Monday, October 13, 2014

Pablo Novi Schanes

9/11 researchers


  1. Prof. Fetzer FAILS For (a) Proper Induction, (b) Examination Of Satanic Essence Talmud

    Prof. Fetzer: I always make it a pt. to have listened to enough of the show before I comment, so I submit u're just obviously dead wrong about Jewdy Wood having to say exactly, precisely "how" it was done for the DEW--she actually has done lots to say what happened, and she shows the evidence for it.

    She then induces fm the evidence that the weapon had to have been DEW for best conclusion in all science. It's like seeing a corpse w. gun-shot wounds, and then concluding it must have been some sort of gun which was responsible--how is this so difficult?

    So there is evidence for DEW, at least on some scale, as demonstrated in work of John Hutchison, I understand.

    Yet, one might well also conclude--by means of INDUCTION--it could have been nukes--it could have been a great combination of all, including nano-thermite too.

    But surely, one thing I think u're falling-down badly about is for generalization upon the details. For observe all these false-flags and psy-ops entail "BIG-LIE" technique--see Wikipedia for good expo.

    So how then does this BIG-LIE technique work?--what's necessary context?--doesn't it require heavily regimented and highly-controlled mass-corp. "news"-media?

    Further, doesn't the control have to extend to public edjumacation, all the politicians, judges, bureaucrats, police, et al.?--and HOW could this be possible without such mechanism as central-banking institution like US Federal Reserve Bank legalized COUNTERFEITING w. it's literally, nearly infinite funds?

    I don't think u can deny this process of INDUCTION is (a) necessary part of process, and (b) what is grossly missing.

    U then insist upon ONLY considering "zionists" WITHOUT considering nature of Talmud itself.

    U don't seem to want to consider the intensity of the large conspiracy to be SATANISTIC--hence founded upon a philosophic principle of extreme subjectivism, hence moralism, these satanists manipulating things to extent of effectively controlling all established Christian institutions, not only afore-mentioned mass-media, politicians, judges, public edjumacation, etc.

    Thus the people, in accord w. BIG-LIE technique and principle FEAR to consider an otherwise quite plausible alternative--THEIR OWN GOV. as only possible culprit, this including the satanist element so hostile to the people's Christianity, pushing "gay-rights," now working to inflict plagues upon the people, like present "ebola" incursion, and others too, this by means of imposing illegal alien invaders, and lately (G-20 meeting) preparing for "bail-ins," etc.

    Finally, and again, u FAIL not only for this necessary INDUCTION, upon principle of obvious BIG-LIE technique, this in accord w. the satanistic principle of the Talmud, the specific equation being: Judaism = Talmudism = satanism

    So Prof. Fetzer, in conclusion, the clinching task for u as philosopher and scientist is to examine and conclude upon the satanist nature of Talmud--and this is actually SIMPLE thing to do--WHY are u deliberately failing to do this?

    1. Yes, Rothschilds work w. pope and Vatican--Rothschilds became Vatican banker in mid 19th cent., if I'm not mistaken.

      Pope is notorious toady of Jews, esp. nowadays--ck for extensive expo on the Vatican-Jew co-operation and axis.

    2. "these satanists manipulating things to extent of effectively controlling all established Christian institutions"

      I agree. Even though the LDS Mormons aren't obstensibly Christian (worshiping Joseph Smith Jr, not Jesus), they, too, are essentially Jewish. Every good Mormon learns to lie and cover for the Church, It's a religion based wholly upon corruption, lechery and unconscionable greed.

  2. Ted Olsen's new wife looks just like his old dead wife.
    Coincidence? Pseudocide? Reanimator? Frankenhooker? Or just really fuckin' creepy?
    I say, Barbara Olsen lives.
    Think they collected on her life insurance? Of course not....that would be fraud.
    I lived through the LA riots. I was working in Hollywood at a post production facility on the night shift during the curfew.
    Recently I saw a video of Reginald Denny depicting an alternate version of the "Official Story" - Denny getting shot at close range by a guy holding a rifle or shot gun...with one hand...displaying very little recoil.
    Obviously, it was a blank.
    That proves some fakery was involved.
    Now we have Ferguson and the Brown shooting. All of which is totally staged fake bullshit.
    Work just one location shoot at night and you will know Ferguson is a hoax.
    Michael Brown is played by he same actor that was interviewed as a victim at the Aurora Theater Hoax.
    As an American Taxpayer, I demand higher quality propaganda.

    1. If It Walks, Talks, Act Like A Duck...

      These assertions of urs may be true, but still u have problem of proving and providing the substantiation.

      It's said the kid-nappings which led to the Israeli raid on Entebbe in 1976 were staged, and that notorious Abu Nidal terrorist worked for MOSSAD.

      And even if what u say is true--we actually already suspect much about all the fakery--so then who then gets it all together and puts it out on the Jews-media to gull the suckers?--hmmmmmmmmm

      After all, Jews own Hollywood--why wouldn't they also run all the crisis-actors?

      And Jews-media is well-supported by all the politicians, Hollywood actors, crisis-actors, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, police, et al., and these are all well-paid--I wonder who controls that legalized COUNTERFEITING scam, the US Federal Reserve Bank, eh?--could it be Jews?

      All the NSA info goes straight to Israel, I understand. Jews got at least 3--count 'em--at least 3 members on Sup. ct. What do u think is going-on here? Ho ho ho ho

  3. Simon has not reversed his position on Building 7 footage at all:

  4. I believe Pablo Novi Schanes is onto something which is the lack of organization and cooperation in the research community at the expense of the enlightenment of the public. Even if people are interested in knowing more about 9/11, they have a hard time getting accurate information on what really happened due to conflicting theories and even fighting between research groups.

    Schanes would like to unite the competing groups but I don't think that is possible. What is possible is that the groups agree on the facts in the case. This would be a move toward organizing these diverse groups and finding common ground. It could also be a primer for beginning researchers. (You could even do this with JFK case.)

    Someone should put together a booklet containing a list of indisputable facts on the events of 9/11, referenced, of course, and citing those who have compiled the most on basic evidence are people like Elias Davidsson on the official story's lack of evidence, David Ray Griffin on the phone calls, hijackers and PNAC members involved, Phil Jayhan on the tenants in the WTC and demolitions.
    Simon Shack would be the authority on the authenticity of the television footage from 9/11. Both Jayhan and Shack are experts on "vicsims."

