Friday, November 29, 2013

Allan Weisbecker

JFK autopsy & Zapruder film / 9/11 TV fakery

169 comments:

  1. well done allan for standing up to ah jim fetzer and his logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to the big booming voice. great interview and maybe a lot of your questions might be answered regarding the jfk fakery by looking through this.
    http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=225299&postcount=238
    I would be glad to hear your thoughts.

    it seems you might have convinced jim on 9/11 complete video fakery in one 37 sec clip (although privately it seems to be another matter).

    jim, you are really showing yourself up now. I think you are clearly playing the game.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I amtha always open to arguments based upon good reasons, where Allen has convinced me that the missing blur is a sign that the form of fakery is more complex than I have supposed. I expect to return to this question to refine the analysis. But you seem to be less concerned with truth than with faulting me. I find that pitiful, since there is so much more to life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, there are two forms of appeals to authority. The fallacious appeals are to those who are not experts in the fields in which they are cited, such as a barber on the pain of childbirth. When someone is cited who is an expert in the field those are non-fallacious appeals So I think you have been committing blunders for some time in not acknowledging the difference, which is important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      The Ennis shit sack pshea is not committing blunders.
      The shit sack Sheehan IS a blunder.

      If only they HAD consulted that barber on the pains of childbirth, perhaps pshea's "mother" and the rest of us would have been spared the idiot pshea's inanities and inadequacies.

      Delete
  4. Taking a look at your link about JFK, I see it is saturated with rubbish. I really had supposed you were smarter than this. Anyone who thinks JFK's assassination was staged has serious cognitive problems or is simply a shill. I am open as to which is the case with you, but this link tells me a lot about why I have found many of your posts to be rather bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The September Clues deal is a bunch of disinfo BS. They're trying to claim everything is faked and JFK didn't really die in Dealy Plaza and no one was killed on 9/11. It's the shills last line of defense. Nobody buys the Single Bullet Theory anymore except a tiny fraction of Anderson Cooper's dwindling audience.

      The official fairy tales of 9/11 and JFK don't hold up to even modest scrutiny. When you think about it what positions could the shills take and maintain even a modicum of credibility? About all they have left is to claim it was all faked and there is nothing to see here move along everyone.....

      Delete
  5. Study Finds Spatial Skill Is Early Sign of Creativity - NYTimes.com

    Jim, do you know what you scored on spatial relations aptitude tests when you were in grade school? Your inability to "see" the mechanics of fakery the way many of us do, may be because you are not gifted in that area. Those who score high are usually engineers, architects or industrial designers. You probably scored high on verbal and math skills. One cannot teach spatial skills to those who don't have them because you have to use words. You either "get it" or you don't; You are a brilliant and courageous debater and that is your strong suite that we admire in you.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/study-finds-early-signs-of-creativity-in-adults.html?_r=0

    "The study looked at the professional success of people who, as 13-year-olds, had taken both the SAT, because they had been flagged as particularly gifted, as well as the Differential Aptitude Test. That exam measures spatial relations skills, the ability to visualize and manipulate two-and three-dimensional objects. While math and verbal scores proved to be an accurate predictor of the students’ later accomplishments, adding spatial ability scores significantly increased the accuracy"

    ReplyDelete
  6. This whole "JFK faked his death" meme is getting quite tiresome. If they faked his death, how do you account for all the detailed medical witness testimony at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and at Bethesda where the autopsy was performed, pertaining to the massive hole in the back of the head? These trained medical witnesses saw the rear exit head wound up close, and even described in detail the cerebellar brain tissue extending from the hole. Also, a tracheotomy was performed in a vain effort to sustain the vital life functions. Were all these physicians and nurses in on the hoax? Ever see the autopsy photo of Oswald's body on the morgue slab after the vital organs were removed? Looks real to me. This whole JFK faked death thing reeks of a disinfo ruse to me.

    Nice argument by the guest regarding the flight 175 vids. It is very possible that they used some type of hologram to fool the eyewitnesses on the street, while fooling the TV viewing audiences with a sharper (too sharp) CGI fabricated 767. Never really thought about it like that. So the CGI vs hologram arguments may not be mutually exclusive after all. It could have been both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think to say the Zapruder film was "faked" is inaccurate. It was tampered with and altered. I do think Zapruder was part of the operation because his film was the only one not confiscated. Also, as an amateur photographer myself, I would not have chosen that location to film a presidential motorcade. I would have been much closer to the street. It is as if Zapruder knew in advance he would be filming a very wide shot and one that would be partially blocked by a sign. Then there is the large payment he received.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, it was reconstructed using real footage, removing some, including the limo stop and Clint Hill's actions, and adding other "special effects", such as "the blob", taking out others, such as painting over the blow-out in black.

    This has been confirmed many ways. See "JFK Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapurder film?", "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?", and "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden".

    We also know when and where it was done. See "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For John Costella's brilliant visual tutorial on technical proofs, see "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: A Visual Introduction", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blow out in the back right of JFK's head can be seen in the very last frames of the Zapruder film as the limousine disappears into the triple overpass tunnel. There are some videos on YouTube that show the blow out clearly.

      Delete
    2. Great show Jim and Allan. A real heavy duty off and on road debate. I have a query about something you said about JFK and Connally not riding together in the limousine. Jim, do you think that IF JFK had decided to call the motorcade off (for whatever reason) and high tail it back to Washington D.C., that he would have been able to do so?
      In other words, was JFK not going to be allowed to leave Dallas alive? For me one of the eeriest episodes of JFK's visit to Dallas was the reception given by a group of Dallas children singing "The Eyes Of Texas Are Upon You"
      and the words " ....all the live long day. You cannot get away..."
      The children looked almost demonic as they sang the words. It was
      as if they (the words) were a coded message to JFK that he was not going to" get away" and as if even the children knew that JFK was not going to make it out of Dallas alive. Really scary
      bunch of kids. Viewing the video of the
      episode, one gets the impression JFK was a bit taken aback and uneasy about this choir from hell.
      Anyhow, great show Jim. You got to bring Allan back and soon!!

      Delete
  9. If the plane on 911 was a hologram, then lets explore the optics of that image. Firstly, we have a background radiation of blue light from the sky. In a camera or an eye, on the retina, the blue light lets us see a blue sky. If an image of a plane is projected on top of that blue sky, it will appear transparent, we will have two layers of light on top of each other. First bright blue, then a plane. The plane will look like a ghost plane and can NEVER appear darker than the sky, because the light from the sky is always added to the image.
    I promise this is the last time I explaine this, if you dont get it this time you never will.
    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You seem confused about James Corbett/911 disinfo. James is an actor. Has played a number of parts. And he is associated with the Zionazi Greenberg-Strong-Harmon-Rockefeller-Katzenberg Disinfotainment Clan. Most of the alternative media has been created by or infiltrated by them.
    From Columbine to Giffords to Sandy Hook to Boston Marathon...all bullshit created by these Psy Opera actors.
    What this means is you cannot believe anything you see from any source without careful observation. Video News Releases are distributed to everyone as a replacement for investigative journalism. Now, the lies are consistent, obvious, and ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fetzer remarks that we know 95% to 98% of what happened. Has there been any conclusion to who ordered the hit and why was it done in such a public fashion?

    Surely, Johnson, Hoover, FBI, CIA, or mafia did not the power or resources to manage the cover up and keep the lone gunman theory drummed from the MSM until today. They all had to be working together. Who could manage such an operation? The same goes for 9/11.

    Fetzer takes an academic approach to looking at issues. I think it would be interesting to look at the occult aspects of the hit.

    Michael Hoffman in his book "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare" explores this topic and the masonic connections.

    It would be great to have Fetzer interview Hoffman.
    www.revisionisthistory.org

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've got a good idea who ordered the hit and why it was a public execution. I'll have more on this in the near future.

      Delete
  12. Good discussion on the Z-film, Doug Horne touched on this with Dr. F, but didn't flush it entirely out: What happened to the 4 original sets of Z-film?

    Life presumably bought one, which Doug H says was intercepted at the Chicago Airport and then flown to Rochester by the CIA. That leaves 3, the Hunt family allegedly got 1, so what about the other 2? Did the Zapruder family stick them in a safe, or did the SSvc take them? Did Zapruder admit to the SS that he made the copies?

    Did Hawkeye works run-off 3 additional copies of the manipulated film, thus trying to cover that up and leading to the technical controversies over sprocket holes etc? It is also quite damning about Rawley Zavada's deceptions and dismissing the Dallas Kodak lab technicians' stories about developing the original fim.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd hate to try to live in a technologically advanced society such as ours without any appeal to (non-fallacious) authority. Often, the only recourse to judging the validity of the evidence is just such an appeal. The Real Deal blog site is unique, as far as I'm aware, in that it gives the visitor the benefit of a qualified judge on logical procedures (there's probably a jurisprudential term for it that I'm not familiar with). In this way, The Real Deal approaches the ideal of a virtual courtroom that I haven't found at any other blog site.

    By the way, Jim, great summary of the JFK Assassination evidence at the Conference! As for Permindex, which (if I recall correctly) you mentioned in your presentation, I have a few links but I too am just starting to familiarize myself with the topic. The more I investigate Permindex, the more I believe that Permindex is the hub around which the whole "assassination of America", as you rightly call it, revolved. The web of conspiracies is, of course, an organic and growing one, as Richard Sprague noted in his THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/

    That's not the main reason I came here to the comments section. I wanted to tell you, Jim, that there's a problem with your Veterans Today DHS article at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/08/homeland-security-the-unanswered-questions/ There's a dead link, Jim, for the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (3 October 2012). The VT site has a "503 Service Temporarily Unavailable" error message, so that may be the problem. However, I tried to find the Senate Committee report in the archive section of their site and didn't see any indication of the report on or near that date. If your e-mail backlog is like mine, I know bringing it to your attention that way could take days.

    If anyone knows of an alternate source for the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report of 3 October 2012 (reporting virtually NO terrorist threat), please post it here!

    One last thing: I think "motorfot"'s comment on the 9/11 sky deserves a comment, but I'm not qualified in that area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I havnt read it but on their website, on this date i searched and found this:
      http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report_federal-support-for-and-involvement-in-state-and-local-fusions-centers

      Delete
    2. Thanks, motorfot. That works. At the VT article page the 503-error message is gone now, but the link still gives a "Not Found Error 404" message and no document.

      Delete
    3. I also discuss this in "Fusion and Fear in America: The non-existent 'terrorist threat'",
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/04/fusion-and-fear-in-america-the-non-existent-terrorist-threat/

      A link directly to the study is https://docs.google.com/a/d.umn.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13a2a58fcd474fb9&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D81becbce8e%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13a2a58fcd474fb9%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbT98InMCalilCyp6wrUXQSegoCngQ

      Delete
  14. Total video fakery (as so precisely and compellingly demonstrated by the early work of the Simon Shacksters) was absolutely essential to the various calculated intricacies (and occultisms) the of the 9/11 scam (and ritual).

    However, the cognitive dissonance-fueled, extreme rejection and vicious scorn heaped upon their initial findings by other sincere 9/11 researchers (plus legions of disinfo shills, too) eventually made many of the Shack crowd so defensive and edgy, even paranoid, that they seem lately to have retreated into a "mental bunker" of confirmation-bias, with some of their most extreme partisans claming to find total fakery in virtually every high-profile, violent news event, even including the half century-old JFK hit.

    Yes, media fakery is a very real pestilence in our digital world, and it has plenty of analogue antecedents in decades past.

    But rather than carefully parsing just where the truth ends and the fraud begins in major suspicious happenings, it now seems more comforting to the disciples of Simon to simply pronouce "It's All Fake" and turn away.

    Sad to say, their growing blindness to nuance and degree may have equalled the abject refusal to seriously examine (or even consider) media fakery -- of many of their opponents (including some, like Dr. Fetzer) who really ought to be ALLIES -- in the search for historical truth.a

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beautifully articulated as always Mr. Tyme

      Delete
  15. Andy Tyme said: "However, the cognitive dissonance-fueled, extreme rejection and vicious scorn heaped upon their initial findings by other sincere 9/11 researchers (plus legions of disinfo shills, too) eventually made many of the Shack crowd so defensive and edgy, even paranoid,.........with some of their most extreme partisans claming to find total fakery in virtually every high-profile, violent news event, even including the half century-old JFK hit."

    I read the Sept. Clues every day, and have done for a number of years, Andy. I might be wrong but I am not aware that either Simon or Hoi have categorically stated that JFK faked his death- only that given the fact that the Z. film is fraudulent, as are the autopsy reports, as was the damage to the limo, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., ad infinitum , that it remains a distinct _possibility_ .

    And by the way, Don Fox, if you read this, as far as I am aware, SeptemberClues.info does _not_ categorically claim that nobody died on 911, only that that also is a distinct _possibility_.

    Regards, onebornfree
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  16. motorfot said :

    "If the plane on 911 was a hologram, then lets explore the optics of that image. Firstly, we have a background radiation of blue light from the sky. In a camera or an eye, on the retina, the blue light lets us see a blue sky. If an image of a plane is projected on top of that blue sky, it will appear transparent, we will have two layers of light on top of each other. First bright blue, then a plane. The plane will look like a ghost plane and can NEVER appear darker than the sky, because the light from the sky is always added to the image. "

    Great points! Also see : " 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique" : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Hall, Morgan Reynolds, Pete Santilli, Judy Wood, Dallas Goldbug, Celtic Rebel.
      They are all disinfo agents obviously.
      And I dont say that lightly, I know it for a fact.

      Delete
    2. I've never heard of Celtic Rebel but you're right on the money about the rest of them. You can add Simon Shill and Onebornpaid to that list as well.

      Pete Santilli was attacking me left and right last Jan/Feb. Turns out he's an FBI informant. Listen to the show Jim did 11/8/13 with Vinny Eastwood and Susanne Posel for all of the details.

      Delete
    3. I knew long before that Santilli was FBI, http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/open-letter-to-pete-santilli-shove-it-up-your-ass/

      Delete
  17. So what now? Jim has possibly twigged to the 100% fakery of either the Herzekhani or Fairbanks videos [they're both 100% fake but from the show I cannot decide if he understands that or not at this point].

    But he still clings obsessively to Halls unsubstantiated hologram "theory" because? [ See: "9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique" : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html ]

    Because alleged "eye witnesses" that he has done absolutely zero deep background checking of [eg Scott Forbes] , have told him that they witnessed a plane fly into a building exactly as depicted in those 100% fake Herzekhani/Fairbanks etc. videos! You gotta love it!

    All hail Mr Fetzers scientific methodology and deductive reasoning powers!

    See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" :http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  18. Because OBF does not understand the meaning of "prima facie", he goes off on a bizarre rant that suggests that I am either (a) brainwashed by virtue of having an education or (b) a paid "disinfo agent" or (c) or to make a "fast buck" off controversy and debate.

    I have described his man's views as "stunningly stupid" which I hereby reaffirm. Anyone who knows the extent to which I have devoted myself to exposing corruption and complicity of the government in the assassination of JFK, the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, the events of 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and (now) the massive surveillance program of NSA must find this rather astounding. It is quite simply ABSURD.

    Egad! A book has just been published about me and Kevin Barrett for our efforts to resist the imposition of a national security state! And all because OBF appears to not understand the meaning of "prima facie"? I am sick of this kind of intellectual rubbish from someone I have tried to take seriously in the past.

    The position that he and Simon Shack represent--that ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF 9/11 IS FAKE--is just a bit of a stretch. I have explained before that the photographic record of the destruction of the Twin Towers, in particular, is coherent, including films and photos taken from helicopters, on the ground, from across the river, from inside the city, on and on and on.

    He is welcome to believe any crackpot idea he wants, but to savage me for not indulging in his fantasy is a bit much. All that "prima facie" means is that the case of the authenticity of the footage has been established by its coherence as a totality and that, if anyone wants to challenge it, THEY NEED A GOOD REASON.

    For making that obvious observation, I am supposed to be a "paid disino agent" or out to make a buck. I have lost my shirt on 9/11 conferences, $10,000 on Madison and half as much on Vancouver (but only because I had the support of John Duddy, who covered the rest). For confirmation, just ask my wife!

    As for scientific reasoning, OBF seems to think that is the process of making up your mind early and never changing it. He not only has no good reason to doubt the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers, but if the government were going to fake it, you would think they would produce something that looks a lot more like the official "collapse" theory than its opposite.

