what I'm talking about. This quality is seriously lacking in the work put out by the Fetzer Scholars group.

    The images of the planes early on alone as they appear looking like flies going across the tv screen perpendicular to the towers coming from the wrong direction and with NO BLUR, ought to make the Fetzer crowd take notice of these anomalies.

    I suggest no more research take place without the Fetzer group's authentication of the archived broadcasts. They are trying to explain what they see in the videos by claiming only nukes could cause this. Amusing because they, like Judy Wood, are assuming the smoke is real and the gashes are real. Remember Judy's term "lathering"? She used that term to describe the odd appearance of the towers as "smoke" began to appear. Other than the false assumption that the video record was authentic, she did a fantastic job.

  33. Joan Edwards said : " I suggest no more research take place without the Fetzer group's authentication of the archived broadcasts. They are trying to explain what they see in the videos by claiming only nukes could cause this. Amusing because they, like Judy Wood, are assuming the smoke is real and the gashes are real. .."

    Joan, you do not understand- Mr Fetzer has already "authenticated" [:-) ] both the original,archived MSM 9/11 footage, _and_,[ apparently by extension], all of the other, none original MSM 9/11 footage, as can be "proved", via his statement:

    "....Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic.."

    See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

    Regards, oneEyedfreak