    1. Hey Compass,
      I'm impressed by your attitude & completely agree. We DO need to summarize the case of 911 being a Big Lie, False Flag, Inside Job so that the largest number of people can become convinced & then ACT on that understanding.

      I've been working on trying to make a contribution to such a summation by starting off building an outline "by 3's".

      The 3 Main Divisions in the outline:
      1) People
      2) Planes
      3) Places.

      Each is logically subdivided into smaller and small components; I envision that we'd end up with a list of the ~250 Biggest Points / Lie-Exposures.

      From such an logically-organized list, we would SUM UP the main points in (hopefully) the most memorizeable form.

      In this, and your subsequent posts, you lay out a series of important points that must be included.

      I'm always interested / available for collaborative work towards ending this "hell on earth" of police-states, wars, (approaching) world-war all based on the 911 Big Lie.

      btw, Thanx for the compliments.

    2. About the possibilities of uniting 911-Truth groups:
      I recognize that:
      1) especially after the deep divisions, lasting over years; & "aided" by the disorganizing work of the perps, unity-building will not be easy (but then, it never is);

      2) Unity-building is THE #1 task, it MUST be undertaken, it MUST be put FIRST. Historically, movements have been united; & never has there been more need with the abominations the poor & working people of the entire world are facing;

      3) The very process of TRYING to build unity, will, in fact, BUILD such unity. We must give every force (organization, leader, member, individual) the chance to contribute. To the extent that each contributes to this #1 task, that'll be THE test of their seriousness towards ending these scourges.

      Let the work be open & above board. Let the members of each organization (& the public in general) INSIST that @ does all in its power NOW. In the process, let the people themselves decide who is genuine (& amongst them, who are the real leaders).

      Let nothing stand in the way of this noblest of causes.

      The whole world is looking towards the U.S. people & the U.S. 911 Truth Movement (here in the "belly of the beast") & wondering WHEN WILL WE STAND UP?

      It's about time we did !

  5. Participants in the Cover-Up of 9/11: The Case of American and United Airlines | Aldeilis (EN)


    While the US administration has not issued any authoritative “official account”(or “white book”) of the events of 911, as promised shortly after the events by Secretary of State Colin Powell (1), the report issued by the bi-partisan Congressional Commission of Inquiry in June 2004 (2) may be regarded as the nearest thing to an “official account.”

    According to this report, 19 Arab hijackers, whose names and photographs have been posted shortly after the attacks on the FBI website (3)(4), perpetrated the atrocities on September 11 through a collective suicide operation.

    Two AA and two UA passenger jets were, according to this account, flown as living missiles into the named targets.

    The first AA aircraft (flight AA11, tail no. N334AA) is said to have left Logan airport in Boston at 7:59 with 92 people on board (crew, passengers and hijackers) and crashed at 8:46 on the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

    The second AA aircraft (flight AA77, tail no. N644AA) is said to have left Dulles airport in Washington, D.C. at 8:20 with 64 people on board and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37.

    The above departure times, incidentally, are still disputed and in the case of AA11. As of November 13, 2003, the statistical database of the Department of Transportation (BTS) did not even mention AA11 as a flight scheduled for September 11, 2001.

    At a later date the Department added a record for this flight with the departure time set as zero.

    Checking again the BTS database for this article on November 18, 2004, I discovered that the DoT again amended its database by setting the scheduled departure of AA11 to the “official time” of 7:45 (6).

    It appears that the DoT had received orders to align its database with the “official account” on the crime of 9/11.

    Should this have happened, there would be grounds to charge the DoT for falsification of official records and participation in a criminal cover-up.

    Hundreds of questions regarding the events of 9/11 remain unaddressed by the Congressional Commission of Inquiry.

    The present article examines only one particular question: Whether American Airlines (and United Airlines) are participants in the vast cover-up of the crimes committed on September 11, 2001.

  6. Shattering the myth of 19 Muslim hijackers
    No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

    By Elias Davidsson1
    10 January 2008

    Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names,
    deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them
    in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that
    there is no credible evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this
    reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to
    prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded
    as a lie.

  7. Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

    1. The probability that four young, healthy and educated Muslims with lots of cash and who like to party, would prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives for Allah in a complex hijacking operation, is 0.1.

    2. The probability that four groups of young Muslims would board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion, is 0.1

    3. The probability that young, unmarried, Muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would receive without problem a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly, is 0.1.

    4. The probability that foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, would choose to train in American, rather than in Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings, is 0.1.

    5. The probability that a person planning a hijack operation in the US would tell a US public official about his criminal motives, is 0.1.

    6. The probability that Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, would “forget” a Kor?an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport, is 0.1.

    7. The probability that hijackers who wish to be certain to arrive timely for their operation would fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking rather than take a taxi or public transport to the airport, is 0.1.

    8. The probability that US military authorities will schedule for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane attacks on US facilities and planes crashing on government buildings, is 0.1.

    9. The probability that passengers could pursue successful cell phone conversations from a passenger aircraft flying at 500 miles per hour at more than 6,000 feet, is 0.1.

    10. The probability that hijackers would take their passports with them on their flight to Allah and that their passports would survive the hellish fires at the crash site and be found shortly after the attacks, is 0.1.

    11. The probability that the US air force would bungle attempts to intercept four hijacked planes is 0.1.

    12. The probability that plans did not exist to protect the White House and the Pentagon against an accidental or malicious plane crash, is 0.1.

    13. The probability that neither the CIA nor the FBI could have possessed prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11, is 0.1.

    14. The probability that a law enforcement agency, such as the FBI, would reduce their investigations of a mass murder merely four weeks after the events, is 0.1.

    15. The probability that a government would oppose an official investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country, is 0.1.

    16. The probability that terrorists would commit mass murder without making any demands, is 0.1.

    17. The probability that five individuals with only packing knives as weapons could overwhelm fifty adults in a plane without raising the awareness of the pilot, is 0.1.

    18. The probability that hijackers could successfully enter the pilot’s cabin in three different aircraft, without the pilot’s awareness, is 0.1.