    None of this makes any difference to OBF, who has gone off the deep end. Yes, I am impressed with the argument that Allan has made about the absence of blur when blur should be present in each single frame. And on that basis I am reconsidering my analysis of how the fakery was done.

    But that it was fakery is not in doubt. The absence of any collision effects when "the plane" enters the South Tower establishes the point beyond a reasonable doubt. Violations of the laws of physics and of engineering are impossible and what we are seeing cannot be real.

    But that does not mean we should leap to the strange conclusion that ALL THE FOOTAGE IN NEW YORK IS FAKE. Separating what witnesses may have seen from what was subsequently broadcast with regard to the images of planes is a matter deserving of further study, but these unsupported speculations are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must say that it is obvious to me that the footage we have seen -- both live and the later amateur footage of the planes entering or approaching -- are composites. That is, they were not there in reality, I think the "stretch" is the hologram, although I am open to it. The real audience was not the downtown populace, but the billions watching on television. For the locals, an occasional fly by of a real jet could suffice, just as we witness with the Pentagon. All the the telltale signs of video compositing exist in the footage -- whereas evidence of holograms is not commonplace, if it exists at all. I am convinced there was some stealth object, perhaps something from our black UFO programs that approached, and that this might have been used as a tracking mechanism on which to substitute the animated model, or perhaps it was the mechanism by which a missile like mechanism could manifest last minute complete with loud sound effects creating retroactively the thought of a plane having been there. But I give no credence to nebulous, abstract "witnesses". I am sure that was on lockdown with no citizen journalists doing real interviews. The ones that seem real resulted in dead witnesses. As the cherry on top, so many televised witnesses said they did not see any plane, including anchors, who said there was a mere explosion -- until they had to get on script. Holograms might be possible, but to include them as the dominant hypothesis is premature. And it is beside the point, since we should focus on the political ramifications and the obvious lies and distortions. If JFK taught us anything, it was to stop worrying about the ballistics to such a crazy degree, and get moving on the bigger picture.

      Delete
  19. Jim Fetzer said :" All that "prima facie" means is that the case of the authenticity of the footage has been established by its coherence as a totality and that, if anyone wants to challenge it, THEY NEED A GOOD REASON."

    No Jim. "Prima facie" is just a fancy latin term that literally translates as: "at first glance", at first blush", " on initial impression" , or similar.

    So all you are claiming [actually admitting! :-)] here is that: "at first glance the 911 imagery appears genuine."

    But scientists are not supposed to be engaged in the habitual practice of using something/anything as "genuine" evidence merely because "at first blush", or "at first glance" it appears to be genuine!

    They are supposed to test it for authenticity _first_, _before_ ever trusting it as evidence of _anything_, fer chrissakes!

    And yet neither yourself or any of your "scientific" buddies investigating 911 have _ever_ made even the pretense of trying to establish the authenticity or not of any of the 911 imagery!

    Jim Fetzer said : "THEY NEED A GOOD REASON."

    No Jim, you have it exactly bass ackwards.

    If a scientist wishes to present a 911 image or video as evidence/proof of a particular hypothesis, the onus is ALWAYS on the scientist concerned to PROOVE beyond a reasonable doubt that that image/video is genuine, BEFORE it can ever be used/trusted as genuine evidence by the scientist concerned!

    I am staggered by your repeated claim to the contrary.

    In my article [ "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" :http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html ] , if you bothered to actually read it, you will see that I DO NOT ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING, [such as being a paid disinfo shill], I merely suggest that because of your continued, staggering refusal to acknowledge/comply with standard simple, "run-of -the-mill" scientific protocol regarding evidentiary validation procedures, that there are at least 3 possible reasons to explain your behavior, none of which I can definitively know to be true.

    But please carry on with this dog and pony show [complete with personal attacks/put downs on me, both on air and in text] , because - the more you say the deeper in the shit you dig yourself. :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am sorry, but I am forced to conclude OBF is an idiot.

    1pri·ma fa·cie adverb \ˌprī-mə-ˈfā-shə, -shē, -sē also -shē-ˌē, -sē-ˌē\

    Definition of PRIMA FACIE

    : at first view : on the first appearance
    Origin of PRIMA FACIE

    Middle English, from Latin
    First Known Use: 15th century
    2prima facie adjective
    law : based on what is known or seen when something is first considered or dealt with
    Full Definition of PRIMA FACIE

    1
    : true, valid, or sufficient at first impression : apparent
    2
    : self-evident
    3
    : legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved

    The existence of a very large body of photos and films that cohere together creates a prima facie case for their authenticity. That means they are presumed to be authentic until proven otherwise. That has not happened. OBF has offered nothing but speculation. Either he does not understand English or he is dumb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, ad hominem attacks don't help. Saying such and such is an idiot underwhelms your argument, even if it is true. Such remarks are what get your opponents riled up. I say this as a friend and fan.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. Does anyone have any evidence that Corbett is an actor, or otherwise is not what he pretends to be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AC Weisbecker said :"Does anyone have any evidence that Corbett is an actor, or otherwise is not what he pretends to be?"

      First of all, I have no idea whether Corbett is an actor or not, and I would have no idea how to prove it without a deep background check [finances, bank accounts, personal history etc etc.] .

      Second of all, thats a great, short movie analysis of the fake Herzekhani movie you have done, Mr Weisbecker : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQUBxR7rKy4

      'Don't know if you've already seen this short gif made by someone named "Teardrop", in 2009, of the exact same Herzekhani clip - it demonstrates that in the final frames the plane image is entirely _stationary_ in mid air [i.e not moving L. to R.], and that in fact it is the building image that moves R. to L. to meet the plane image at impact.

      The gif analysis can be viewed at the bottom of the page entry here: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009/09/dr-reynolds-and-planebuilding-meld.html

      If the gif is unviewable on that page for some reason, let me know and I'll repost it along with your video analysis, in my main 911 blog [onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com ]
      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete
    2. Recently I had the occasion to view some of the video archives of William F Buckley's program Firing Line from the '80s and '90s and was struck by the similarities between Buckley's moderator, Michael Kinsley, and James Corbett. I had to observe both closely before I came to the conclusion that they couldn't really be the same man. Corbett might be in some ways a light-weight; but it would be a stretch, I think, to suspect that he's in the enemy camp.

      Here are two Corbett videos on his website that tell me his heart is in the right place:

      Corbett's excellent satire of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and

      Corbett's support of the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald
      "[W]e have no reason to doubt that he [Oswald] told the truth after all...." --James Corbett

      This one is much tougher for me. Before taking the opportunity to congratulate Jim that Mark Lane was joining the Oswald Innocence Project, I had the occasion to watch a presentation by John Judge (which is linked to below). Judge has been exceedingly poor on the technical facts behind the 9/11 false-flag attacks (which has always made me suspicious of him), but he's in a large fraternity there. In a presentation he gave in Toronto in the early 1980s, Judge said that Mark Lane was "...the worst example, I believe, of [someone who was] directly planted by the [Central Intelligence] Agency as damage control." Judge says this at minute 1:27, but the context beginning at about minute 1:24 and going to the end of the video is interesting, and the whole 1-1/2 hour presentation is well worth listening to. John Judge, early 1980s While not wishing to accept his damning of Mark Lane, I would nevertheless recommend this April 2012 presentation by John Judge (following a 25-minute introduction by my congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who, I think, would make a terrific guest for The Real Deal).

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ? 07 - The Key - YouTube
    (VIDEO COMPOSITING--HOW IT IS DONE)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Why aren't you looking at the live tv footage from the network archives of the second plane hit at 9:03 AM on 9/11 since the others by Fairbanks, the Naudets and others were not "live" but were shown many hours later? Are there any holograms used in the live shots?

    September 11 Television Archive : Free Movies : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

    https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Hank Missenheim Jr.
    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/08/hank-missenheim-jr.html#comment-form

    Listen to this eyewitness from New Jersey and look at the photograph he posted. This one looks like an overlay and a bad one at that. Also, Hank doesn't talk very much about what he saw on 9/11. He's not really sure.
    http://tma-1.net/911/

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gentlemen, gentlemen, please!!!

    Neither Dr. Fetzer nor OBF are idiots or disinfo shills, and you both know it. But you are unfortunately letting your tempers flare and are giving off way more heat than light in this protracted exchange.

    Doesn't it make sense that that "large body of photographic evidence" which supposedly "coheres" was INTENTIONALLY fabricated/modified TO BE (at first glance, anyway) internally consistent?

    Yet, upon laboured, intense, and very close inspection (as performed in the Shack videos that Jim still, apparently, has not watched) the 9/11 photographic record DOES have SOME quite visible flaws and inconsistencies, due either to the imperfections of the then state-of-the-art CGI tech the perps used -- OR due to the shoddy workmanship of some of the cubicle-dwelling minions who actually assembled it, more than twelve years ago.

    And a major, post facto player in the possible optical deception has, so far, been omitted from the increasingly coarse "debate" that has populated this thread, but he well deserves to be mentioned here and placed under scrutiny. It's Steven Rosenbaum, proprietor of the photo-aggregator entity known as "Camera Planet," which acted as "clearing house" for the subsequent, mainstream-media display of all those supposed "amateur" images of the tower-hits and collapses that are now claimed by Richard Hall to "cohere".

    Could it be, as Simon Shack strongly suggests, that Camera Planet played, in the modern era, the same sort of control-and-modification role that the CIA's secret photo lab once played, in regard to certain "amateur" images of an ill-fated Texas motorcade back in '63?

    ReplyDelete
  26. solfeggio said: "Jim, ad hominem attacks don't help. Saying such and such is an idiot underwhelms your argument, "

    It's all he's got. Jim is desperate to not draw attention to the one plain- as- day, in-your- face fact that I have repeatedly drawn attention to - i.e. his complete refusal to acknowledge/comply with standard simple, "run-of -the-mill" scientific protocol regarding evidentiary validation procedures, whereby everything [including all photos,videos] must be thoroughly tested for authenticity _before_ it can ever be assumed to be genuine evidence [of whatever].

    This egregious behavior by Jim and cohorts has repercussions and implications that go far beyond the investigation of 911, repercussions/implications that will destroy [have already destroyed?] the very heart of the scientific method.

    Regards obf.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Andy Tyme said: "the 9/11 photographic record DOES have SOME quite visible flaws and inconsistencies, due either to the imperfections of the then state-of-the-art CGI tech the perps used -- OR due to the shoddy workmanship of some of the cubicle-dwelling minions who actually assembled it, more than twelve years ago."

    All well and good Andy. Yet for Jim Fetzer, science philosopher, teacher of critical thinking for 25+ years, BECAUSE THAT FOOTAGE ALL SUPERFICIALLY LOOKS OK TO HIM "PRIMA FACIE" ["AT FIRST GLANCE", " ON INITIAL IMPRESSION" "AT FIRST BLUSH"] , it is, therefor, all genuine and does not EVER need to be examined further to establish whether or not it is actual real , genuine evidence [as required per the scientific methodology] to indisputably establish what he already knows for certain FROM HIS INITIAL FIRST IMPRESSIONS!

    See: "911 Scams,Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  28. No. This is the kind of distortion I have come to expect from OBF. The points is that the coherence of the photo and film record OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS creates a presumption that they are authentic. That "prima facie" presumption CAN BE OVERRIDDEN by good reasons and arguments IF THEY EXIST. I have not seen them YET and most certainly have not received them from OBF. I am sorry that I am pissed with this guy, but I have made my position very clear and obvious, yet he feigns to not even understand the meaning of the phrase. Yes, I deplore ad hominems myself, but when he repeats and repeats baseless claims, offers no evidence to show that the photographic record of THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS is not authentic and attacks me when he is wrong, I tend to lose my patience. He now appears to be to have an agenda that has nothing to do with exposing falsehoods and revealing truths but to attempt to obfuscate what is apparent from the very film and photo record he disparages: the Twin Towers were destroyed by what appears to have been a very sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes, which implicates the governments of the US and of Israel in a scheme of their own devising to promote a political agenda. I do not rule out, by the way, some of the photo and film record having been altered after the fact to create a scenario in which those like OBF can claim we can't possibly know what happened because of problems with the photo and film record. To which I reply that, GIVEN THE ONLY PHOTO AND FILM RECORD WE HAVE AVAILABLE, there is a prima facie case that these buildings were taken down, not by any kind of collapse, but by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, which implicates the governments of the US and of Israel in the attack, especially in the context of what else is known about it. So I think OBF and others should stop serving as a buffer to protect the US and Israeli governments from what emerges when we consider the faking of all four of the crash sites, the classic controlled demolition of WTC-7, and the sophisticated destruction of the Twin Towers using devices only available to the US and the Israeli governments--against the background provided by "Israel did 9/11--all the proof in the world!" (which is exaggerated, but only slightly, because the neo-cons, many of whom have joint US-Israeli citizenship, were also crucial to its success) and "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots", where Preston James and I lay out the politics of 9/11. I have a low tolerance for hacks and shills; and while I originally believed that OBF was a bit eccentric but deserved to be taken seriously, I no longer hold that view. He is not on the up-and-up, he makes a practice of distorting my arguments, and I am not going apologize for attacking him. He has offered no good reasons to doubt that the photo and film record OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS is not authentic. And it is absurd to think that the government would have fabricated such elaborate footage when it supports the conclusion that these buildings DID NOT COLLAPSE, which would be preposterous had they been faked. If they were going to fake them, they would have made the buildings seem to have COLLAPSED and not creating footage which in its detail and variety, from the air and on the ground, in the city and across the river, some in high definition all supports the conclusion THEY DID NOT COLLAPSE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I have asked him more than once whether he has any witnesses who claim that what they saw on 9/11 is not what those videos show! After all, if he is correct, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A STAGGERING NUMBER of witnesses who observed what really happened. When he has some PROOF that what we see in these videos and photos IS INACCURATE, then I will be glad to take him seriously. But he is PULLING THIS OUT OF HIS ARSE. I am a bit taken aback that others here appear to be taken in by this rubbish. Unlike the footage of Flight 175, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO DOUBT THIS VERY ELABORATE AND DETAILED PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS.

      He faults me for allegedly failing to follow the scientific method. But every inquiry is rooted in observation, measurement and experiment when it is scientific. We take the reports and films and photos of the destruction of the WTC for granted UNTIL WE HAVE SOME GOOD REASON TO CHALLENGE THEM. That is a feature of all scientific inquiries. He faults me for not challenging them WHEN THERE IS NO GOOD REASON. That is NOT "science" but sophistry. He is faking it and attempting to subvert what we know about 9/11 based upon the photo and film record, which contradicts the official account. Were we to follow his lead, we would know NOTHING about the events of 9/11 because we would have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, which appears to be the objective of his baseless attack. IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO TAKE THE EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE WERE THERE GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT IT. BUT THOSE "GOOD REASONS" DO NOT APPEAR TO EXIST. OBF has not advanced any at all. So I assert that he is a fraud and, in my opinion, should not be taken seriously. Each of us has to evaluate the situation for ourselves but, baring new evidence and alternative hypotheses, that is where I stand.

      Delete
    2. "Were we to follow his lead, we would know NOTHING about the events of 9/11 because we would have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL."

      EXACTLY. This is the objective of OBF and September Clues - obfuscate and confuse as much as possible. He is a fraud.

      Delete
    3. A simplistic response like this one, Don, benefits only the perps. While it may distress you greatly that the "image evidence" on which you have built your own theory of 9/11 has been attacked, you still ought to consider the likelihood that the ultra-sophisticated plotters of 9/11 would have taken great pains to falsify whatever "evidence" of their perfidy they were unable to completely suppress or destroy -- thus depriving it of any substantive, probitive value for any legitimate, prosecutorial investigation that might someday be mounted.

      Delete
    4. Andy,

      The WTC Mini-Nuke Theory does NOT depend on images. We've got dust and water sample evidence that proves nukes. I haven't seen September Clueless deal with that AT ALL. Tritium in the water and fission products in the dust PROVE nukes. All of the videos of the destruction of the Towers I have seen are consistent with skyscrapers being nuked.