    19. The probability that a person who had never flown a Boeing 757 or any other passenger aircraft could fly such an aircraft at 30 feet in the speed of 400 miles an hour into the back side of a building (the Pentagon), is 0.1.

    20. The probability that a crashed plane would leave no trace, is 0.1.

    21. The probability that a high rise steel building would collapse at free-fall speed on its own footprint after one hour’s fire, is 0.1.

    22. The probability that debris from a crashed plane would be found miles from the crash site is 0.1.

    The compound probability of the above events to have occurred is the product of the individual probabilities, that is 0.1 in the 22 exponential, or 0,0000000000000000000001.

    1. The probability is lower: P= .01^22 = E-44
      P= .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0001
      ( less than 1 in a trillion trillion trillion).

  8. As shown above, the US authorities have failed to prove that the 19 individuals accused of the mass murder of 9/11 had boarded the aircraft, which they allegedly used to commit the crime.
    No authenticated, original, passenger lists, bearing their names, have been released;
    no one is known to have seen them board the aircraft;
    no video recordings documented their boarding;
    no boarding pass stub is known to exist;
    and there is no proof that the alleged hijackers actually died at the known crash sites, because their bodily remains were not positively identified and the chain-of-custody of these remains was broken.
    In the months following 9/11, reports appeared in mainstream media that at least five of
    the alleged hijackers were actually living in various Arab countries. These reports led to speculation that the identities of some of the hijackers were in doubt.

    1. Passage Of Time, Discussion Has Brought More Clear Perspective For Things

      What we're now getting is BETTER PERSPECTIVE for what we thought we knew about 9/11 events.

      And yes "compass," these are all very telling facts and analysis u bring to the fore. U're to be commended.

      And verily, the only thing we KNOW is that of a massive, elaborate, and intensive psy-op presented by means of the media--the "Jews"-media in pt. of fact.

      And then given this psy-ops the rest of the "players" and usual suspects colluded most sedulously and effectively, we must admit, to stampede public-opinion, and in this, we notice sublime co-ordination of all the instruments of propaganda and emotional engineering done by Jews-media.

      It's amazing what effect was created and obtained by means of this Jews-media, emotional-engineering and sheer big-lie propaganda--they got exactly what they wanted. Great work by "compass." I take back all the nasty things I said previously, ho ho ho ho ho


    No Plane Parts Unique to Crashed Planes Found in Wreckage

    The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

    With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious, but small hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s alleged version of what actually caused the total destruction of the WTC buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

    As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

    Footnote: It will soon be ten years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written. For further information regarding FBI “investigations”, click here

  10. What About the FBI's Role in Terrorism?

    At 42:40 Pablo says that the FBI reports only 29 or 30 (? not sure of number) instances of terrorism since 9/11, and all of those except one were sting operations by FBI 23 and that they weren't even not sure about that one.

    What about the WTC 1993 sting by the FBI which told its infiltrator operative to use live explosives in the false flag bombing of WTC 1 causing millions in damage to the parking garage? How come no one mentions that? 6 people were killed and 1,000 injured. (I saw it live on TV and real people were evacuated. It was in February and it looked cold outside. I couldn't figure out why people had black soot just on their mouths and noses which they were covering with a handkerchief or kleenex.)


    1993 WTC Bombing

    The first World Trade Center bombing was provocateured by the government. In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center's twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand. The FBI's failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.

  12. Very good analyses there compass. Sadly it's all rubish. All you need to know is that the buildings were demoed under smoke and the media played a movie while it was happening. Center of operation was the WTC7, which was done with at the end.


  13. Great info in the show about hollow towers and the 3,000 supposedly dead people not accounted for in official records. I don't always agree with Jim Fetzer such as claims about Zionists did it, holograms and mini-nukes and whatever (which I believe are false theories), but he does bring a truly broad spectrum of evidence to the table.

  14. Anders Lindman said :"I don't always agree with Jim Fetzer such as claims about Zionists did it, "

    You don't?

    Well shiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt! "Logically" and via "deductive reasoning" you "must" be a "filthy", "stinking", lying" jew! [Ho ho ho et. etc. ]:-) .

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Best expo for Talmud is and

  15. Simon Pimon said:

    "Very good analyses there compass. Sadly it's all rubish. All you need to know is that the buildings were demoed under smoke and the media played a movie while it was happening. Center of operation was the WTC7, which was done with at the end."
    Well, you and I know that, but what about everyone else?
    The public accepts all the lies and the researchers are fighting with eachother. Even if someone wanted to know what really happened on 9/11, how are they going to sort out information from this hodgepodge of websites and You Tube videos?

    I think bringing some organization to this material is a good idea and if someone edited a book stating just the facts in the case of 9/11, I would buy it. It would be a great reference book with everything in one place and referenced. A section could be devoted to theory--each group's interpretation of the evidence.

    Elias Davidsson's work is a good place to start to get an idea of how the 9/11 lie has been sold to us without one shred of evidence by the US Government. It is they who are making the claim, therefore, the burden of proof in on them. Read how there is no evidence of hijackers boarding the flights, no boarding passes, no security camera photos of the hijackers, no original manifests, and no testimony from airline personnel who saw them off, etc.

    There's pilot George Nelson on the absence of airplane parts unique to the 9/11 planes, not one of which was ever found. There is Phil Jayhan and Simon Shack with their discoveries--occupancy, victims, fraudulent videos, and so on--who have I left out?

    There should be a section on all the drills going on. How many were there and who was involved. I like to believe the actors we see spouting the government propaganda were part of what they thought was a drill.

    Please take time out from your free-associationism and bouncing off of the walls to think about putting together a book or pamphlet with this information. (I'd ask Fetzer and Fox to do it, but they fall into the category of theory and speculation and therefore are ignoring the facts in the case.)

    1. Is It Good To Focus Too Much Upon "Trees"?

      Compass: what do u say to the immediate and obvious objection that u're focusing far too much upon details--the "trees"--and overlooking the "forest"?

      Fetzer and Fox have excellent grasp on details, but even Fetzer fails to look properly for the forest--and it's not just "zionists"--it's Jews.

      Isn't it simply the "BIG-LIE" that gov. is feeding us for 9/11?--and isn't this "big-lie" technique used for other things, instances, and events too?--like JFK assassination, Sandy Hoax, Boston bombing, and many others too.