      The videos I have seen show two 110 story behemoths converted into a fine dust powder in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. Lower Manhattan was covered in dust after the destruction of the buildings. Firefighters were fighting fires for 99 days after 9/11. The ground temps at Ground Zero were between 600 and 2,000 °F for six months after 9/11. All of these things are consistent with nukes. If Sept Clueless can refute all of the evidence that I have laid out here I'll listen. Otherwise you guys need to just crawl back under your rock.

      Delete
    5. Hey Don. While most of the Clues Gang remain somewhere between warily sceptical and outright contemptuous of the mini-nuke theory, I'm perfectly open to it as a possibility, even though I still can't fathom the real reason (behind the obvious "reason") for NYC authorities to make a big show of BANNING GEIGER COUNTERS -- other than to muddy the already extremely murky waters of 9/11 truth. In other words, if the perps WANTED us to believe nukes went off, what better way to convince us than this assinine ban? Your thoughts, please.

      Delete
    6. Why would the perps WANT US TO BELIEVE that the Twin Towers were nuked? That is what they DID NOT WANT US TO BELIEVE.

      It takes a special kind of reasoning to interpret a ban on geiger counters as PROOF that the perps want us to believe the Twin Towers were nuked. That's a good one!

      And, as Don explains, we have a mountain of evidence that substantiates that this was a nuclear event. See, for example, "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Conference II".

      Delete
    7. Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. (See his 9/11 America Nuked.) In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers. The elements that have been found in these dust samples provide an astoinshing array of proof of nukes:
      Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
      Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
      Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
      Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
      Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
      Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
      Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

      Delete
    8. If you guys are going to deny nukes then you have to account for the rapid destruction of two 110 story skyscrapers that were converted into a fine dust powder and a few chunks that went flying 600+ feet. You also have to account for 1,400 cars that were fried in the vicinity of the WTC, how 1/3 of the Towers were completely vaporized, why no desks, chairs, toilets or computers were found in the rubble, why temps were elevated for 6 months after 9/11, why tritiated water was found in the basement of WTC6 and why elements like niobium, rubidium, cesium, antimony etc. are present in the USGS dust samples.

      Delete
  29. Rather than all this hostile, unproductive arguing with OBF, Jim should instead actually take the time to carefully READ the Vicsim Report and WATCH September Clues -- and then try to COUNTER the Shack evidence and analysis with scientific reasoning and logic, to defend Jim's position that the 9/11 imagery is mostly real instead of mostly fake.

    In regard to AltantaBill's diversion of this thread towards the problematic (at best) James Corbett, Mark Lane, and John Judge:

    IMHO, Corbett is sincere and very sharp -- but so full of himself that he is near-terminally myopic regarding the discoveries of other researchers (with whom he has not previously partnered) and their legitimate criticism of his own work.

    Lane is a very curious and mysterious figure, whose longevity and continued prominence in the JFK-truth field suggest a complex network of possibly malefactory connections and sponsorships behind his ostensibly righteous exterior.

    Lane's VERY suspicious involvement in the Jonestown massacre, concluding with his "miraculous" survival and ongong defense of Jones as a "victim" of CIA agent provocateurs contrasts sharply with the view of Jones (as an intel asset) espoused by...

    John Judge, also of a very righteous exterior, known as both a longtime conspiracy researcher AND a staunch defender of the multitudinous (oh, yeah?) "families of 9/11 victims". Judge is, distressingly, a relentless plane-hugger, particularly in regard to the Pentagon, in whose shadow he supposedly was weaned.

    Perhaps Fetzer & Company's landmark exposure of the Zapruder alterations can now serve as a sort of "litmus test" for the reliability and openness of Corbett, Lane and Judge. Who can tell us what these three fellows have said lately, in regard to the now-discredited ZAP-FAKE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Judge recently wrote to the editor of a book about me and Kevin Barrett asking him why he continues to promote a disinformation agent. I suggested he write back and ask Judge for some proof. Judge replied that some experts disagree with me. So what? When he asked Judge the basis for his conclusion, he replied with one word, "Research". This is so disgusting that I can hardly believe it. If I ever entertained any doubts about Judge in the past--and I must admit that I have--they have been resolved and not in his favor by this exchange. What a fraud!

      Delete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Andy Tyme said :" Rather than all this hostile, unproductive arguing with OBF, Jim should instead ....... try to COUNTER the Shack evidence and analysis with scientific reasoning and logic,"

    You are missing the point Andy.

    Prof. Jim Fetzer is telling us all that he'll _never_ do that, he doesn't have to, because everything looks A- OK [at first glance,to him] ,and besides, what is shown in the videos is backed up by a host of almost completely non- background-checked individuals [:-) ] .

    All this, "A-OK-ness" DESPITE the bald fact that for a scientist, for videos and photographs [or anything else] to be instated by that scientist as real evidence of _anything_, they must all FIRST OF ALL be closely checked to see if they are in fact genuine evidence or not.

    If they turn out to be authentic, _then_ [and only then!] can the scientist use them as evidence to support/prove a hypothesis.

    If they turn out to be untrustworthy or obviously fake, then they cannot be used as evidence to support _any_ hypothesis [other than one that implicates the perps, perhaps].

    In other words, Jim remains, and will, I predict, continue to remain, in complete denial of standard , run-of-the-mill scientific evidentiary validation protocol, simply because those videos/ photos all look "at first glance" [i.e. "prima facie"] , A-OK to him. You gotta love it.

    Mr Fetzer appears to believe that loudly and repeatedly shouting the words "prima facie" [often whilst hyping his university credentials] ! has some sort of magical effect on me and you.

    Perhaps he's hoping for an effect similar to the one a vampire hunter hopes for when brandishing a cross at a vampire.

    Highly entertaining [ although I do prefer vampire movies to Mr Fetzer's continual, derogatory and illogical exhortations] .

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Don Fox said: " This is the objective of OBF and September Clues - obfuscate and confuse as much as possible. He is a fraud."

    And so , your tiresome name-calling continues Don. Par for the course, eh?

    I understand, its all you've got,after all.:-)

    Since YOU have brought up the word fraud, I would humbly suggest that if there are any frauds around here right now then it would be those who are in favor of completely ignoring standard scientific evidentiary validation procedures because it might threaten their own precious "irrefutable" "scientific research" [which is nothing of the sort] results .

    No regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  33. There would have to have been hundreds or thousands of witnesses to what actually happened who would be in the position to speak out if the videos did not conform to their own personal observations. OBF has yet to produce one.

    As Sir Karl Popper remarked, science is a structure that is embedded in a swamp of evidence. When it is not long sufficient to support the structure, we have to dig deeper and reconfigure.

    But OBF has offered no good reasons for doubting the accuracy of the mass of photos and films of the Twin Towers: NONE. So one of us is unscientific and irrational, but that would not be me.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am totally disappointed with what I thought would be a very enlightening JFK assassination 50th anniversary given the months and years of preparation that went into the event.

    I understand. There were something like 140 books published for the occasion. I haven't checked any of them out, but most appear to have been written by establishment writers commissioned by publishers.

    Except for a panel featuring Mark Lane on C-SPAN 3, there was practically nothing new on TV--no new documentaries, etc. on the subject. The day was turned into a funeral with patriotic songs sung by military choruses.

    Unfortunately, Dr. Fetzer's focus on new culprits, mistresses' memoirs and old arguments about whether LHO was in the doorway photo, do not inspire. Besides, there is no evidence of LHO's guilt in the first place. As with 9/11, the government has never proved its case.
    The common thread of all the assassinations has been the lone nut assassin who is usually killed or insane. In the case of 9/11, there were 19 lone nuts who killed themselves--how convenient.

    We were looking for closure and understanding of that day fifty years ago. We don't want to rehash old details, at least I don't. I am of the generation of the original researchers and I'm really wary of the Baby Boomers taking over. You people are drawing some really stupid parallels to 9/11. There are some great books that are being overlooked in favor of a lot of rubbish like "fakery."


    ? Mae Brussell -JFK Assassination: The Nine Most Important Books- (9-12-83) - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MrjRWCriIk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This dismissal by Joan Edwards strikes me as a bit premature. She has not reviewed the videos of the Santa Barbara conference, which I organized and chaired, because they are not yet available.

      When that occurs, I would welcome a thoughtful appraisal of the evidence that we have presented--absent dismissing remarks about "new culprits, mistresses' memoirs and old arguments about whether LHO was in the doorway". I wonder how long it took for her to come up with that remark--and here she is citing Mae Brussell from 1983!

      We have NEW PROOF that Lee was in the doorway, which vitiates all of the claims of the Warren Commission and its defenders--not a bad result from RESURRECTING AND OLD DEBATE. We have resolved it--decisively!

      And there is much more in the way of new findings and evidence, including more precise and detailed information about the apparent shooters and their locations in Dealey Plaza, than has ever before been presented.

      The presentations by Phil Nelson on LBJ, by John Hankey on BHWB, by Peter Janney on Mary Meyer and JFK, by Larry Rivera on Buell Wesley Frasier and by Ralph Cinque on doorman were fasinating and informative.

      So how can Joan Edwards be dismissive when she has not even looked at the evidence? This bothers me tremendously. The videos ought to be up by Sunday, so check out the conference web site, http://jfk50santabarbara.com, for the latest on JFK. THEN let us know what you think.

      Delete
  35. Jim, have you refused to actually study the work of Simon Shack simply because he has refused to be a guest on your show? Do you think that his arrogance (or is it evasiveness) is really a fair excuse to just dismiss his work without giving it a careful examination? It sure looks that way, I'm sad to say.

    And instead you waste precious time in this ugly and unproductive web-fight with Shack admirer OBF -- time which you instead could invest in actually familiarising yourself with September Clues and the Vicsim Report -- so you could counter their evidence and reasoning with evidence and reasoning of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 'Jim Fetzer said But OBF has offered no good reasons for doubting the accuracy of the mass of photos and films of the Twin Towers: NONE.'

    Jim,, try reading this thread...

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me that OBF and SS have a problem of their own when they cite footage that they take to be fabricated or faked: WHERE DID IT COME FROM? That seems to me to be a real question for them, since it would have been easy to fake footage AFTER THE FACT--child's play, actually. So what have they done to satisfy the standard that OBF obsessively reasserts. If there is an answer to this question, I would like to know.

      Because it seems to me overwhelmingly easier to have created fake footage AFTER THE FACT and then offer it as FAKE FOOTAGE than for the perps to have created a mass of fake footage for a complicated event like the destruction of the Twin Towers and yet have ALL THE FOOTAGE--from the air, from the ground, from afar, from near--fit together so well as all of this footage does.

      And I have yet to hear of a single witness who claims that the footage shown on television of the destruction of the Twin Towers was not what they saw themselves at the time. OBF has alluded to ONE SUCH WITNESS, but surely there should have been hundreds, if not thousands. And what precisely did they not want us to see? WHAT WERE THEY COVERING UP? I have yet to hear a peep about this from OBF or SS. Please tell me.

      Delete
  37. " Do you think that his arrogance (or is it evasiveness) is really a fair excuse to just dismiss his work without giving it a careful examination? "

    I think Simon Hytten Shack ought first to give his own work a "careful examination."

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jim Fetzer said :" There would have to have been hundreds or thousands of witnesses to what actually happened who would be in the position to speak out if the videos did not conform to their own personal observations. OBF has yet to produce one............
    OBF has offered no good reasons for doubting the accuracy of the mass of photos and films of the Twin Towers: NONE. So one of us is unscientific and irrational, but that would not be me."

    This is complete and utter diversionary obfuscation Jim.

    I [or anyone else] does not have to present you with even _one_ iota of eyewitness testimony or other evidence.

    The bald fact is that regardless of what I choose to present/not present to you or anyone else, a real scientist consistently using the scientific methodology is _required_ by that methodology to thoroughly test for authenticity any film or photo _BEFORE_ it can ever be trusted as being real evidence of _anything_.

    You [and the "scientists" whose "research" you promote], are all in denial of that simple, basic, methodologically required 1st step - which boils down to a practice of psuedo science on both yours and their part.

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
  39. OK. Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

    Dr. Fetzer has been at the forefront, for years, in questioning the authenticity of both the amateur and professional imagery of the JFK assassination (motorcade, book depository, X-rays, autopsy, Ozzie's backyard, etc.)

    Jim, how do you feel when YOUR critics attack YOU for YOUR claims of widespread fakery -- WITHOUT SERIOUSLY STUDYING and responding in detail to the actual analyses you and your colleagues have published -- which EXPOSE and DEMONSTRATE the fakery???

    As much as many of us laud and admire you for your courageous and brilliant work so far, we now have to "hold our collective noses," because there's a nasty scent of hypocrisy in the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. It appears to me that Simon Shack et al. are demanding that Dr. Fetzer do much of the work they should have done themselves first.
      Shack did not set forth his thesis in an clear, objective way, He should have entertained criticisms of his thesis and then he should have tried to beat his thesis to death and see what was left standing BEFORE he started demanding researchers pay attention to and “carefully examine” his “work.”
      The amount of attention given by good researchers to Some of Shack’s ideas has been appropriate to the amount of quality objective material Shack has provided.
      For a few examples, he should have provided more than simple assertions and claims and he should have avoided the use of the superlatives such as “all” and “never.” He should have named and numbered every video he criticized and told which were videos were purported to be from independent, man-on-the-street sources.

      I have repeatedly shown where the most prevalent and used video of Bldg 7 destruction in progress, the video used in all iterations of “Loose Change,” was made by a person I know here in my town who took the video from his hotel room on that day. I know this person to be a honest and reliable informant and I do not think he submitted his video to any “something Planet” photo processing lab in NYC and I doubt seriously if he sold the rights to his video to anyone. The person’s name is Jeff Kantoff and he does have some Internet presence. So that blows out of the water the special military blocking device supposedly used to block all digital (and analog?) videography and photography on that day.

      There is nothing “hypocritical” of Dr. Fetzer not regarding Shack’s stuff as worthy of his time and effort and “careful examination.” Shack never has done his homework properly and seems to continually shoot himself in the foot by his unprofessional presentations.

      All of us need to stop biting all the poison meat continually thrown at us.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Jeannon, that Shack's doubts about the (nine-plus hours later) WTC 7 destruction videos are a weak point in his overall thesis of total fakery, and he and I have already discussed that very issue, over at CluesForum. But Simon's got much stronger arguments and evidence (and yes, they should be indexed and sourced better, and he now admits that and is working on it) for questioning the bulk of the 9/11 imagery, particularly the 102-minute "live TV" coverage that is riddled with highly suspicious and contradictory aspects.

      And then there are the companion issues of the literally incredible "postering" of Lower Manhattan and the on-line legions of impossible-to-verify "victims" photos, tributes, bios, and identities.

      I agree that some of the most vociferous Clues partisans have unwisely alienated many potential allies (in the search for 9/11 truth) with arrogant, premature pronouncements of "total fakery" and "zero deaths".

      Nevertheless, these sharp-eyed Shacksters have raised quite a few well-posed, crucial to our understanding of history, and tragically still ignored/denounced/unanswered (by the establishment AND the "alternative" media) questions about the 9/11 scam. Truthers who dismiss these questions out of hand, rather than tackle them point by point, are not really truthers at all, IMHO.

      Delete
  40. JEANNON said 'Jeff Kantoff and he does have some Internet presence.'

    That's great but it's a real life presence that I would like to see evidence of.

    JEANNON said on another blog 'He was the producer of a local cable access TV show called The Simple Truth.'

    So more amateur footage shot by someone involved in TV.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I hardly think someone who takes a little course so he can help put on a cable access TV show is "someone involved in TV."

    Jeff Kantoff is a real life live person that I have attended meetings and gatherings with several times in the past. Though it has been a long time since he took that video, I bet anyone who wanted to find him and ask him about it could do so quite easily.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jim, Jim, Jim!!! Please clear the air of that stinky "whiff" I mentioned earlier, and HEED YOUR OWN WORDS:

    (as stated in your above-posted reply to Joan Edwards' comments on your latest doorway-photo research)

    "So how can Joan Edwards be dismissive when she has not even looked at the evidence? This bothers me tremendously."

    It's way past time for you to spend some serious hours of detailed study of your own -- actually watching the September Clues video and reading the Vicsim Report.

    As my mum used to say: "What's sauce for the goose..." aw, you know the rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy, Andy, Andy!!! I've already wasted 30-45 min of my life on the Sept Clueless forum!! I read about an "off camera demolition" and "nobody was really killed" and "everyone was an actor" total bullshit.

      I've been on OBF's blog and he shows some stuff with the jumpers that looks like it was faked. I've got photos here that show smoke machines billowing smoke on the side of the North Tower and the roof. None of that in any way disproves that the WTC buildings were nuked.

      Delete
  43. For the record, I want to give my thanks to OBF for doing a great job defending cluesforum.info and its followers, like myself. I also want to applaud Andy Tyme for his efforts in bringing reason and light to the leading Sept. Clues research, which he appears to support for the most part. I'd like to extend my gratitude for Pshea, for his gentle soul and kind Irish nature in nudging Fetzer to the view of clues fakery. I'd also like to thank Jim Fetzer for his endless coverage of the 9/11 and JFK rabbit trails. By his repetition I concluded that the parallels between the two were so obvious that JFK must have modeled for the 9/11 psyOp. Because I was convinced that occam's razr best explained 9/11 as a psyOp centralized on a 102 minute movie, then JFK was most likely the same type of event. Events this big could only be pulled off by an entity that endures through different administrations, and that of course is the psy-war department of the military. Perhaps more discussion of this elephant in the room, as opposed to who the three tramps were or if holograms were used at the WTC, would lead to a greater understanding of what is happening on a daily basis in the worldwide media in every country.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. EANNON said: "There is nothing “hypocritical” of Dr. Fetzer not regarding Shack’s stuff as worthy of his time and effort and “careful examination.” Shack never has done his homework properly and seems to continually shoot himself in the foot by his unprofessional presentations."

    What your personal opinion of Mr Shack's research is is entirely irrelevant, as is mine, as is anyone elses here.

    The simple, plain as day, fact of the matter is that Jim Fetzer has entirely ignored standard scientific protocol with regard to basic, run-of -the- mill evidentiary validation procedures , and has, at the same time, fully endorsed the 911 "research" of "scientists" who have engaged in the exact same behavior, all the while yelling "prima facie" at the top of his lungs and brandishing his establishment credentials and experience.

    It does not get much uglier/more hypocritical than that.:-)

    Meanwhile, Mr Shack,who is not a trained scientist, [and regardless of whatever faults you might see in his presentation], remains possibly the only 911 researcher to date who has actually followed the scientific methodology and had the presence of mind to actually review, frame by frame, ALL of the original network footage as archived on the web, plus ALL of the alleged amateur footage, plus the vast majority of the still photographs released by the various alleged amateur photographers!

    You gotta love it ! :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, OBF, since all we have in these threads are irrelevant opinions, would you please grace us with another one of your irrelevant opinions and tell us, specifically in detail with citations, exactly what are those “basic, run-of -the- mill evidentiary validation procedures”, procedures that Simon Shack was purportedly aware of but is exempted from performing since he is not “a trained scientist.” Of course, you never define your terms and certainly not the term “trained scientist”, but I doubt Dr. Fetzer would fit any definition of “a trained scientist.” He is a philosophy professor as I understand it.
      You regard Simon Shack (Simon Hytten) as a researcher who was able to, and has, “followed the scientific methodology”, but at the same time is not a “trained scientist” so cannot, and should not be expected to follow whatever those “basic, run-of -the- mill evidentiary validation procedures” are.

      Simon Shack has not, repeat, not performed even basic data validation and collection procedures, and these are not limited to the capabilities of a “trained scientist.” Dr. Judy Wood has done a much better job of that, but she too falls short in vigorously researching all information about the source of each video and still photo.
      We are familiar with the Michael Hezarkani and Evan Fairbanks and Naudet Brothers hoax videos shown on TV.
      I, and probably others, am most interested in knowing about, in as fully and objectively documented a way as possible, “ALL of the alleged amateur footage, plus the vast majority of the still photographs released by the various alleged amateur photographers!” How do you know you have looked at “ALL’ of the alleged amateur footage? How do you know you have looked at the “vast majority” of still photographs? Exactly who, by name, do you include in your definition of “various alleged amateur photographers”?

      Again, I say, that Simon Shack and his supporters and followers, are in the business of making giant leaps from their “research” to their unproven conclusions. For example – “The collapse imagery – all of it – … – has by now been proven fake (digitally animated) in every imaginable way.” Quoting Simon Shack

      http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/

      Delete
  47. There is a new catharsis in the air and on the move. Something is happening.....

    The winds of renewal and discovery are blowing across America. Can you hear them? Can you feel them? We are drawing ever nearer to the truth about the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The 50th anniversary of the death of the 35th president has released us all. Now, the gloves are off and the truth will be known and we WILL know the truth. We owe it to America and to the whole world........
    But, most of all, we owe it to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

    We will not rest. We will not tarry nor will we delay. We WILL know the truth.

    This much is certain.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ersun Warncke from Salem-News.com reports, "I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error, or maybe Simon Shack is not as crazy as it would seem at first glance."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could some victims (vicsims) have played part in some kind of witness protection program?
      911 presented an opportunity to get rid of people who where in need of new identitys?
      I have always suspected a lot of "deaths" to be people in witness protection programs etc. who are being recorded as dead and given new identities-somehow. Like Obama was given a new identity yo qualify as president.

      Delete
  49. JEANNON said :"Well, OBF, since all we have in these threads are irrelevant opinions, would you please grace us with another one of your irrelevant opinions and tell us, specifically in detail with citations, exactly what are those “basic, run-of -the- mill evidentiary validation procedures”, procedures that Simon Shack was purportedly aware of but is exempted from performing since he is not “a trained scientist.”"

    'Happy to "grace" you with my irrelevant opinion :-). As I said in my post, he[Shack] has reviewed, frame by frame, ALL of the original, on-line archived, allegedly live footage from CBS, ABC NBC, CNN. He also claims, [and indeed appears] to have done the same with all of the amateur footage released to date, although I should possibly have said "most of" instead of all. Same goes for the still photograph record to date.

    By comparison, Mr Fetzer, as an individual credentialed in THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, has taken none of those basic, necessary steps and instead when this is pointed out is heard to yell "prima facie" and "25[or whatever] years experience teaching critical logic".

    Not only that, none of the "scientific" researchers he currently promotes [nor indeed any of the "scientific researchers" he disparages, including J. Wood], have themselves ever attempted even a pretense of imagery validation before using said videos/images as "evidence" of whatever.

    JEANNON said : "Of course, you never define your terms and certainly not the term “trained scientist”, but I doubt Dr. Fetzer would fit any definition of “a trained scientist.” He is a philosophy professor as I understand it."

    He is credentialed in the Philosophy of SCIENCE.

    JEANNON said :"You regard Simon Shack (Simon Hytten) as a researcher who was able to, and has, “followed the scientific methodology”, but at the same time is not a “trained scientist” so cannot, and should not be expected to follow whatever those “basic, run-of -the- mill evidentiary validation procedures” are."

    That is correct. Mr Shack is not a trained scientist. But he has at least attempted to follow basic run-of-the-mill scientific method by looking closely at the 911 imagery _before_ trying to use it as evidence of _anything_, unlike Mr Fetzer and every single other alleged "scientific" 911 researcher. 



    JEANNON said :"Simon Shack has not, repeat, not performed even basic data validation and collection procedures, and these are not limited to the capabilities of a “trained scientist.”Dr. Judy Wood has done a much better job of that, "

    If you don't think Mr Shack has performed "even basic data validation and collection procedures" , then logically you should be even less enamoured with any/all of the alleged "scientists" involved in 911 "research", including J. Wood, because they have done virtually NONE.

    To raise the ugly spectre of Dr. Judy Wood as some sort of example of a scientific researcher who has complied with "basic data validation and collection procedures", is a bad joke on your part, in my [irrelevant] opinion , since she has done virtually NO imagery validation to date ; regardless, far, far far less than Mr Shack has attempted, as should be obvious to all but the most biased reviewer.

    JEANNON said : "How do you know you have looked at “ALL’ of the alleged amateur footage?"

    How do you know he has not?

    JEANNON said : "How do you know you have looked at the “vast majority” of still photographs? "

    Ditto.

    JEANNON said : "Again, I say, that Simon Shack and his supporters and followers, are in the business of making giant leaps from their “research” to their unproven conclusions. For example – “The collapse imagery – all of it – … – has by now been proven fake (digitally animated) in every imaginable way.” Quoting Simon Shack"

    What specific collapse imagery do you believe to be real, and why?

    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  50. OBF, I skimmed your answer to me and it was a joke. You answered my questions to your assertions with questions.

    Probably will not donate any more of my time to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A wise move Jeannon. OBF is a guy that thinks Jackie shot JFK. You can't debate with someone like that.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. How do you spot a 9/11 disinfo shill? Easy. They post under a phony name and deny nukes. That covers about 95% of the shills out there.

      Delete
  51. JEANNON said :" OBF, I skimmed your answer to me and it was a joke. You answered my questions to your assertions with questions. Probably will not donate any more of my time to you."

    Well, Christ on a crutch- another frickin' evidence "skimmer"- why am I not surprised?

    Yep, you'll feel a lot more at home/comfortable talking amongst yourselves with the other resident fellow skimmers of Mr Shack's research here , such as Jim Fetzer and Don Fox, that's for sure.

    I'm sure all 3 of you can wile away many, many happy hours reinforcing each others own personal delusions.

    Disadvantage for you? Presumably you won't all be able to call each other a "fraud", or a "disinfo shill" or whatever when you run short of substantive argumentation, as you have all done here. [Assuming you ever actually acquire any]:-)

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 3 disinfromationists to look out for Mark O Blazney, bpete1969 and Conspiracy Critic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ralph has lost his mind. Somebody please that creature, before it's too late.

      Delete
  53. Coming to the real deal this morning i was thinking 'wow, 83 comments! i must be an interesting guy!'

    well, of course even i am not deserving of so much ink...

    for what it's worth: i gave September Clues a good look some time ago and was impressed by most of Shack's analysis, mainly regarding the second strike. of course, all the footage showing airplanes is fabricated. no argument there from me. (did Shack really fail to notice the lack of motion blur in the Hezharkani and Fairbanks videos? i guess i have an eye after all.)

    anyway, if jim et al actually looked at Shack's work (more in a moment) they'd notice anomalies in clips other than those with planes in them. Mmmm. why they would fabricate shots of smoking towers when it would appear unnecessary is a good question. but the misplaced buildings, etc etc, leave no doubt that this was the case. (my famous-photog buddy walter iooss agreed with some of shack's anomalies -- until walter realized the implications, then doublethink set in and he started calling me crazy and 'all was well' with all the footage. see my interview with him at

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM

    anyway, as usual in puzzling stuff out, i tried to put myself in the perps place. why fake ALL footage?

    makes no sense. sorry, OBF, but it really doesn't make sense at all. the towers disintegrated and people died (they faked some of the deaths to get the count up above Pearl Harbor, which was an important psy op issue.)

    however, enough un-needed fakery went on to demand an answer. here's mine:

    these bastards are into the occult/secret societies and all that nasty shit. we know that. we know 9/11 was a psy-op. this equals 'let's throw in enough fakery to make our point - WE control reality.'

    Etc.

    but i'm convinced that faking the towers disintegration makes no sense. it was likely a nuke event, etc, as fetzer points out.

    ON THE OTHER HAND: that fetzer spends half his days defending himself and insulting 'enemies'; rather than studying shack's largely interesting work....

    actually, it doesn't surprise me. i won't go into personal matters except to say that jim fetzer continues to send me NWO propaganda (from the NY Times, BBC Washington Post, etc!) re 'Climate Change,' while refusing to even look at the links i send him showing Climate Change as the obvious fraud that it is.

    sad state of affairs here, folks.

    to wind this up (i have actual work to do), my opinion: yes there was fakery all over the place in the images of that day, but NO, not all of it was faked. they did much of their faking to disorient people, like those wasting their research time on this thread.

    one thing i did do - that jim fetzer, for all his professorial pretense, does not do and likely will not do: i went to a shack thread recommended somewhere in the sea of words above. well, it is an interesting video i ended up on:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIeYKJyfFfU

    sure LOOKS to me like there isn't any tilt. if this is the case, here we have some fakery. in a new release. why?

    why would they screw with our heads at this late date? BECAUSE THEY CAN.

    that's about it. i need to get back to film editing. i could have done better here but am too distracted by important matters. i would ask all of you to spend your time and energy in a more fruitful area. we know there was a lot of video fakery on 9/11. the real importance of this was NOT exactly how much fakery there was but rather the media's direct involvement in the crime/psy-op. hear me?

    THE REAL ISSUE IS THE TV MEDIA'S DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING AND CARRYING OUT OF THE PSY-OP OF 9/11.

    IMHO, you are doing exactly what the bastards figured you'd do. dividing awake people. plus their sicko occult motives.

    Allan W

    P.S. will someone inform jim fetzer that when he supports the GW fraud, he's making a huge fool of himself. that they are trying to tax the air we breathe is a bit more important than the matters of ego i see here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thank you, Allan W.

    I contribute this short video link regarding the Hezarkhani video (plane with "pod" going into South Tower, shown only on CNN who has the legal rights to the video.)

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_michael_hezarkhani/

    I think this particular video strongly implicates CNN's direct involvement to the procurement and presentation of a knowingly faked video. CNN may have even arranged for someone to prepare the whole video and just found a guy, a guy with a Middle Eastern name, to take a pay-off and put his name on it and then disappear to the west coast and keep shut up about it forevermore.

    One thing about the South Tower plane with pod hit that I thought was rather brilliant was that you got people* to focus on the weird "pod" and thereby accept as reality the plane itself.

    * Many 9-11 truth seeking people and groups spent much time talking about this weird pod, e.g., LetsRollForum, and VonKleist's video "In Plane Sight."

    Dr. Fetzer does indeed appear to support the "GW fraud"**, but he also invites and interview guests on his show who represent many varied viewpoints and "theories" that he does not necessarily at all agree with or support, though he does give that impression sometimes. Nevertheless, Dr. Fetzer's giving almost all theories a fair hearing, I think, is of primary importance here, and his record in that regard is far better than any other 9-11 researcher's.

    **Heck, even my Church is on to the GW Fraud and did a video on it.

    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/platform/index.php?vidID=ciax-2010-08-25&ssnID=88

    Global Warming Unmasked

    P.S. Thank you for mentioning the reality of the occultism factor, another factor that I suspect Dr. Fetzer would not want to acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Simon Shack" (another phony name who denies nukes on 9/11) is also pure disinfo. Anyone who doubts that should check out this YouTube video September Clueless is a complete load of BS. Don't waste your time there folks.

    ReplyDelete
  56. AC Weisbecker said:" THE REAL ISSUE IS THE TV MEDIA'S DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING AND CARRYING OUT OF THE PSY-OP OF 9/11."

    I 100% agree. But according to Jim Fetzer, "philospher of science" , ALL of the medias alleged "live" footage of 911 has a "prima facie" reason to be pre-assumed as genuine :-)

    See : " 911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html


    AC Weisbecker said: " sorry, OBF, but it really doesn't make sense at all. the towers disintegrated and people died (they faked some of the deaths to get the count up above Pearl Harbor, which was an important psy op issue.)"

    NO ONE at Septemberclues.info is claiming that the towers did not disintegrate!

    They _are_claiming [as am I] that ALL of the original live footage depicting towers collapses [i.e. from NBC, CNN, etc., of the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7] is 100% CGI imagery concocted prior to 911 and then broadcast as live imagery.

    By way of one example, here is Simon Shacks gif made from the original, high def. TV archive files of the original "live" NBC feed of the collapse of WTC2:

    http://septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/WTC2%20COLLAPSE%20NBC%20yellow%202.gif

    As a film maker, are you honestly going to claim that this is in fact a genuine live sequence? If so, why exactly?

    For another example here is my own article examining the alleged live CNN footage of WTC1's collapse, which, just as with the NBC footage of WTC2 previously linked to, is recorded in all of its glorious lack of definition , supposedly by state of the art network cameras reportedly costing in the region of $200,000 per camera:

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-scamsthe-faked-live-cnn-wtc1.html

    Are you honestly going to claim that this is also live footage captured via a real, state of the art network camera? No, excuse me, at least 3 [possibly 4] CNN cameras, which would have to be the case , as the studio editor miraculously manages to switch cameras at least 3 times during the course of an 18 second, supposedly unexpected collapse?