      How could 9/11 big-lie even BEGIN to getting past without the "mainstream" Jews-media?--and then there's the under-lying US Federal Reserve Bank (legalized) COUNTERFEIT scam behind it all.

      I assure u Fetzer and Fox and many, many others too have quite sufficient grasp of more than enough details on 9/11--what's necessary is that INDUCTIVE LOGIC and generalizing for all the particular events--who/what is behind them?--Jews.

      And then why/how do these Jews just skate past everyone--everyone so scared shitless to question these kikes? Ho ho ho ho ho. Jews, the elephant in the living-room no one wants to see first, eh? Ho ho o ho ho ho ho. Cowardly scum afraid of being POLITICALLY-INCORRECT, stupid, brainless puke.

      And to think--only a few centuries ago, our people used to curse and abuse these filthy Jew monsters as they deserved--not nowadays--have u ever wondered why/how?--it has to do w. absolutely amazing change in culture, society, and psychology.

      What a putrid, stinking "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, has taken place--and the dumbshits who've become the bulk of our people can't and won't even begin to try to figuring it out. So naturally, the Jews perpetrate 9/11, knowing if anyone starts speaking real truth, kikes will then say, "uh uh--to suspect us is anti-semitism, u know," ho ho ho ho ho

      So why shouldn't such scummy, cowardly filth be killed, enslaved, poisoned, and over-taxed?--just like the Jews are doing to them, laughing up their sleeves as they do so, ho ho ho ho ho ho

  16. apsterian said:

    "Compass: what do u say to the immediate and obvious objection that u're focusing far too much upon details--the "trees"--and overlooking the "forest"?"
    Are you at all familiar with the criminal justice system in this country? It's really amazing how screwed up your reasoning is. 9/11 is not a philosophical problem. 9/11 is a crime and the only way to solve it is with the gathering of and analysis of the evidence.

    This has nothing to do with trees and forests--details or the big picture. It is about finding out what happened by studying the evidence.

    Why aren't you the least surprised the US Government has yet to produce a shred of evidence that planes crashed at the three sites on 9/11?

    Either you are incredibly stupid or a very smart shill engaged to keep commenters distracted from discovering the truth of 9/11.

  17. Apster Justified For Philosophic, Inductive Approach To 9/11 Psy-Ops, False-Flag Crime--Fraud Within Fraud--Proper FOCUS Requires CONTEXT

    I do believe I've made a significant advance here, as in above dialectic w. Jew, "compass," for proper analysis of the 9/11 crime--for what is the REAL nature/essence of 9/11?--IT WAS "PSY-OPS"--fraud, a false-flag, the object being to justify the further crimes which ensued, illegal "patriot act," illegal invasions of numerous countries, etc.

    Hence the mass-corp. "mainstream" Jews-media is necessarily involved, among others, all using BIG-LIE technique, working to get people to LOSE PERSPECTIVE, context.

    Recent attack on Ukraine and the ebola (and other diseases too, don't forget) incursions are just LATEST little acts following fm and building upon foundation laid by 9/11 event, never doubt.

    Jew dis-info agent, "compass," is just a little too clever by half as he begs the question for the philosophic issue regarding 9/11.

    And truly apster was correct for questioning the intent of such Jewwy dis-info agents, striving to get folks distracted upon the trees of 9/11 trivia, details, and items, causing the proper perspective to be lost. For proper "focus" always requires CONTEXT.

  18. Dr. Fetzer, would it be possible to have your radio show as a podcast on iTunes? I download and listen on the go and this would probably help many of us keep up with your show. I'm not sure how it is done but I think you can put your podcast up on iTunes for free.

  19. What kind of "inductive reasoning" are you engaging in when you conclude that because one person who disagreed with you happened to be a Jew, therefore, ALL who disagree are Jews? And you think you have the right to criticize Jim Fetzer on scientific reasoning?

    1. apsterian

      By means of inductive reasoning we deduce from your "dialectic"
      that you are a prime candidate for DBT (Dialectical Behavioral Therapy) including the use of drugs and EST (Electroshock Therapy). May we suggest that you sign yourself in to the Barnes-Jewish Hospital immediately. The doctors and nurses at the Barnes-Jewish hospital will know exactly what to do with you and will waste no time in sorting you out as quickly as possible.

    2. Listen to the Jew: "By means of inductive reasoning we deduce...." Ken Fielding October 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM. Ho ho ho--u're the one who should be admitted to "Barnes Jewish," ho ho o ho ho ho

  20. Ho ho ho--listen this: "And you think you have the right to criticize Jim Fetzer on scientific reasoning?"--fm above, AnonymousOctober 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM

    Anybody has the "right to criticize," genius. And if one is to criticize for "reasoning," "scientific" or not, one merely examines the premises for logic, ho ho hoho.

    "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho

    1. Sure, you have the right to do it. Anybody has the right to make themselves look like nutcases, but do you have any credible authority or history in these matters such that we should take your criticisms seriously? Clearly not.

    2. "Clearly not"?--ho ho ho--how is it so "clear" to u, anon?--so I demonstrate Judaism is satanism, and this makes it "clear" to u? Ho ho ho ho ho ho

    3. I just showed your competence in inductive reasoning is very shabby indeed. You can't conclude everyone who criticizes you is a Jew because one person who criticized you was a Jew. Would you claim that all swans are white because you came across one swan that was white?

    4. apsterian**

      "Can't u read and comprehend?--truth of a conclusion is demonstrated in premise and logic--ask Fetzer, u poor, pathetic creature. Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho"

      " truth of a conclusion is demonstrated in premise and logic"

      Except of course when the "truth" is based on your false premises and "voodoo" logic.


  21. apsterian

    " Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho"

    So "scientific" reasoning is no different from fallacious reasoning?


  22. apsterian

    " Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho"

    An expert answer is called for!!
    We're not going to get one from apsterian. That's for sure.

    Who better to provide that answer than our own Professor James Henry Fetzer PhD, the renowned and highly esteemed professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.

    Jim, can you respond to apsterian's
    assertion above and answer the question below?

    "Is scientific reasoning no different from fallacious reasoning?"

    Thank you.