    So yes, you are correct the main issue is media complicity, but you appear to blind to the depth of that complicity, in my humble opinion.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBF: Why does "Simon Shack" use at least 8 different aliases on the September Clueless forum? If you guys aren't completely full of shit then why don't you use your real names? No one should take anything you have to say seriously if you hide behind some phony name. Don't tell me "the media is complicit" when you are a complete shill yourself.

      Delete
  57. JEANNON wrote:

    "Simon Shack has not, repeat, not performed even basic data validation and collection procedures, and these are not limited to the capabilities of a “trained scientist.”


    Jeannon, I will put it very simply for you - although this may seem like a long reply to your ill-informed complaints: the question of source-referencing the 9/11 imagery was, of course, a prime concern to me as I started the gargantuan task of collecting, analyzing and cataloging all the existing footage and still pictures - back in 2006. At the very top of my "to do" list was to make sure that every single image that I collected was duly sourced / tagged / archived in my files - whether they be images aired on the TV networks / printed news media or so-called amateur imagery. As a diligent and self-demanding researcher, I spent untold hours doing just that, being perfectly aware of the crucial importance of this part of the enormous task I had set for myself. However, I decided not to include all of this tirelessly collected data in my 90-min September Clues research documentary, since source-referencing every single clip or image would have made for a very cluttered movie indeed - what with its narration format (text & captions) already asking its viewers for a lot of reading effort. Similarly (for readability reasons), my septemberclues.info website doesn't contain exact / exhaustive source-references to every image presented there - (as explained in my FAQ1) http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_1.htm ). At cluesforum.info however, we have always strongly encouraged every 9/11 image posted there to be properly source-referenced. Having said that, let me now explain why I have now come to consider this source-referencing an almost redundant burden for all of us 9/11 image analysts.

    Over the years, my source-referencing concerns have gradually faded, as I realized that the bulk of the 9/11 imagery - insofar as its all-important chain of custody was concerned - could be sourced to a restrict number of official sources.

    As a matter of fact, basically as few as two or three: (1) The OFFICIAL 9/11 TV ARCHIVES - and (2) the "500 hours of amateur footage" allegedly collected by Steven Rosenbaum's CAMERA PLANET studios: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/nyregion/30archive.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

    In 2010, a third major official source (3) joined the fray, when NIST released its "CUMULUS VIDEO DATABASE" - a large bundle (4.7Gigabytes) of seemingly "never-seen-before" 9/11 video clips credited to assorted "amateurs". You see, as the (ludicrous) media-peddled story went, ABC TV (!) had apparently filed a FOIA in order to 'force NIST to release this precious video material kept under wraps for all of nine years - for some unfathomable reason... (Zapruder, anyone?).

    So, to make a long story short, I would say that roughly 95% of the 9/11 imagery I have come across can be sourced to the above-mentioned three entities. The remaining 5% would be a handful of seemingly privately-owned clips or pics to be found here and there on the web - on Youtube or other video portals, credited to ill-defined entities (such as "Bob and Bri") and only rarely giving up their full names. Hopefully, one fine day, the FBI will help us trace these 'amateurs', knock on their doors, ask them to legally identify themselves and release ALL of their September 11 2001 footage. Wishful thinking, perhaps - but let's dream on...

    Until then, dear JEANNON; I will kindly ask you to stop spamming all over the place your complaints about the way I conduct my own 9/11 research. If you have any questions regarding my work, please e-mail me at simonshack@libero.it and feel free to submit to me any 9/11 imagery that you believe may have slipped through my radar - during this half-decade of steady dedication to 'the cause'.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  58. OBF: Easy, big fella. i'm on the same side. the shot of the antennae going in two directions (now that i see the while structure, which shows the shot is not from the reverse angle) would seem to indicate that something is amiss here. Yes, good call. (jim, rather than five paragraphs about the philosophy of science, how about reacting to that problem?)

    However, the poor image qualify COULD be chalked up to them not wanting a clear image of the method of destruction (whatever it was) and your observations about live editing don't prove much. (Many examples like this - and hey i haven't studied Sept Clues in a long time, i think before he started claiming that it ALL was faked - would still not be the kind of proof that the actual anomalies (the antennae thing, for ex and also the non-tilt i alluded to) impress me.

    So you (via Shack) may be right.i dunno. the problem i have is when i do my usual thought experiment: i imagine a round table of the perps, 10, say, all experts in one thing or another (physicists, special effects wizards, etc etc) and they are discussing how to pull it off.

    when whoever suggests that they fabricate EVERYTHING, I'd raise my hand (i'm there in spirit) and bring up the problems your good buddy jim f has brought up (witnesses not seeing the same thing, etc etc). plus i'd ask Why?

    Why if we're going to fake it, are we making it look so much unlike a gravity collapse? (wade thru jim's invective and philosophizing for other problems.)

    If you're going to say they did it BECAUSE THEY CAN, i actually would not argue with you.

    Another problem: why, if they are so good that they could basically pull off faking everything, why didn't the dumb ass put in motion blur in Hezharkani and Fairbanks? animation motion blur has been around since Star Wars.

    so again, i dunno. i haven't taken the time to study the matter. once i realized that A LOT of stuff was faked.... this is the most important matter in the whole of 9/11 research, at least for me.i'll say it again: that the media is directly complicit puts us into the sort of matrix world that gives me the ultimate creeps. (that Neo's prop passport in the film expired on 9/11/01 is... well, it says more about 9/11 and the world we live in than the question of whether it was all faked or just 50% of it, or whatever.)

    but hey, whatever moves you. truth is good. puzzling it out is good. what really interests me is human nature - that 90% of the 'truth' community refuses to accept video fakery as a fact tells me more about mind control and human beings than maybe any other single issue. many of the posts on this forum also indicate that all is not well with human nature, i think.

    i'm rambling. distracted by how to end this film i've been working on for seven years. how to sum up the sad collective state of human consciousness...

    AW

    ReplyDelete
  59. by the way, and i don't know if Shack or others have noticed this, but i've found fakery via this fact: the north side of both towers should have been in shade after around the time of the first hit. (there's a great Apple program that tells photogs the exact angle of the sun on any building (etc) at any time of the day, all year.) so any image that has the north face of either tower in sunlight is fake. Period. this is astronomy's contribution to uncovering lies. (there is at least one very real-looking amateur video that is given away by this fact.)

    AW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allan,

      "Simon Shack" doesn't exist. "Simon" is a composite cobbled together in either Langley or Tel Aviv.

      However you bring up a great point about sun/shade. That is the type of analysis I never hear from OBF or September Clueless.

      Delete
    2. ehm, thats one of september clues first points on their webpage. LOL.

      Delete
    3. http://septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.htm

      Delete
  60. Don Fox (whoever you are),

    How old are you? 14 perhaps? So who told you I use 8 aliases at Cluesforum.info ? Well, guess who: it's an entity who called itself "Kentrailer" - alias "Norwayresearch" - alias "Paulstalservice" - alias "SanLuisSkywatch" - a dime-a-dozen troll entity which popped out of nowhere last year and spends most of its time attacking yours truly with silly Youtube videos, He was outed last year for the obvious troll he is:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2378432#p2378432

    So is this where we are at - here at the “Real Deal” radio? Does Prof. Fetzer also believe that I post under 8 aliases on my forum - and have done so for over half a decade? Will Dr. Fetzer let his new-found friend Don “nukes-did-it” Fox accuse me of being an eight-faced entity? If Fetzer doesn't respond to this simple yet important question, I will assume that this place's credibility has hit (ground) zero.

    Anyway, to anyone still wondering - after all these years - who the f… I am, here we go again:

    My only 'alias' is Simon Shack - the artist name I am officially registered with at the Swedish Musician's Union since 1993. My birth name is Simon Hytten - and I've never tried to hide nor deny it (Hytten means "hut" in Norwegian, ergo "Shack" (an even smaller hut) is just a friendly nickname which was coined by a fellow musician whom I performed with - back in the nineties)."Shack" has been (for the last twenty years) my official and least anonymous surname - in the same way as "Bowie" became the official and least anonymous name of David Robert Jones. I’m sorry if I never became as famous as David Bowie, folks – but what would you say if Bowie suddenly started researching 9/11 – under his David Robert Jones birth name? Would you not suspect him of hiding his real identity?

    So, Don Fox boy – who the f… ARE you? Can you show me some info about yourself? Here’s mine:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2351730#p2351730

    Sorry everyone for my pissed-off tone - but I simply cannot bear seeing this place degenerating into some juvenile Youtube comment box - not after all these years. If this Don Fox is the sort of cretin that Jim Fetzer associates with - and if Fetzer doesn't intervene to moderate this sort of crap, this place is A COMPLETE JOKE - as far as I'm concerned.

    Dr Fetzer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm 45 years old and I'm listed in Minneapolis phone book. You're full of shit and it's time someone called you out on it. You spew your disinfo with impunity and I for one have had enough of it.

      The 30 minutes I spent on your forum I saw a bunch of complete bullshit such as "nobody died" "everything is fake" and my favorite the "off camera demolition."

      Do you think Jackie shot JFK like your buddy OBF?

      Delete
  61. Dear A.C Weisbecker,

    I take it that you have never looked up my Septemberclues.info website (published in 2009).

    You are right about your observation that the North side of the WTC should have been in shade at 9:03AM. The sun never lies, you know?

    http://www.septemberclues.info/images/GAMMAPRESSvsSEAN%20ADAIR.jpg

    Here's the link to my website page which presents further 9/11 imagery aberrations:
    http://www.septemberclues.info/imagery_analyses.htm

    Here's another "SUN DOES NOT LIE" issue - this time connected with a purported WTC collapse image:
    http://septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/SUNdoesnotlie.jpg

    As a matter of fact, even the Zapruder 'movie' can be easily exposed as entirely fake - again thanks to an undeniable "SUN DOES NOT LIE" issue:

    CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FAKERY:
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&hilit=zapruder+exposed&start=45

    Here's another link to my 9/11 image research which you might like to check out. Please allow some time for all the images to upload:
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=386&sid=2d89534aa1d427057cd264b0f5e7c0d0

    Have fun! :o)

    ReplyDelete
  62. A.C. Weisbecker said: "...., the poor image qualify COULD be chalked up to them not wanting a clear image of the method of destruction (whatever it was) and your observations about live editing don't prove much."

    I agree, one example of that type of fast edit, might not mean much.

    However, the problem is, the original live footage is literally littered with similarly amazingly coincidental edits/zooms in and out.

    For example the perfect 3 step Fox5 zoom-in that stops just as fl. 175 hits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6McmbkBIKw .

    Also, in the CNN WTC2 collapse footage analysis I previously linked to in my previous post, please note that there is a similarly coincidental large zoom -in that stops at the exact same moment the tower commences its collapse - this , remember, occurs ON TOP of the subsequent 3 [or 4] beautifully timed camera swaps performed during the approx. 18 sec. collapse sequence.

    There are other examples of similar, amazingly coincidental camera edits/zooms, throughout the allegedly "live" network imagery archives.

    
A.C. Weisbecker said: "when whoever suggests that they fabricate EVERYTHING, I'd raise my hand (i'm there in spirit) and bring up the problems your good buddy jim f has brought up (witnesses not seeing the same thing, etc etc). plus i'd ask Why? "

    With all due respect, I'd humbly suggest that instead of raising Fetzer-like defensive questions in order to directly avoid having to ever closely study the original live archives, you instead ignore your blinder-like questions/doubts, forget everything else, take off those mental blinders and actually take a close unbiased look at all of the original live archived network footage, and Simons research [ BTW, the research on the network tower collapse imagery is NOT in the movie "September Clues" but is archived in appropriately named threads at his site.] 


    
A.C. Weisbecker said: "Why if we're going to fake it, are we making it look so much unlike a gravity collapse? "

    Again,forget the stalling, Fetzer-like questions questions/objections. Just analyze the footage itself. You are a professional film maker- it should not be too hard for you to put aside your reservations/objections and instead just concentrate on closely examining the footage itself.

    A.C. Weisbecker said: "why, if they are so good that they could basically pull off faking everything, why didn't the dumb ass put in motion blur in Hezharkani and Fairbanks? "

    Ditto.



    A.C. Weisbecker said: "so again, i dunno. i haven't taken the time to study the matter. "

    That appears to be the very root of your problem, thanks for being honest enough to admit it, Mr Weisbecker.

    
Regards onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no research going on at the Clueless forum. It's a bunch of BS to distract honest people. The Clueless mantra is: no nukes, nobody was really killed, the buildings were demolished nice and safe off camera, it was all a sideshow. Nothing to see here folks move along now. Especially don't look at that illicit Israeli nuclear weapons program whatever you do!! Gatekeepers same as Jewdy Wood.

      How exactly did Jackie shoot JFK again? Did any witnesses report that? Is there any medical evidence to support that?

      Didn't think so....

      Delete
  63. Don Fox said : "However you bring up a great point about sun/shade. That is the type of analysis I never hear from OBF or September Clueless."

    Thats because you have not taken the time to read that site. [surprise surprise :-) ].

    The sunlight /shadows issue is one of the primary hallmarks of Simon Shacks 911 research, IF you actually ever bothered reading the site entries!

    As for myself, I have addressed the very same issue in a couple of blog posts, for example :

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/05/craig-mckees-truth-and-shadows-blog-yet.html

    But forget my very minor contribution in this area of research - the fact that you were not aware of the sunlight/shadow issue even being addressed by Simon Shack, does not surprise me, coming from a person who has done little besides name-call here and who invents out of wholecloth, the fabrication that I believe Jacky O shot JFK.

    But carry on with the brainless insults, you only end up further discrediting both yourself and your partners in crime[ Prager and Ward] as well as Fetzer himself, although admittedly, he is doing a fine job of that all by himself with his personal attacks on me here, and in other threads at other times [eg Veterans Today].

    No regards, onebornfree.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how much are they paying you and Simon Shill to keep the heat off Israel?

      I could have sworn I was on your blog a few months ago and saw a post about Jackie shooting JFK. If you never posted that I will retract my previous statements.

      Delete
  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Just to reset everything for the people who have waded through the "sea of words above" as Weisbecker put it. So why is this Fox character going after the "legendary" Simon Shill and September Clueless?

    The major bone I have to pick with them is with this statement on the Clueless forum:

    The master plan of 9/11 was to demolish the redundant, asbestos-filled WTC complex in Lower Manhattan - 9 buildings in all. The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions - not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme - just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda. The military (and its various intelligence affiliates) would manage the ground logistics, such as securing the area, raising smokescreens to hide the proceedings from public view, and last but not least, electromagnetic countermeasures to keep any private cameras from filming the mayhem. The WTC complex was thus 'safely' destroyed in bright daylight. It was a magician's trick, pulled off by sleight of hand to fool the few (the NY onlookers) - and with computer graphics to fool the world (the TV viewers).

    I find this quote particularly offensive: "To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme." The WTC buildings were nuked. People died. A lot of people died. Was it 3,000? Who knows. People are dying of cancer right now from the radiation they exposed to cleaning up the Ground Zero mess. THIS is what these shills are covering up. This is why I get incensed when I read the inane drivel offered up by Onebornpaid and Simon Shill.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Are Simon Shill and Onebornpaid merely gatekeepers, feigning the role of muckrakers and champions of injustice, while all the time carrying water for the very power structures that they claim to rail against? Are they really exposing government collusion in criminal and treasonous behavior, or are they containing the limits of that exposure within certain 'acceptable' corridors of public discourse?

    I would say that the term 'gatekeeper' fits Simon Shill and Onebornpaid to a T.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Really fellas? NOBODY died on 9/11? What a bunch of bullshit:

    NEW YORK| The New York City medical examiner's office says more possible pieces of human remains have been found during the sifting of newly uncovered debris from the site of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

    The office says 21 potential human remains were recovered Wednesday. That brings the total found during the current effort to 39.

    About 60 truckloads of debris that could contain tiny human bone fragments have been unearthed by construction crews working on the new World Trade Center tower in recent years. City officials say investigators will spend 10 weeks trying to find remains in that debris. The city's last such effort ended in 2010.

    Some 2,750 people died at the World Trade Center in the Sept. 11 attacks, but remains of only 1,634 people have been identified.

    The city's last sifting effort ended in 2010. This time, crews were able to dig up parts of the trade center site that were previously inaccessible to workers, the city said.

    Since 2006, the remains of 34 previously unrecovered victims were identified through DNA, CBS New York reported.

    About 9,000 human remains recovered from the ruins of the World Trade Center remain unidentified because they are too degraded to match victims by DNA identification. The remains are stored at an undisclosed location monitored by the medical examiner's office and will eventually be transferred to a subterranean chamber at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

    Possible human remains found in 9/11 debris

    Some victims' families expressed impatience that the city has only just uncovered more debris.

    "Quite frankly, they should've excavated this and searched it 12 years ago," said Diane Horning, whose son, Matthew, died in the attacks. "Instead, they built service roads and construction roads and were more worried about the building and the tourism than they were about the human remains."

    ReplyDelete
  68. i think OBF above claimed words to the effect that 'at least (I) admitted' that i didn't study for days on end' somebody's Internet work, or some such. No, what I said, in effect, was that I DON'T GIVE A SHIT (whether it was 50% faked or 100% faked). There's a difference, subtle tho it is. The reason for not really caring is simple: I have limited time here on planet earth and prefer to spend what little is left on actually important matters.

    AW

    Hey OBF and everyone: you should listen to OBL's two Real Deal interviews in the past, wherein he assures us that he has no desire to change anyone's mind about anything. None whatsoever. Which begs the question: So what's with all the fuss here? what happened to that easy-going guy? which begs the real question: who cares?

    my final view of all this is best summed by Wolfgang Pauli's critique of a poorly wrought (physics) theory, dubbing it 'Not even wrong.' Pauli's witticism applies to all of the hue and cry voiced here (except for my own, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  69. Really... Osama Bin Laden died in December 2001? What a bunch of BS?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/minute-by-minute-the-operation-to-get-bin-laden/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. All of those people who worked at Ground Zero for months looking for human remains were just going through the motions trying to sucker everybody. The family members who got a foot or a shin back were making up stories.

      This lady is making it all up too.

      Moron.

      Delete
  70. If you're looking to get banned from either September Clues or Simon Shack's site, just say "Jew". They DO seem to be diverting any Jew discussion. I should know, it's what got me banned.

    Both sites are a little too over-produced and over-managed... if you know what I mean. There is someone managing those sites 24/7, just like it was a job for a 24-hour crew. Now, who could possibly afford to do that???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody should be surprised by this. I'm sure September Clues is an ADL production just like Judy Wood is. If all you do is just read the 4 main points September Clueless puts on their tour page you'll know something is fishy. That looks like it was written by one of the staff lawyers at the ADL. Just like all of Judy Wood's stuff looks like a legal team combed through it before it gets posted. September Clueless = ADL gatekeeper operation. Just like Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson.

      Delete
  71. A.C. Weisbecker said : " i think OBF above claimed words to the effect that 'at least (I) admitted' that i didn't study for days on end' somebody's Internet work, or some such. No, what I said, in effect, was that I DON'T GIVE A SHIT (whether it was 50% faked or 100% faked). "

    Ah, I see, the final cop-out. I get it. You don't have the time, and anyway you never gave a shit in the first place. Nice :-) .

    A.C. Weisbecker said : "what happened to that easy-going guy? "

    I guess I just got tired of being continually talked down to via appeals to authority, scoffed at, repeatedly called names by Fetzer, and decided to have a little fun, thats all.

    So all in all, I'm still not here to persuade anyone of the rightness of Simon Shacks research, because I see that as being an impossibility.

    I'm just having fun with the psychology of the Fetzer and associated clowns' continuing complete denial of fundamental scientific methodology procedure; the pretzel logic and determined obfuscation of an egomaniac who can never admit to being wrong but who will instead consistently call the only person demanding the consistent employment of that methodology an idiot, a buffoon, etc. etc. , at the same obfuscating with fancy legal terms like "prima facie", while reminding us all of his "25 + years of teaching critical thinking" etc. etc. , blah blah blah, yadda, yadda yadda.

    Classic , highly offensive, blowhard behavior. nothing to do with science and the scientific method.

    Closely mimicked by his feces-throwing trained monkey side-kick, Don "da jooz dunn 911 wid nookes" Fox.

    I have been polite and patient with him throughout 3 interviews and numerous exchanges at "Veterans Today", but now I'm sick of his BS [as exhibited here] and the gloves have finally come off.

    Sad to say, but that, [prodding the performing monkey]'s, entertaynemunt ,at least for me, AC, You gotta love it :-) .

    And you are right, I too probably have more important things to do than spend time at the zoo, at least at this one.But I do like good entertaynemunt!

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  72. Onebornpaid said "Closely mimicked by his feces-throwing trained monkey side-kick, Don "da jooz dunn 911 wid nookes" Fox."

    THIS is why he's here folks. OBP's intel masters are seriously pissed at me and Jim after our article 2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11 came out last summer. Judy Wood went over the edge when she saw that one!

    I have so thoroughly dismantled the Wood Cult that they won't come near me anymore. So now the intel crowd is sending in the Sept Clueless clowns.

    I've come to the realization that Langley and/or Tel Aviv is going to have some creeps around trying to push our buttons and what not. I certainly prefer sparring with OBP than the Judy Wood psychos. At least OBP and Simon Shill refrain from the death threats and all of that :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dropped by after a hard day's work to see how we're doing. I was hoping we'd set a record for number of The Real Deal comments; it would look good on my cv. looks like we're running out of gas... uhhhhh...

    doesn't anyone have an opinion regarding.... my assertion that the observation that 90% of Truthers don't believe in any video fakery is an important statement about human nature?

    Wait. This is actually an important matter (not kidding): james corbett - a definite rising star in the alternative media - repeated (i think) seven times in his formal address to a major truther symposium that Fl 77 hit the pentagon. see his presentation at

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-TISYtc9fs

    isn't this worth some real mulling over? i mean: i cannot come up with an explanation for this other than corbett is alerting his handlers that he is still very much with the program.

    all of us here (even including j fetzer) are lightweights. finger pointing re 'you're a paid govt shill!' etc is pretty meaningless regarding all of us. i'd really like to know what's up with corbett. any serious thoughts on the matter?

    Also, i provided a link above to my interview with famous photog walter iooss and got ONE hit. ONE. i mean, pu-lease. when the subject of a JIM FETZER The Real Deal interview provides a link to a non-public video... come on, folks... i'm not Speilberg but don't i deserve a little more respect?

    aside from the technical glitches (the sound is screwed up) i think it's a significant piece of work. there, i've set myself up for derision. OBF or someone: no opinion? one more time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt that Corbett is a limited hang out type of guy. He's taken over the International Forecaster after Bob Chapman (Ashkenazi Jew) died in 2012. Alex Jones has had him on as a guest several times so that raises some red flags right there. But when he starts talking about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon all doubt is removed that he's a shill.

      I saw the video with Walter and I thought it was good. His eyes told him he was seeing BS but he couldn't quite bring himself to say it out loud.

      Delete
  74. i have one observation re all the finger pointing about who's a govt shill and i'll make it very simple, so anyone who wants to respond cannot dodge the issue.

    first: after the inside job revelation, what's the biggest, most important fact about 9/11? the one the bad guys most want to keep hidden? i would submit that it's direct media collusion.

    if this is correct: simon shack - whether he is right or wrong with his 100% theory - has turned more people on to media collusion than any other person or group. i think that's inarguable.

    so what sense does it make that he's on the dark side?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weisbecker said "so what sense does it make that he's on the dark side?"

      A great question Allan. As you can imagine there is considerable backstory here. I didn't think that Onebornpaid and Simon Shill were working for the other side until recently.

      I started having my doubts about OBP when he kept leaving these inane and nonsensical comments on some of the articles I wrote with Fetzer on Veterans Today. He'd leave some whacko comments on this blog as well. I'm not a video guy and don't need them to prove my case for nukes. I was a little perplexed as to why he was sticking his nose in my area of expertise when he had nothing to contribute to the discussion.

      He can't deal with the Department of Energy water sample evidence or the USGS dust sample evidence so he would try to deny nukes by stating the videos were faked. They talk about this mythical "off-camera demolition" bullshit. How exactly does that work? Did the Towers come down at a different time than the dust cloud rolled out and covered Lower Manhattan in a fine dust powder of steel, cement and gypsum? They won't give a straight answer.

      My comment from 12/9 @ 2:22 pretty well sums it up: the Clueless Forum's main purpose is to deny the involvement of Israeli nuclear weapons in the destruction of the WTC buildings. You and the rest of the world seem to think that their purpose is to expose video fakery and complicity of the media. Upon closer examination they are a tightly controlled gatekeeping operation. You really need to read the Tour Guide page on the Clueless Forum.

      It reads like a lawyer wrote it not a research group. This is VERY similar to what you read on Judy Wood's site. The Clueless mantra is nobody was killed on 9/11, the WTC buildings were evacuated before they were demolished etc. All complete bullshit. If the Towers were evacuated before they were nuked why were there survivors in Stairwell B of the North Tower? Obviously this isn't a real 9/11 research group and anything else they say can be dismissed. They have an agenda and it's not seeking the truth.

      After thousands and thousands of attacks by the Judy Wood Cult, I can sniff out the shills pretty good. September Clues operates in a very similar manner to the Wood Cult. So it stands to reason they're working for the same outfit - the ADL.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Simon is the opposite of Judy Wood. You can call him at his listed contacts and speak to him, he will respond in a calm, intelligent way. He will not yell at you and accuse you of being a shill. He will lay out a reasonable argument for you to consider.The fact that he is attacked ad-hominem over many forums without addressing his evidence indicates to me that he is flying over the target most of the time. He has talked for hours on my broadcast at radioarchives.fakeologist.com and so far hasn't said anything regarding 9/11 that seems off to me.

      Delete
    3. So nobody was killed on 9/11? The Towers were safely demolished after they were evacuated? Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too?

      Delete
  75. Dr. Fetzer,

    I posted a long response to JEANNON yesterday – and it now appears to have been deleted. I duly checked that it had, in fact, been published (so no errors on my part). Why was it removed?

    My post listed the three entities which evidently must be held accountable for the fake 9/11 imagery (the TV networks, NIST and Steven Rosenbaum’s CAMERA PLANET studios) – at the very least as far as its chain of custody is concerned. The three, together, would therefore represent the main defendants of a future (however hypothetical) trial based on the PRIMA FACIE evidence of image forgery which my longstanding September Clues / Cluesforum research has amply provided.

    I would now like to share with you some facts I learned today in a long phone call with an old friend of mine I’ve known for about twenty years, a now retired Italian judge – highly regarded in the area I live in. Since you used the latin legal term ‘prima facie’ in your conversations with Onebornfree, I thought you might like to learn the exact meaning it has in the context of legal proceedings – since your understanding of the term is evidently nil. As a matter of fact, you have it exactly “upside down”.

    As my old friend explained to me – in his usual, crystal-clear fashion – the term ‘prima facie’ denotes the amount of evidence that a party / plaintiff needs to show in order for there to be a case to answer. For a legal proceeding to commence, a PRIMA FACIE case needs to exist, i.e. the plaintiff must be able to present a minimum of preliminary (“at first sight”) evidence which, if considered sufficient, will allow for the trial to take place. So let me now quote the exact words which you, Dr Fetzer, uttered in your radio broadcast with Onebornfree:

    “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.”

    As I said - and as anyone can judge for him/herself - you have it completely upside down. It is certainly not for the TV networks to make any prima facie claim; they are the ones suspected of the crime, you see? The prima facie claim is what any given plaintiff (in this case, the deceived public) is asked to produce for any legal proceedings to initiate. As you well know – and will surely agree with – we have long provided some very strong prima facie evidence that the TV networks aired fabricated imagery on 9/11. Exactly how much of it was fabricated is not even an issue here, what matters is that we have an eminently valid prima facie case to present to any court of law willing to review it.

    In this light, seeing how you have made a sorry fool of yourself with your pompous use of latin / legalese terms that you have no grasp of, I’d say that for you to call someone an ‘idiot’ for trying to set you straight – as Onebornfree has righteously and repeatedly attempted – only makes you even more of a fool. It would behoove to your oft-asserted scholarly conduct to present your humble apologies to Onebornfree - the sooner the better.

    You will likely choose not to respond to this – but please let me know why you deleted the post I made yesterday in response to JEANNON. Thanks.

    Simon Shack

    *************************************
    p.s. to A.C. Weisbecker: Makes no sense to me either! :-P
    And since it seems to have become a trendy “trolling sport" to call me a jew, well I am not – have never been one and have no plans to become one. I'm a half-Norwegian / half-Swedish bastard, isn’t that bad enough? ;O)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not accusing you of being a Jew but rather someone who works for them. That Star of David in your cubicle might be giving people the wrong impression :)

      Who signs your paychecks? Larry Silverstein? Abe Foxman? Or do you work for a contract company?

      Delete
    2. Your "old friend" supplying the legal definitions wouldn't just happen to be a staff lawyer at the ADL would they?

      Delete
  76. Simon, thanks for that long post supporting my contention.

    I don't think that there is anything suspicious about your other post disappearing, [if thats what you are thinking].

    I've had trouble literally _every_ time I post here; the site deletes my post automatically on my first attempt.

    As I always copy/save my text on initial attempt, I have to re-paste it in to the box and resend it, every time.

    It usually goes through the second time around - so maybe its just a "technical" issue for you also- something to do with the site software perhaps?

    My understanding is that Jim Fetzer himself does _not_ moderate the comments here- he has another individual do that- so Fetzer only chimes in if and when he feels like it.

    regards, obf.

    P.S I'm going to copy paste your reply here to J.Fetzer into the comments section of my blog entry on the whole J.Fetzer/ "Prima Facie" issue, as I have previously copy-pasted both his and Don Fox's email replies to that entry, if that's OK:

    "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" ; http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For an alleged "9/11 researcher" you sure seem to have a grasp on legal jargon. Is that your definition of "Prima Facie" or the ADL staff lawyer's definition?

      Delete
  77. AC Weisbecker said: "..doesn't anyone have an opinion regarding.... my assertion that the observation that 90% of Truthers don't believe in any video fakery is an important statement about human nature?"

    I think the percentage is even higher, more like 95- 98%.

    As far as it being an indicator of human nature goes, you could be right, but it also could be that 90+% of the "truth movement" is nothing more than controlled opposition[ which is what I personally suspect, but cannot prove. ]

    Simon Shacks research is seen as a threat to ALL "truthers" whose conclusions [mostly concerning demolition methodology] to a large degree depend on the assumption that the videos and photos they brandish about as uncontestable "proof" of their particular theory, are in fact real.

    I have tried to point out that regardless of what anyone thinks of Simon's research, about his presentation of it , or about his ultimate [mindbending] conclusions, that outside of a few earlier researchers [eg "Still Diggin and Killtown] , he is the _only_ 911 researcher who has tried to adhere to basic scientific methodology by closely examining the photographic record instead of just blithely assuming that its all genuine.

    For pointing this out I am called an "idiot", "a buffoon"etc by Fetzer, who purportedly has a degree in the philosophy of science, and who claims to have taught logic and critical thinking for 30+ years, both here and elsewhere.

    However, personally I think all of this animosity towards Simon and myself is very encouraging and positive- it shows that Fetzer and Fox have nothing else to offer with regard to this subject, and are consistently reduced to pompous assertions, name-calling, and accusations of being..... whatever [you name it] :-) .

    This , for me,sick as I am, is all highly entertaining !

    regards, onebornfree

    ps. will take a look at your video link- didnt see it before.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @ AC Weisbecker: I watched your video presentation :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM

    ..very interesting, although the guys 1 week later capitulation is no surprise to me. [Bin there, done that.]

    The comparison between the original, alleged "live" , on archive, CBS "divebomber" sequence of Fl. 175's approach to WTC2 [on the left side of your split screen] with the NBC evening news replay version of that same event is excellent and shows the obvious discrepancy between the two alleged live feeds nicely.

    Interestingly, the original live NBC version of Fl 175's path has a slightly steeper approach angle than does the evening news replay version you use in your comparison, [although its still noticeably shallower than the CBS sequence], and also, the original NBC "live" sequence has a background, including the opposite shoreline, that is entirely missing from the evening news replay version. So the stations were not even consistent within their own broadcasts, let alone with others!