    Is there any reliable evidence than anyone other than The Beatles wrote The Beatles music? They don't appear to be capable of writing it but the case for Theo Adorno writing it are looking thin and thinner. The "evidence" that Aldorno was the original owner of The Beatles' song rights is that someone claimed it so in a book! WIKI seems to have the whole history of The Beatles catalog, yet never once mentions Aldorno (which says nothing, Wiki would never expose Adorno, even if true).

    1. @Allison Hunt Could it have been the Tavistock institute that created and controlled The Beatles?

      "When Tavistock brought the Beatles to the United States nobody could have imagined the cultural disaster that was to follow in their wake." --

      UHM – Jesuits control the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations --

      The Jesuits! Ho ho ho. :D Seriously though the Jesuits may have some secret power but there is a higher power above the Jesuits, Zionists, the Freemasons and international banksters etc. Some kind of secret cabal, and then even another power above that. The top power is actually good I believe even though on the surface it doesn't look that way.

    2. Yeah, I was going to add to my question that I believe the Beatle songs were created in committee but I didn't want to get too windy. A committee composed of just the right people would be capable of putting out some fantastic stuff.

      The people at top control today are the same people as 200 years ago. That would be Rothschild, namely David deRothschild or his brother, Jacob Rothschild. You hear Alex Jones talk a lot about the Jesuits. I'm really not sure what that is. I've met plenty of Jew, plenty of massons... never run into a Jewsuit. Is that a Catholic that takes orders from Jews? What kind of deal is that?


    3. Allison: Jesuits are an order, like Franciscans, Dominicans, Cistercians, Augustinians, et al., founded by a former soldier fm the Basque country in Spain, Inigo, or Ignatius, in mid 16th cent. Ignatius's idea was to specialize in missionizing and education for purposes of the Counter-Reformation. Ignatius designed to be the Pope's closest servants.

      Thus the Jesuits became good at fund-raising fm rich widows, and worked to become "confessors" of the ruling houses of Catholic monarchies, Portugal, Spain, France, etc.

      But the Jesuits became so zealous for their plots even the monarchs complained and in about 1771 they were banned, though later, about 1814 or so they were brought back. Jesuits seem to be pope's special black-ops unit--they run lots of educational institutions--like anything w. "Loyola" in the name, including the U. of Georgetown, lots of high-schools too.

  24. As for your"inductive reasoning" BS:

    Three Forms of Logical Reasoning Every Reader of the Law Should Know

    Deductive reasoning – Proving a conclusion by means of two other propositions – By far the most frequently used form of reasoning conclusions under the law

    Inductive generalization – Arriving at sweeping generalizations based upon a smaller, more discrete event

    Deductive Reasoning
    One of two main forms of logical reasoning
    Important to the legal system and reasoning since this form of reasoning provides a grounded foundation for conclusions

    Deduction in reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled by facts
    If A and B are true so must C
    John is 6 feet tall; Susan is taller than John; Susan must be taller than 6 feet

    Deduction and Legal Reasoning
    Syllogistic reasoning is the deductive reasoning that is also used in judicial opinions, briefs and memos

    Instead of a result being COMPELLED by two FACTS it is instead INFERRED from two PREMISES
    Major premise + minor premise = conclusion
    What is true of the universe is true of the particular

  25. Thanks for the link. All you've said is here. No need to repeat it.

    Many of the readers of this blog also follow the goings on over at If you keep up with the comment section over there surely you have seen posts from Apsterian. He sent me an essay/outline and I thought it may be of some interest to my readership here so I decided to post it. I don’t post much on these topics so I thought it might be kind of interesting to read about something besides mini-nukes. Here is his essay:

    I. Introduction: Behold The Satanic Grip Upon American And Western Culture, “Decline Of The West,” Truly–What’s Happening?


    Thanks for admitting you have no interest in 9/11 and that your purpose here is to proselytize this essay which Don Fox features on his blog.

    Take note, everyone. Everything Apsterian has been saying is in this essay. (So, please, we've seen it, know it by heart, and you needn't repost it off-topic in every single comment section. Talk about "hubris.")

  26. Guest Post: Satanism Built On Moralism

    Apsterian. the Christian. Lectures Us on HUBRIS

    So what’s humanity’s greatest curse?–the Greeks teach us it’s HUBRIS, that madness by which one imagines he is God–able to create reality, as with and by means of perfectly free will. But surely, most practical, common, and well-known form of this hubris is moralism, also known as Pharisaism, sanctimony, or self-righteousness, the delusion to effect one has a perfectly “free” will–like God’s–thus capable of “good-evil.”

  27. .....u Jews want people to forget as u attempt lead people astray fm the Jew masterminds of 9/11, who manipulate the Jews-media, for example, for the Jewwy big-lies, Jew Chertoff, Jew Silverstein and the rest of his Jew cronies of the Port Authority, Jew Helverstein who's suppressing the litigation as I noted, and all the other Jews, etc.

    Translation please. How do you propose to get these perps? You talk tough. Does that mean you and your vigilantes will lynch them all? What is your plan? How is it you think "details," such as evidence, are unimportant?

    How are you going to get support from the community if you have no proof for your nuke theory?

    1. Go back to the essay u urself noted at Don Fox's blog, Ho hoo ho

    2. Is inductive reasoning "Reasoning for Dummies"?

      "Prove" anything using false premises and bullshit "logic".

      Inductive reasoning - The last refuge of the cognitively impaired
      and intellectually challenged?


    3. One is reminded of René Descartes' famous maxim
      "Cogito ergo sum"
      (I think therefore I am).
      ( René Descartes, French philosopher and mathematician, Discours de la Méthode)

      "Cogito ergo sum"
      (I think therefore I am).

      .....or in apsterian's case:

      " I thunk therefore I'm a ham."



  28. apsterian

    October 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM

    Ho ho ho--listen this: "And you think you have the right to criticize Jim Fetzer on scientific reasoning?"--fm above, Anonymous October 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM

    Anybody has the "right to criticize," genius. And if one is to criticize for "reasoning," "scientific" or not, one merely examines the premises for logic, ho ho hoho.

    "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho

    Hey!! CRapsterian!!

    Is scientific reasoning the same
    as fallacious reasoning?


    ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

  29. Compass said :"..the 9/11 lie has been sold to us without one shred of evidence by the US Government. It is they who are making the claim, therefore, the burden of proof in on them."

    Compass, I just finished up writing and posting a blog article on the burden of proof issue, if you are interested. [And in case you did not know, Mr Fetzer does not believe the burden of proof lies with the government, as I show via direct quotes used in the article]:

    "9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof" ":

    regards, onebornfree.

  30. OBF, don't you think Professor Fetzer has a misunderstanding of the term "prima facie"? (Very interesting article written by you on burden of proof on your website, BTW. Thanks for calling it to my attention.)
    Prima Facie
    prima facie legal definition of prima facie
    [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

    In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

    For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

    Assume that a plaintiff claims that an employer failed to promote her based on her sex. The plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence showing that the employer used illegitimate, discriminatory criteria in making employment decisions that concerned the plaintiff. The employer, as respondent, does not have a burden to produce evidence until the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of Sex Discrimination (Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.

    Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

    Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact. For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant's criminal record may be considered prima facie evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and may be used against the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificate of authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidence that the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West 1996]).

  31. for all the jewish bashing going on, be sure to click on my profile and you'll get to see my new Jewish mezuzah that is permanently fixed to my front door.

  32. Compass said :"OBF, don't you think Professor Fetzer has a misunderstanding of the term "prima facie"? "

    Yes I do. I wrote another article addressing that:

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

    He hated it, of course :-).

    Regards, onebornfree


    (Fetzer to OBF:) "This is just silly. You cite an article because you don’t know what you are talking about. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years."

    "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.

    "Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it."

    "So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us." [emphasis mine]
    Well, Fetzer is not a lawyer. So he shouldn't be tossing around legal terms. What does he know about burden of proof or prima facie evidence?

    It depends on who the plaintiff is in the case. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.

    Look at Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon. On the face of these events, at first glance, (prima facie) the videos broadcast on the MSM are prima facie evidence. A case must be made to prove they cannot be a true representation of what really happened.

    In the case of Sandy Hook, the court must be shown the videos are in reality videos of something more like a drill and not the actual attack on the school. In the case of the Boston Marathon, the videos show images proving the "victims" were actually amputees and were pretending injury. These would contradict the prima facie or first glance prior evidence.

    Simon Shack proved the MSM video footage (prima facie) of 9/11 has been tampered with and altered. It's obvious the appearance of planes in the footage of the breaking story broadcast "live" on that day means tampering and fraud. There is an hour and twenty-two minutes--from "first hit" to collapse of WTC1--prima facie evidence--which needs to be analyzed and put on the record as disproved.

    The question is why are Fetzer and associates avoiding and evasive on this issue. Compare this attitude with their obsession with the Altgen's-6 photo--insisting that it shows Oswald in the doorway. As plaintiffs, the Fetzer group has the burden of proof that Lovelady is really Oswald. IMO, since we know there is no evidence proving Oswald killed anyone on 11/22/63, this is an exercise in futility.

    Because the US Government has accused 19 Muslim men with hijacking, murder and destruction of the WTC, the burden of proof is on them. It seems to me they have taken on the role of plaintiff and therefore must produce evidence. The public takes the role of defendant. By showing the claims about hijackers are false, the media (prima facie) evidence is also false.


    1. I think u're right on this issue, "compass," but it's nothing Fetzer can't easily adjust to. There's still lots of other evidence, aside fm the vid evidence, i.e., seismic, also eye witness.

      Manipulating the vid evidence only puts more attn. upon the Jews-media and masterminds thereof.

  34. Compass October 19, 2014 at 5:33 PM:

    "The question is why are Fetzer and associates avoiding and evasive on this issue. Compare this attitude with their obsession with the Altgen's-6 photo--insisting that it shows Oswald in the doorway. As plaintiffs, the Fetzer group has the burden of proof that Lovelady is really Oswald. IMO, since we know there is no evidence proving Oswald killed anyone on 11/22/63, this is an exercise in futility."

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Ho ho ho--above is actually very good analysis, but like I say, I only wish u could apply this sort of analysis to ZOG and Jew world order.

  35. "Inductive reasoning"

    i.e. gibberish, GOZ and loogie from apsterian aka the GOZ goofball.

    "Don't forget: there are NOT specific "perpetrators" for 9/11--it's the ENTIRE regime, all the parts working together--that's what u and we are up against. U need to getting a serious clue about things regarding ZOG."

    " there are NOT specific "perpetrators" for 9/11--it's the ENTIRE regime, "

    " all the parts working together..."


  36. " 'U' need to getting (sic) a serious clue about things regarding (apsterian's) GOZ."


  37. Compass said :" Well, Fetzer is not a lawyer. So he shouldn't be tossing around legal terms. What does he know about burden of proof or prima facie evidence?

    It depends on who the plaintiff is in the case. The plaintiff has the burden of proof."

    I agree - he's not a lawyer. however neither is he a scientist from what I can tell :-).

    No real scientist would just flat-out assume that videos/photos were genuine, without ever fully testing them all beforehand, before drawing any conclusions about what did/did not happen on 9/11, surely?

    The only things a scientist would assume to be true at the outset of their own 9/11 investigation would be the applicable discovered laws of physics - Newton's Laws of Motion , for example, everything else would need to be checked, double checked.

    Fetzers investigations, and those of the persons whose research he promotes [Hall,Fox,Prager, Ward] have all [studiously?] avoided the crucial [IMO] step of at least making an honest, forthright attempt at trying to authenticate _any_ of the imagery they have to date used to back up their various claims.

    And so it goes.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Hang-In There, Brainless One

      (a) U under-estimate our dear Prof. Fetzer, who works hard; don't forget he writes excellent articles for VT, compared to which u're relatively insignificant gnat, ho ho ho ho.

      It's perfectly legitimate to assume assumptions, as all science requires this. And note Fetzer HAS ADMITTED there are problems, esp. for the vids showing planes crashing the bldg. walls--so u're wrong when u indicate Fetzer has not ck'd his premises.

      (b) U're further wrong when u insist all the vids must be ditched and canned wholesale--some of them might be genuine, and some of them may only be inaccurate in part.

      (c) U further really seem to be lacking for significant conclusions, even given ur premises.