    By the way, the particular Fox broadcast plane approach sequence you showed the guy at around the 7 min mark is _not_ part of the original "live" Fox broadcast. As far as I am aware it is an alleged "amateur" sequence that was broadcast later that day,not live; Simon could probably tell us all who the alleged author of that particular sequence is.[my offhand guess:its the "amateur" "Al Qaeda" sequence. ]

    But nevertheless, as you note, it is still an obvious fake,[ its just not an original network fake, but an "amateur" one broadcast later on by a network, like Herzekhani's and Fairbanks.] But I'm splitting hairs needlessly.

    A good presentation that gets into the psychology of the whole event.

    And speaking of psychology, now I know a little more about where you are coming from, I find it curious that you believe that other than all of the networks "plane into building" sequences, that most of the rest of the 102 minutes broadcast [including all of the collapse imagery] was genuine.

    A still undying faith in the MSM's overall credibility perhaps?

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  81. September Clueless is a labyrinth the same as Judy Wood's mythical "Directed Energy Weapon" is. Both outfits have stringent constraints on them. With Judy Wood the constraints are no explosives, no nukes, no thermite, no high heat. She has no theory for what destroyed the WTC buildings but she claims to offer proof that a "Directed Energy Weapon" which she does not define (and does not exist) is responsible for the destruction. Anyone who disagrees with her position is attacked endlessly by trolls such as Emmanuel Goldstein, Thomas Potter or even FBI informant Pete Santilli.

    The constraints on Sept Clueless are listed right on the Tour Guide page. Clueless admits some type of explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings but because the videos were faked we can't tell what type. Nobody died because the buildings were evacuated before they were demolished and the whole thing was like a Hollywood movie set. Of course all of these assertions are completely absurd. They can't explain things like human remains found all over Lower Manhattan, The survivors of Stairwell B in the North Tower (nobody told the firemen to evacuate before the Towers were nuked), tritiated water found in the basement of WTC6 etc. Anyone claiming to be a 9/11 researcher since 2009 should be able to handle these basic issues.

    Both the Judy Wood and September Clueless groups will try to get you bogged down in minutia. Debating within the constraints of either group will keep you from getting to what really happened in NYC on 9/11: the WTC buildings were nuked with people in them. The nuclear bombs were most likely Israeli. If you adopt this position publicly you will be hounded by shills such as OBP, Simon Shill, Emmanuel Goldstein etc. Don't waste your time responding to endless posts from the shills. Don't bother registering on the Clueless Forum either.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The 9/11 Gatekeepers such as Judy Wood and Sept Clueless are the last line of defense for the perps. The mainstream media tout the completely ridiculous official story which most of the public swallows hook, line and sinker. For those that don't fall for that you have the next level which is limited hangouts like Alex Jones, James Corbett, Loose Change etc. They'll tell you the official story is BS but they won't tell you the whole story about what really happened or who was behind it.

    Outfits like September Clueless and Judy Wood are there to steer the extremely curious people and the researchers off of the beaten path. They let a lot more info out about the operation than the MSM but they still keep the most sensitive aspects (Israeli nukes) well hidden. Judy's stance is that first you have to figure out WHAT happened BEFORE you can go after WHO did it. In her paradigmn you'll never discover WHAT happened because they work so hard to shift the blame from real nukes to mythical DEWs. You'll spend all of your time trying to figure out what's going on in Hutchison's lab. Which is exactly where the perps want your attention focused - a long way away from Israeli nukes!!

    September Clueless will have you staring at grainy pictures and videos for hours on end. They exploit the fact that a certain percentage of the public knows the MSM is lying and trying to pull one over on them. But the Clueless crowd isn't any better. Sept Clueless will leave you chasing your tail in cirlces which is exactly the desired effect.

    A lot of time and effort has been spent covering up the fact that Israel nuked the biggest buildings in America's biggest city. The powers that be are extremely loath to let this cat out of the bag. They know the public would be OUTRAGED and might even march in the streets demanding an immediate end to foreign aid to Israel, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that benefit Israel and making the real perps of 9/11 stand trial.

    Get past the last lines of defense and demand to learn the REAL history of your country. Demand justice for all of the innocent people who have died in the wars of Zionist aggression.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow, some interesting stuff above. i'm going to check out the Fakeology site, which sure looks interesting. S Shack's post above is much appreciated -- it took time and time is all we really have; I may even give his work another serious look. (as my Walter video shows, i was inspired by his original work.)

    BTW, OBF, it's not that i trust ANYTHING about the MSM, it's again that i don't see the motive in faking everything, and as your mentor pointed out (more or less), the exact percentage of faked to real is not really the issue. the issue would be the same in principal if they only faked ONE clip.

    i'm now glad that i (indirectly) stirred up this hornets nest. i'm starting to learn a few things, which is my overall goal in life.

    more to come.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Oh. to Don Fox: i know a bit about judy wood, having had a bizarre back and forth with her myself. she is merely a nutcase, a perfect example of the mental illness (it really is such) most 'truthers' suffer from: an ego-driven-caused-whatever lack of the faculty of critical thinking. really: a high percentage of the folks you think of as shills or whatever are merely doublethinking idiots with delusions of... well, grandeur, pardon the cliche. (i'm tired.) folks whose need to be 'right' transcends all else.

    one last thing: i'm concerned that jim has been silent. i think he's suffering from overwork or some sort of exhaustion. given that - for all his recent shortcomings - he was a REAL 'truth seeker' when most of us were in (critical thinking) diapers, a break is in order. i fear for his health...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I talked to Jim Saturday and he sounded OK. I'll touch base with him in the next day or two.

      Judy is NOT just another nutcase. If you haven't read our article on VT about Judy you need to ASAP.

      I had a former DOE nuclear physicist email me last year and told me that I was right about how the WTC buildings were nuked. This person was very familiar with Judy and told me some things about her that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Like the CIA wrote her book Where Did the Towers Go, that she's an intel op and Morgan Reynolds is running the operation and some personal details that are too disgusting to even repeat. I can't confirm any of this but it all rings true my friend.

      Delete
    2. Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour shows M/W/F on revereradio.net (this one). I am doing a two-hour show on Tuesdays on revolutionradio and a half-hour video news program on Thursday mornings. And I am publishing articles on Veterans Today and doing other interviews on other shows. I do not have time to monitor all the comments that show up here.

      But I am disturbed that OFB, Simon Shack and the norwegian are distorting my views to make them easier to attack. I agree that some of the 9/11 footage is faked, where I have been expending a lot of time on the Fight 175 footage, where Allan has now convinced me that the hologram hypothesis appears to be wrong because of the lack of blurring--which was confirmed tonight by Ian Greenhalgh, who explained why Allan was "spot on". So I welcome serious students with something to say.

      OFB and SS are committed to something that I regard as rather extreme (but not on that account therefore untrue), namely: that ALL THE FOOTAGE BROADCAST ON 9/11 is fake. I have explained that that is a bit much, because it was taken from so many points of view: from the air, on the ground, in the city, across the river, and all that. Where IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT IF IT WERE AUTHENTIC.

      That is an ARGUMENT for its authenticity. So I reject the simple-minded remarks of OBF and of SS who simply dismiss the point I am making as being "UNSCIENTIFIC", which is completely absurd. I have done what I can with OBF, in particular, who has some bizarre misconception about science. There is always a bottom to research, but it can be challenged IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO CHALLENGE IT. As for the 9/11 footage, which hangs together so well, that poses a PRIMA FACIE CASE that it is authentic. Unless and until they can prove good reasons to override that presumption -- which is tentative and fallible, like any other scientific conclusion -- there IS no good reason to doubt it. And distortion what I say about it is disgraceful and shallow and self- serving. I am sorry, but I have yet to see any good reason to believe that all the 9/11 footage is fake. If you have one, produce it.

      Delete
    3. Well, let's see. I am doing three two-hour shows M/W/F on revereradio.net (this one). I am doing a two-hour show on Tuesdays on revolutionradio and a half-hour video news program on Thursday mornings. And I am publishing articles on Veterans Today and doing other interviews on other shows. I do not have time to monitor all the comments that show up here.

      But I am disturbed that OFB, Simon Shack and the norwegian are distorting my views to make them easier to attack. I agree that some of the 9/11 footage is faked, where I have been expending a lot of time on the Fight 175 footage, where Allan has now convinced me that the hologram hypothesis appears to be wrong because of the lack of blurring--which was confirmed tonight by Ian Greenhalgh, who explained why Allan was "spot on". So I welcome serious students with something to say.

      OFB and SS are committed to something that I regard as rather extreme (but not on that account therefore untrue), namely: that ALL THE FOOTAGE BROADCAST ON 9/11 is fake. I have explained that that is a bit much, because it was taken from so many points of view: from the air, on the ground, in the city, across the river, and all that. Where IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT IF IT WERE AUTHENTIC.

      That is an ARGUMENT for its authenticity. So I reject the simple-minded remarks of OBF and of SS who simply dismiss the point I am making as being "UNSCIENTIFIC", which is completely absurd. I have done what I can with OBF, in particular, who has some bizarre misconception about science. There is always a bottom to research, but it can be challenged IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO CHALLENGE IT. As for the 9/11 footage, which hangs together so well, that poses a PRIMA FACIE CASE that it is authentic. Unless and until they can prove good reasons to override that presumption -- which is tentative and fallible, like any other scientific conclusion -- there IS no good reason to doubt it. And distortion what I say about it is disgraceful and shallow and self- serving. I am sorry, but I have yet to see any good reason to believe that all the 9/11 footage is fake. If you have one, produce it.

      Delete
  85. i didn't mean to suggest that anyone on this thread is a nutcase like judy wood! i may not agree with simon shack and OBF in everything (or with anyone else posting here) but none have showed PRIMA FACIE (hah! i got to use it) evidence of her problem....

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ac Weisbecker said: "Wow, some interesting stuff above. i'm going to check out the Fakeology site, which sure looks interesting. S Shack's post above is much appreciated -- it took time and time is all we really have; I may even give his work another serious look."

    No, no, no! Do as our friend, the all knowing "researcher" Don Fox commands, stay away from www.Septemberclues.info and fakeologist.com at all costs!

    They're all Jewish lawyers over there! He can prove it! Don't go there please, I beg you! For God's sake man come to your senses before its too late and you start fantasizing that those tower collapse videos are all fakes ! :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's still sort of a free country so if people want to waste their time at the Clueless Forum be my guest. Hey I even link to you shills a couple of times!

      Let the people judge who is telling them like it is and who is BSing them.

      You can bet my whole rant above will be read word for word by some minion at the staff meeting tomorrow over at 605 3rd Ave buddy!

      Delete
    2. Onebornpaid said "They're all Jewish lawyers over there!"

      I agree with that statement about the Clueless Forum 100%!

      Delete
  87. Spent some time on the clues forum and listened to shack bash ace baker.... next time you see james corbett, say hi for me.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Don Fox wrote:
    About 9,000 human remains recovered from the ruins of the World Trade Center remain unidentified because they are too degraded to match victims by DNA identification. The remains are stored at an undisclosed location monitored by the medical examiner's office and will eventually be transferred to a subterranean chamber at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    These are the same people who lied to us about planes and hijackers, the Pentagon and Shanksville. Why would you believe this nonsense about "human remains"?

    My research so far agrees with Simon Shack. Why do people find him so dangerous? Why doesn't Jim ask Simon to come on the show? You all have admitted to fakery of most of the evidence. Why not be consistent in your views? All we have is the taped video shown on TV on all the stations on 9/11 as evidence. Simon has dissected it skillfully and shown us the mistakes. The video archives are the only real evidence in existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim has asked Simon Shill to be on the show. You think the all of the relatives that got a foot or a shin back are making shit up? What about the survivors of Stairwell B in the North Tower? The buildings were NOT completely evacuated before they were nuked. None of the Sept Clueless idiots will answer that one.

      Simon Shill is no danger to the establishment. The Clueless Forum is highly moderated and tightly controlled by ADL minions.

      Delete
  89. 9/11 Psyop bullet points | Fakeologist.com

    http://fakeologist.com/911-psyop-bullet-points/
    WTC event:

    towers may have been made to be destroyed
    towers may never have been internally completed
    towers were never fully occupied
    1993 bombing was a fake event to clear any remaining tenants
    towers were empty soon after 1993 and the next 8 years were used to slowly remove all internal structure
    Lower Manhattan was evacuated by early 9/11/2001 – around 50 “drills” were used as the excuse

    (Fakeologist site is very good. I agree with these bullet points. Most likely the building was designed to be demolished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan said :towers may have been made to be destroyed
      towers may never have been internally completed
      towers were never fully occupied"

      I actually agree with those points.

      However the 1993 bombing was real and per Khalezov and a couple of other sources I have it was a mini-nuke.

      Delete
  90. Joan Edwards said :" Why doesn't Jim ask Simon to come on the show? "

    Simon has declined Fetzer's offers to appear, probably because of the bombastic, talk-down, egotistical manner constantly on display in other his shows [including mine].

    Besides, Simon does not want/need Fetzer's psuedo -scientific approval for his research.

    Joan Edwards said :"You all have admitted to fakery of most of the evidence. Why not be consistent in your views? All we have is the taped video shown on TV on all the stations on 9/11 as evidence. Simon has dissected it skillfully and shown us the mistakes."

    This a psychological issue in my opinion, Joan. Many might say " I see signs of some fakery but why fake it all?" , or similar .

    That question is usually defensive, it seems to me.

    That is, instead of taking the time to actually analyze all of the original footage, the person using the "why fake it all?" question/defense is using that question as a defense mechanism to avoid having to actually do the anlaysis [which _does_ take time], and possibly reach a conclusion that would dramatically change their perceptions of the way the world works.

    The ego subconciously senses a danger to its pre-existing, "correct" world view and throws up endless, defensive questions [such as "why fake it all?"] in order to avoid actually having to closely examine anything and possibly reach conclusions that it wrongly assumes to be a massive threat to its existence.

    Thats my [unprofessional] opinion, anyway.

    Joan Edwards said :" The video archives are the only real evidence in existence."

    The funny thing is that most people calling themselves serious 911 researchers, including J. Fetzer [and possibly D. Fox], have absolutely no idea about what is original, network "live" footage, and what is not.

    Pathetic really :-). But I'm not surprised, [any more].

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Fortunately Simon has declined Jim's interview requests in the past. There is no need to have Simon Shill on a show that is actually trying to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11. Nobody wants to listen to an ADL affiliated shill talk in circles about 9/11.

    I have no need to waste hours staring at grainy videos on the Clueless Forum to determine what happened on 9/11. Of course the whole goal of the Clueless Forum is to get you to spend countless hours analyzing grainy videos.

    "The video archives are the only real evidence in existence." That's a load of bull. There is plenty of dust and water sample evidence along with eyewitness reports to determine what happened. Videos and photos are only part of the picture.

    Onebornpaid and Simon Shill are merely turds in the 9/11 research punch bowl. They are nothing more than ADL gatekeepers. They have not contributed anything of value to 9/11 research and can be safely ignored by the research community. Just as Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson can be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Dear A.C.

    I just left a comment on your most interesting video :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM

    It really is fascinating to see how effective this old ploy (of using fabricated imagery to fool the masses) can be - even to the eyes of a professional photographer.


    As I see it, it works a bit this way, psychologically speaking : since even a 12-year-old can tell how grossly fabricated the 9/11 imagery is, an adult / experienced professional (photo / video imagery expert of any kind) will look at it and think: "Duh! IF I HAD been recruited to do that crap I would have done a far better job! I cannot believe that anyone in my trade /line of work would have done such a mess of it." This thought, true and valid as it would seem, is further supported by the very professional integrity and self-respect that such a person observes for him/herself. These considerations - formulated from the perspective of a professional standpoint - will ultimately override any rational and objective analysis of what experts are asked to pronounce themselves upon.


    In this case, the (pre)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery - a scam of such monumental scope / planning and resources which, "if it were true, would surely have employed the very best professionals in the field."
    See, the 'Big Lie' professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world's population on a daily basis probably know better - when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts - and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes - or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere "in the middle" - so as to befuddle EVERYONE - and of course - to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other.