      Above arguments of urs, fallacious and lacking as they are, seem to be ur whole ball-game, brainless one, and as such hardly rate a response by our good Prof. who works hard, don't forget, writing articles, running his generally excellent radio shows, and other things too, no doubt. But hang in there, by all means, and keep trying to achieve significance for ur gnat-like efforts of expo/analysis.

    2. Considering the vast amounts of time he's devoted to the JFK altered video and pictures, you would think he would be the first to realize that they would have no problem doing this type of thing on a much bigger scale considering how many years later 9/11 occurred. Has he ever given systematic treatment to the Sept. Clues video and shown how it is rubbish? I searched his VT articles and didn't find any evidence of a detailed debunking of sept clues material. I wonder if he feels that, primia facie, we should take all the JFK pictures and videos as authentic as well?

    3. Much Protestething Over Little

      This, above fm anon, is mildly effective, compelling reduction-to-absurd, but note my own expo just above. Fetzer is on record indicating the vids of planes melting into bldg.s must be defective.

      But u don't indicate Sept. Clues vids really present terribly significant conclusions which Fetzer needs be concerned with, as u seem to be obsessed over.

      Do u think u need to make some significant pt. which then Fetzer should consider?--he's already indicated there's problem for at least part of the vids.

    4. apsterian:

      "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho"


      " Above arguments of urs, fallacious and lacking as they are, seem to be ur whole ball-game, brainless one, "

      Hey, GOZapsterian!!

      Is scientific reasoning the same 
      as fallacious reasoning?

      ZOG is GOZ!!


  38. apsterian:

    "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho"


    " Above arguments of urs, fallacious and lacking as they are, seem to be ur whole ball-game, brainless one, "

    Hey, GOZapsterian!!

    Is scientific reasoning the same 
    as fallacious reasoning?

    ZOG is GOZ!!


  39. The Simian Is Working Hard For Us, Folks

    Simian: too bad u don't understand English or logic.

    (a) HOW can u prove all the vids are TOTALLY faked?--u haven't done this.

    (b) Even if a vid is faked in one respect, it might still be accurate for other aspects.

    Try to read English, ck ur dictionary, and think too--I know that's asking a lot fm a simian, but try to attempt to endeavoring. Good luck, and I await ur astounding discoveries--I'm even holding my breath, don't doubt. Ho ho ho ho ho

  40. Inductive moron GOZsterian


    "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho"

    (b) Even if a vid is faked in one respect, it might still be accurate for other aspects.

    Hey, GOZapsterian!! 

    Is scientific reasoning the same 
    as fallacious reasoning?

    ZOG is GOZ!! 


  41. apsterian

    " b) Even if a vid is faked in one respect, it might still be accurate for other aspects."

    The inductive moron GOZapsterian strikes again!! LOL


  42. apsterian,

    " but try to attempt to endeavoring.."??


  43. @ culito Look at what I did write and try to address just that. I will say again cause it seems you have short attention span. Many videos turned out to be fakes. Conclusively. For example, the clips showing the jumpers. No video turned out to be authentic. I never said all videos were faked, just that no video of interest has been shown to date from the event, e.g. one showing live and authentic footage caught on 911. I am not talking of some stuff showing distressed people somewhere next to the JFK airport, watching big screens. That will not count. Videos that come from the immediate vicinity of the WTC center only apply.

    1. Simian Can't Figure-Out He Makes Little Sense

      Simian: problem is (a) u don't really understand English or the logic of the written sentences u read. (b) So u end-up talking about something else which u mis-understood, evidently.

      U're NOT making sense.

      We KNOW some of the vids are faked for SOME things.

      So u seem to be saying ALL vids are TOTALLY faked for ALL the things they purport to showing--which u haven't proven, just asserting.

      "No video turned out to be authentic. I never said all videos were faked, just that no video of interest has been shown to date from the event, e.g. one showing live and authentic footage caught on 911."

      Don't u realize above passage by u is contradictory?

      U see, simian, u don't understand English--OR--u don't understand logic, and it's hopeless trying to make sense out of what u write to us here.

      Regardless, the WTC bldgs. were destroyed somehow--by nukes or DEW and including nano-thermite explosions too, it would seem.

      Are u telling us that no bldgs. were destroyed, and that they're still standing there in NYC?--ho ho ho ho

      Did ANYTHING happen on 9/11? Ho ho ho ho ho

      Simian: u're a puzzle, wrapped within an enigma, wrapped within a riddle, ho ho ho ho ho

  44. You know what, I don't want to offend you anymore, even thou you always try to offend me. I sincerely feel sorry for you soldier. Very few people repeat the same stuff over and over and over for days and weeks and months. I wish it makes you happy and if so it makes me happy too.

    Back to the question. There is no contradiction here. Fetzer and you and others who believe that not all has been faked can only gain respect by pointing to one, just ONE video they deem authentic, and lay out reasons for its authenticity. You understand, I try to use induction with which you appear to be familiar (I'll take your word for it), that such thing would weigh much more than repeating and repeating "not all is faked I believe" stuff. Look how many points SS scored by proving fakery of the videos. Plenty points. Look at the scoreboard SS Plenty Points : Perps and Shills 0. Literally, Zero. Not a single video has been reasonably authenticated in the eyes of the spectators. beyond reasonable doubt, as some say.

    1. What Exactly Are Proper Conclusions To Be Drawn?--Anything At All--World Wants To Know!

      Simian: all I said is u make little sense, even though u seem to be trying. And I assure u I'm deeply touched u try soooo hard for us, believe me.

      Ok?--so I'm asking u, honestly--WHAT HAPPENED on 9/11, given what u tell us?--did the WTC bldgs. collapse?--I assume they did--am I a fool?

      Note we're merely ASSUMING the general authenticity of the vids, though, obviously, the ones w. planes melting into the bldgs. have to be fake, but other things could be real, right?--such is our assumption, I assume (ho ho ho).

      Forgive my simple-mindedness, but simplicity seems to be reasonable--SOME things about the vids seem like they could be true--my ASSUMPTION, again.

      U certainly HAVE NOT NOT NOT proven EVERYTHING about the vids are fake--have u? Tell us.