    So far, the "Nutwork", as I like to call it (i.e. the gang of pricks 'running' this world ) has succeeded quite nicely to deceive us all - but they are not getting away with it for much longer, in my honest opinion. Why, you may ask? Well - if all they can throw at us are 14-year-olds such as this boring "Don Fox" clown - you know that they've just run out of steam. :o)

    regards

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  93. Oh wait, I just realized that babe "Don Fox" is probably going to wake up and whine again - incessantly accusing me of being an ADL scumbag. Well I am not, Foxy boy. See, I am not connected /affiliated to/ paid for by anyone nor anything whatsoever in this whole wide world - and have never even been a member of so much as a tennis club. I am very much my own man - and pretty much a hermit - if that can make you laugh. However, I do have a little 'donate' button on my forum, so if you wish to chip in - you are most welcome.

    As for your jew obsession - please know that on the very TOP of my list of people to interrogate about the fake 9/11 imagery is this fellow here, by the name of Steven Rosenbaum. Please read this article of mine - and learn all about him:

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2346207#p2346207

    Did you know that we're asked to believe that Steven Rosenbaum allegedly collected "500 hours" of 9/11 footage from private citizens in New York? And that he then planned to sell this purported video archive for $1 million?

    "THE 500 HOURS OF 9/11"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/nyregion/30archive.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

    Did you know that Rosenbaum shut down (around 2004) his CAMERA PLANET studios (with 80 employees) which featured state-of-the-art AVID equipment - the sort of which Hollywood uses for its special fx action movies - and that he now has somehow become the 'Master Curator" at the National Museum and Memorial at Ground Zero (taking care of the dear "3000" dead?)

    Well, NOW you know, Foxy boy. Welcome to the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Simon,

    Your Clues Forum has all of the earmarks of being a gatekeeper operation.

    From the Tour Guide page of the Clues Forum "The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions - not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme - just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda."

    That is a gatekeeper statement. Lower Manhattan was far from completely exacuated before the WTC buildings were nuked. Plenty of police, firefighters and workers got nuked. Again the Tour Guide looks like a lawyer wrote it. I was doing some website work for a local bankruptcy attorney a couple of years ago and I spent hour after hour on lawyer websites. The content on your site looks like lawyers wrote it not a real researcher. It has a similar tone as the text on Judy Wood's gatekeeper site.

    Fetzer quotes the dictionary in getting a definition for Prima Facie. You and OBP get the staff lawyer's defintion. That leads me to believe that you guys are regularily interacting with lawyers. Most likely everything you do is under the scrutiny of a legal team somewhere. And why the big debate over the meaning of Prima Facie anyway? As though haggling over that is going to get us any answers regarding 9/11. Change the subject, stall, waste time - more gatekeeper tactics.

    This is my last post on this show. I'm busy writing a JFK article. Once that's done there will be an article on September Clues rest assurred....

    Don

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you'd think the good professor would be able to find a more - let's just say - capable apologist.

      Delete
  95. Don Fox said: "Fetzer quotes the dictionary in getting a definition for Prima Facie. You and OBP get the staff lawyer's defintion."

    That is total BS. If you read my article you will see that my definition of "prima facie" is taken straight from Wikipedia.

    Simon never gave his own definition either, but that of a retired Italian judge he knows.

    My article: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Don Fox said: "And why the big debate over the meaning of Prima Facie anyway?" .

    [Once more with feeling]: because Fetzer [an alleged professor in the philosophy of science] used the phrase as an excuse [or dismissal, more like it], in order to entirely avoid having to actually employ standard scientific protocol and to have to closely examine potential evidence [photos/videos] in order to ascertain whether it/they are actual bona fide evidence or not ,BEFORE ever using videos/photos as evidence of _anything_.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Don Fox wrote:
    "The content on your site looks like lawyers wrote it (,,.)."

    That is most flattering, Foxy boy - thank you. I used to think my writing style was a tad simplistic and 'un-scholarly'. You Cluesforum-bashers sure are a funny lot: on one hand, some will complain that it is 'too amateurish' to be credible - while others will say that it's 'too professional' to be credible. Which one is it? Perhaps you guys need a supervisor to coordinate your spam? Anyhow, Foxy boy, I'm glad you rate so highly my English (not my first language) - I appreciate that. Btw, all I've ever written over the years originates from my brain - and my brain only. If you wish to poo-poo my research, that's fine - but I'll take responsibility for it anytime.

    There never was any 'big debate' about prima facie. Dr Fetzer cocked up miserably with his statement that "the TV networks have a prima facie claim of their footage to be authentic." See, he might not have made this blooper out of plain ignorance - in which case we can read this as a quite revealing 'slip of the
    tongue': Fetzer couldn't have put it more clearly that he is, in fact, a news-media-9/11-collusion gatekeeper - something I've been saying for a long time. His silly 'hologram' and 'mini-nuke' theories are perfect ploys to get the media networks off the hook, as they both neatly serve their desired & all-important notion that "ALL THE IMAGERY SHOWN ON TV ON 9/11 WAS LEGIT AND AUTHENTIC".

    Wanna talk about gatekeeping, Foxy boy? Well, here we go: a mere couple of weeks after I'd released September Clues (June 2007), Fetzer rolled out his 'video-expert' "Ace Baker" (who screened SC at Fetzer's Madison conference and later faked his suicide - live on Fetzer's show...). See, there can be no more egregious, copy-book gatekeeper than this Ace clown. He soon set out to publish some personal imagery research - only to progressively start attacking my own - and ultimately reaching this 'conclusion' :

    "Simon Shack Pushing Video Fakery Falsehoods"
    http://acebaker.blogspot.it/2008/11/simon-shack-pushing-video-fakery.html

    Note that Ace came to his 'conclusion' as early as November 2008. Also, and most interestingly, please note that Ace Baker ends his 'hit-piece' aimed against me with THIS sentence:

    "They are trying to destroy the credibility of the 9/11 tower videos, which in fact show them being disintegrated by NUCLEAR WEAPONS."

    Remarkable, huh? So Ace already "knew" the towers were 'nuked' - back in 2008! Sheesh, Foxy boy, what took you and your fellow nuke sleuths so long? Ace Baker had it all wrapped up - half a decade ago!...


    ASBESTOS-GATEKEEPING, ANYONE?
    So what's going on here? Is this old (and now re-packaged) nuke stuff just another gatekeeping op? Before I take a guess at the motives for it - here are some basic facts that people should know. It does seem to be true that a many New Yorkers suffer from respiratory diseases and a peculiar form of cancer - mesothelomia - both known to be specifically caused by exposure to asbestos. Now, has everyone somehow forgotten that...

    ...2000 TONS OF ASBESTOS were strewn over Manhattan as the WTC collapsed?
    http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

    So hold on a minute, folks - and let me just put this thought of mine out there (pure speculation, of course...) : could these 'nukes-did-it' peddlers be employed by SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES, perchance? Do I really need to elaborate as to why this may be the case - or why it would make perfect sense? But hey, maybe "Israel did it", as Don Fox says - and poor ol' Larry was kept in the dark about the whole affair !... :-D

    Over and out.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  97. I just need to make this little addendum to my above post - just in case my little 'Silverstein-kept-in-the-dark' joke isn't grasped by everyone.

    Were jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course. Were ONLY jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course not. Do ALL those involved in the 9/11 crime live in Israel? Of course not. Do MOST of those involved in the 9/11 crime live in the USA? Of course they do.

    Consequently:

    Anyone saying that "ISRAEL DID IT" are gatekeeping for the ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS behind the 9/11 crime.

    "Hey guys! It's now been established that Israel did 9/11, beyond any shadow of doubt! Let's bomb Israel to smithereens !"

    Not going to happen, is it?

    So let's all go back to sleep - and to our daily work and routine - since the 9/11 culprits are totally out of our reach and jurisdiction... (*rolleyes*)

    Let's see now : WHO says that "Israel did 9/11"?

    Well, here you go:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/

    What clowns...





    ReplyDelete
  98. Simon Shack wrote:

    "As you [Jim Fetzer] well know – and will surely agree with – we have long provided some very strong prima facie evidence that the TV networks aired fabricated imagery on 9/11. Exactly how much of it was fabricated is not even an issue here, what matters is that we have an eminently valid prima facie case to present to any court of law willing to review it."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now that the JFK conference is over, maybe Jim will come to his senses and study the TV network archives. It is important that he and the followers of his work, get 9/11 right. One would think Sandy Hook, Boston, etc. would be enough for everyone to rethink WTC. To be hung up on "eyewitness testimony" as is Fetzer, is a shame. All of the witnesses I saw were family to or connected in some way to the producers and directors of the news networks. Also, they were calling in to the shows. Where were the reporters? They should have been on the streets.

    No cameras filmed the evacuation of the Towers. Surely, there would have been thousands fleeing the buildings. )(The largest group of people I saw in one place was watching the huge TV in Times Square where they might have thought they witnessed a plane hit the tower.) If you are going to demolish a building, I don't think you would want 3,000 people inside all smashed to pieces in the rubble not to mention how it would impede the demolition.

    Why were the cameras on the choppers so far away? The fact that they were so far away implies foreknowledge of a plane or something entering the scene. It also makes the image resolution fuzzy as the camera zooms in for close-ups.

    How amusing to see the plane enter from different directions in the videos supposedly filming in real time. Why weren't lights on in the Towers? The perspective is off on many of the shots of the demolition among so many other things. One could have a field day just finding these errors. They are as obvious as everything that happened at Sandy Hook.

    I would hope OBF would be asked back for another podcast so he could complete his presentation. We need to hear what he had to say.

    ReplyDelete
  99. "Where were the reporters? "

    I would like to submit that the reporters, indeed our entire mainstream media, was purchased a century ago. The purchasers then, J.P. Morgan interests, can be identified then and now as strongly Jewish.

    I do not see why we are pointing the finger at a discreet entity identified as the "TV networks" and it is that entity that we must take to court.

    Our government and the media are one entity. Our government was taken over a very long time ago. It is not possible to say absolutely that "the Jews" or "Israel" or "the Zionists" are in total control of our government and media. It appears most likely that the international banking interests control our government and the media (independent journalism) and our congress and our courts. It is possible to identify the dominant faction of the international banking interests.

    If the "TV networks" broke have committed a crime that should be tried in a court of law, I would submit also that all of our courts have been taken over by the same international banking interests.

    That is where the reporters went, and the reporters are not coming back.

    (I will post in a separate posting the basis of my assertion that our independent media, our press, of one century ago was purchased by international banking interests. )

    ReplyDelete
  100. Here is the record of the selling out of independent journalism, "the media", a century ago.

    Those who sold out independent media to J.P. Morgan interests a century ago were most likely not Jews but
    simply ordinary flawed humans who will sell out true independent journalism for a buck. That is genesis of today’s “Jewish media”.

    "On February 9, 1917, Congressman Oscar Callaway inserted the following statement in the Congressional Record.
    In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests. . . and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers. This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments. . . ."

    The Anglo-American Establishment, Books in Focus, 1981, p. 3

    "By 1917, J.P. Morgan and his associates controlled twenty-five of our most influential newspapers. The atrocity stories were designed to raise public support for American entry into World War I."

    The Brotherhood of Darkness, Stanley Monteith

    ______________

    Dr. Monteith wrote in his book, Brotherhood of Darkness...

    "When I was involved in a research project at Yale University, I came across a letter that President Roosevelt sent to Colonel Edward Mandell House on November 21, 1933. In those days, J.P. Morgan was one of the most powerful financiers in the world, President Roosevelt wrote: "

    "I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day. . . .The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W."

    The Anglo-American Establishment page 5

    ReplyDelete
  101. Joan Edwards said:" I would hope OBF would be asked back for another podcast so he could complete his presentation. We need to hear what he had to say."

    I'm not sure I'd be willing to do that without a neutral moderator, Joan.

    Besides , the only point I have to make at this stage is the same old boring one:

    that J. Fetzer and the 911"researchers" whose "research" he has championed [i.e. Richard Hall, Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward] are all entirely evading the scientific methodology via their automatic [and ongoing] , wholesale acceptance of the 911 imagery as bona fide evidence WITHOUT FIRST EXAMINING THAT IMAGERY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GENUINE EVIDENCE of anything.

    This point, boring as it is, I will continue to make, like a broken record, over and over, both here and elsewhere, not because I ever expect Fetzer or his favorite "researchers" to acknowledge this huge methodological error on their part, but simply because its fun/entertaining to watch the "pretzel logic" of his ongoing defense [eg his "prima facie" defense.]

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Onebornfree said : "This point, boring as it is, I will continue to make, like a broken record, over and over, both here and elsewhere,"

    The reason being that Fetzer claims that:

    “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.”

    I am saying that the only "good reason" a real professor in the philosophy of science ,and indeed any investigating scientist, needs, is simply that it is in fact REQUIRED by the scientific methodology itself to first fully investigate prospective evidence in order to determine whether or not it is actual genuine evidence or not.

    So for a genuine 911 investigating scientist, _none_ of the 911 videos/photos can be regarded as either being authentic, nor fake, until they have first been thoroughly analyzed.

    Until Fetzer admits this extremely important procedural point, there is absolutely no point in "submitting" to him "proof" of imagery fakery, however blatant an example it might appear to be to us.

    Furthermore, outside of the Zapruder example, at this time he does not even appear to have a short list of criteria/ give-away signs of video and photographic fakery, as far as I can see ;-) .

    So if he ever admits to gross procedural error,[sometime in the next 10 years, perhaps], the next step would be to establish with him what would he consider to be reasonable signs/clues/giveaways to video fakery.

    So , given his thoroughly egotistical and bombastic nature, don't hold your breath waiting for his retraction/enlightenment :-)

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Joan Edwards wrote.

    "Why weren't lights on in the Towers?."

    Indeed, dear Joan...

    Why weren't lights on in the Towers?

    An Ockham's razor proof - if there ever was one...

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388620&sid=39d0eb5b4b99afab861cc1ac37f15ce4#p2388620

    Light never lies ! :O)

    warm regards

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  104. Jeannon said : "I would like to submit that the reporters, indeed our entire mainstream media, was purchased a century ago. "

    Absolutely.

    Jeannon said : "I do not see why we are pointing the finger at a discreet entity identified as the "TV networks" and it is that entity that we must take to court. Our government and the media are one entity."

    Agreed. The media is the propaganda wing of the government.

    Jeannon said : "Our government was taken over a very long time ago. "

    Absolutely.

    Jeannon said :"It is not possible to say absolutely that "the Jews" or "Israel" or "the Zionists" are in total control of our government and media."

    I agree. All governments everywhere are self-legitimized criminal organizations, nothing more. As such, many groups try to influence them in order to get what they want [whatever it is] for their own particular group. If you have a government in the first place, you must have these types of groups, including other states [eg Israel]. It is possible that some of the groups directly involved in 911 have not even been identified yet.

    Jeannon said :" It appears most likely that the international banking interests control our government and the media (independent journalism) and our congress and our courts. It is possible to identify the dominant faction of the international banking interests."

    As I said before, various groups must be involved- among them "the usual suspects" such as the government of Israel, the international banking cartel, the Pentagon, defense contractors etc. etc. etc. Most likely it is impossible to name all of the groups- only guess at them.

    Jeannon said : "If the "TV networks" have committed a crime that should be tried in a court of law, I would submit also that all of our courts have been taken over by the same international banking interests."

    Yes, although I would say that the link between these courts and international banking is far less easier to see than is the connection between the US government and its own courts.

    The US government, like all governments before it, is a self legitimizing, 100% criminal organization- a 100% scam, nothing more, nothing less. Always has been, always will be.

    As such, we have no rights, the "Supreme Court" and other government-run courts are all criminal scams [ part of the greater scam called "government"], as is the constitution, and, more importantly, as is the "Bill of Rights".

    There will be no "911 justice" in these scam courts [nor in any other government-run/controlled "legal system"- that's pure fantasy, as is "getting rid of the jewish influence in the US government", or some-such.]

    If you like, listen to my own composition about the scam called "government" : "Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  105. seu bobo said : " you'd think the good professor would be able to find a more - let's just say - capable apologist."

    Hah!

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  106. OBF, Simon, everybody, check out the latest podcast with physicist Frank Lee Speekin, Wednesday, December 11, 2013

    At long last, truth has been told thanks to "September Clues.." This is very good news! Tell me you agree.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Well written post. I really appreciate your writing skills. You expressed great information in your blog. Thank you.
    Loans for Bad Credit

    ReplyDelete