      SS did indeed PROVE one thing: ZOG WANTED US to believe planes struck the bldg.s, without a doubt--for that alone he deserves much credit. BUT what further conclusions can be drawn?--we wonder, and we depend upon ur help and info, don't u know.

      Are those WTC bldgs. truly gone?--or are they still there?

    2. I'll appeal to your simple-mindedness, and I'll take it granted. When you play a game say football, you just go out and try to score. Either you score or you don't score, in which case you loose. There is no place for assumptions on the scoreboard overhead.

      Nothing is authentic. Look again at the scoreboard ZERO.

    3. apsterian

      " SS did indeed PROVE one thing: ZOG IS GOZ....."

      ZOG is GOZ!!!!

      You piece of snot wrapped shit inside a turd.

      Inductive moron GOZsterian


      "Scientific" reasoning is no diff. fm any other sort of reasoning, Einstein, ho ho ho ho ho" 

      (b) Even if a vid is faked in one respect, it might still be accurate for other aspects.

      Hey, GOZapsterian!! 

      Is scientific reasoning the same 
      as fallacious reasoning?

      ZOG is GOZ!! 

    4. Simian Tries, But Continues To Fail

      Simian: u can't say we didn't give u a chance to make sense.

      U don't answer any of the questions, and u don't demonstrate any useful conclusions.

      U essentially say NOTHING. U don't prove all the vids are TOTALLY fake, though some of them are partially fake--which we already knew.

      U had ur chance, simian--u really need to learn English better, I'd say--either that or logic itself.

      U don't seem to understand u HAVEN'T PROVEN "nothing is authentic."

      And if nothing is authentic, how do we know WTC bldgs. are gone?--or still there?--we merely rely upon witness testimony, eh?

      So there's evidence, even if not vid evidence--so what?--how is anything different just because there's no vid evidence?

    5. Just there is no authentic video evidence, that's all. Glad we came to the same conclusion in the end. I don't understand why you kept going in circles, you and your gaffer, with "some of it is real."

      ok, if you insist on assuming, what parts you assume were not faked?

    6. what partially not faked part of a video is not fake?

    7. Something Happened To WTC Towers--But What?--This Is The Question

      Simian: ur last, just above at 7:14 is absurd on its face.

      But U MUST PROVE WHAT ISN'T REAL--this is basic premise u continue to miss.

      We can agree that the plane-into-bldg. is obviously fake as that can't happen, hence it's proof in and of itself. And there are other anomalies as SS pt'd out. But regardless, u MUST PROVE what is fake.

      Again: what happened to the bldgs.?--they're gone, right?--so SOMETHING happened, right?--so choice is nukes, DEW, or thermite, etc.

      There's also seismic evidence and eye-witness testimony.

      Slowly but surely, we figure-out what happened, right?--by means of eye-witness, seismic, and whatever else we KNOW we can rely upon.

      SS is right--there was major manipulation of the vids, but exactly how much?

      A vid can be partially faked, but also partially true--like the Naudet bro.s vid--that seems to be true vid, but w. plane worked into it. SS did good job comparing other vids w. Naudet bro.s'

      Note: I'm not pretending to any necessary conclusions, except for the planes-into-bldg. parts, which must be faked, but others might well be assumed correct or accurate--unless there's good reason not to accept them.

    8. The plane thing is the only aspect you don't babble, and you are wrong! A real plane could fly into an incomplete building. What's wrong with that?

      "SS is right--there was major manipulation of the vids, but exactly how much?"
      It is enough to scatter thruthers. They hang around, but look at the misery.

    9. Simian: u make no sense. U don't understand English or logic, or either one, ho ho ho

    10. look in the mirror. it's what left of the truth movement. I propose legal proceedings against your employers for engaging you in racist banter.

    11. Of course, simian--Jews like u HATE freedom, hate freedom of speech AND MOST OF ALL, U HATE TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6).

  45. @Compass:

    Compass, here is part of an email from Mr Fetzer to another person in the same email group we are all on,[along with Simon Shack and a few others], in response to my recent article on the burden of proof:

    "....He [obf] has made the same kind of irresponsible claims in the past and I have replied to them before. He is a broken record and has no warrant for his attempt to shift the burden of proof. His attacks on me are reprehensible...."

    You see, I have "no warrant" to "shift the burden of proof", when the truth of the matter is that it is he himself who has shifted it, as you well understand, and as I have attempted to illustrate in my article :

    "9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof" :

    And so it goes....:-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. Hi All (Jim Fetzer and everbody else),
    I'm Pablo, the interviewee.

    Before addressing any of the specific points made in the interview itself or in these comments; I feel I must say that I owe you-all an apology.

    I've organized against injustice & for justice for the last half-century (& studied hard to try not to "re-invent the wheel" in such activities). During that time, I've given a few dozen speeches, written 100s of mass-distributed articles, and participated in tons of demonstrations & meetings. However, I'd never actually been publicly interviewed. In other words, this was my first public interview ever.

    Perhaps I can use the "excuse" that I was so stunned by how well Jim Fetzer treated me & how well the interview went ... that I kind of "blanked out" and did not even think about there being a comments thread.

    Again my apology to all concerned,
    Pablo, Director: "911 Crash Test" Project

  48. My Main Comment On The Interview:
    Jim serves the important function of being a major critic of the work around 911-Truth activities. During this interview, I thought he continued his admirable work.

    My task is different; mine is the dual task of:
    1) Specifically directing our "911 Crash Test" Project (which aims to put the question of Aluminum Wings Vs WTC Twin Tower Steel Panels to the test - and "see who wins" once & for all);
    2) Play whatever role I can in trying to unite the 911-Truth Movement;
    as a consequence of these two tasks / roles, there is implied a "third":

    3) To largely refrain from criticizing specific weaknesses in 911-Truth groups & individuals; and, instead, emphasize what unites us.

    What impressed me the most about this interview was that we accomplished to a high degree BOTH our "functions": he continued effectively critiquing while I (hopefully effectively) emphasized giving compliments & focusing on that which unites us.

    As I said in the interview, imo, not nearly enough quality effort has been put into the unity question.

    I think this interview was a shining example that BOTH must & CAN be done simultaneously.

    Yours sincerely,

  49. Hey Jim Fetzer, I click on the link for this podcast (you interviewing me) but it says "not found". Got a better link? Thanx, friend.