Friday, January 10, 2014

Art Olivier

Operation Terror and 9/11

NB: 125 min

NB: File corrected

154 comments:

  1. Seems to be a fault with this file, it ends at 23mins. I enjoyed the first 23mins a lot though, Art has a lot of good points to make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Total, my producer, has fixed the file. Thanks.

      Delete
  2. Art disclosed on his Facebook page for the movie that he tried to advertise the documentary on Alex Jones' show and got no response.

    So much for the notion, as some try to portray, that Alex is just in it for the money. To the contrary, there is another agenda at play with his operation.

    Art has mentioned in other interviews that the renters of a property he owned were attacked, and how he was also attacked, just because of his activities as Mayor.

    Yet, there are some people who still think that Alex Jones is a big threat. If Alex Jones is a big threat to the power structure, not only why isn't he similarly being attacked, and in an even bigger way with his bigger position, but why is he regularly being featured on mass media outlets?

    Remember, Alex Jones was the one who called "no-planers" mentally ill, misrepresenting their position, and taking the actions of questionable individuals and painting everyone who questions the authenticity of the purported live and amateur footage of "planes" on 9/11 with the same brush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent, Art mentions this 49 mins. in to the updated full interview, saying he thinks Alex Jones is a gatekeeper and saying "he's a really good fearmonger", saying if you're always in fear, you're not a productive person, and when another false flag happens, to misdirect people, and to keep the critical thinkers in a pit and not influence other people. Right on, Art!

      Delete
    2. I often think that people are quick to call someone a "gate keeper" for no better reason than they don't agree on a particular point, which is incredibly hazardous to all reputations involved.

      "no planes hit the towers"
      "well i think planes hit the towers"
      "you're a gatekeeper. you're an agent"

      That's a bit silly.

      I've also often thought that some people (like Alex Jones) specifically pick and choose which 'truths' to expose, and which not to, due to the audience they wish to attract and the advertisers that they need to appease to stay on the air. While that may not be the most ethical approach, it is certainly not a direct indication of gate keeping for criminals.

      That said, Alex Jones may be doing more harm than good by spreading half truths or misdirecting blame...but I have a HARD time seeing how the millions of people he has turned on truth-seeking is in anyway to criminal elite's benefit.

      Delete
  3. Correction: I meant movie, not documentary, as said above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear FausCap,
    You're on the right track. The main stream media (MSM) is cinched. It includes everything you see on TV, all magazines, all newspapers, major Internet news sites ( like Huffington Post ), all books published by major publishers and everything you hear on the radio. There are very few rare exceptions. Alex Jones is ALLOWED a voice on MSM because his primary mission is to mislead and misinform. The tactic is to control the opposition BY LEADING IT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly correct, I didn't see this reply when I made mine.

      You can easily spot these gatekeepers like Jones -they are successful and are allowed to reach a large audience. Those who are honest and aren't gatekeepers are silenced or eliminated, like William Cooper.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, Shack has been allowed to gather an audience. If was honest and not a gatekeeper he would have been harassed and opposed at every step, rather than living unmolested with his mum in her Roman Villa.

      Delete
    3. What proof do you all possess of these allegations? I'm not saying you're wrong (far from it)...I just know that I PERSONALLY could not make such allegations because I possess no proof...other than my own intuition.

      Delete
  5. Alex Jones is controlled opposition, a gatekeeper financed by Israel. His role is to make sure that Israel and the international Zionist criminal network are never blamed for anything, that is why he bangs on about 'The Illuminati' and blames them for many things.

    Jones is running a psyop and like all psyops, there has to be some good information as the lure to draw people in, but that good information serves just to disguise the psyop and allow the admixture of false, misleading info in key places. For instance, Jones will give out lots of good info about 9/11 but will also add some bad info that serves to mislead people away from the Israelis and Zionists who perpetrated the crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My problem with this argument is how the existence of Alex Jones benefits the criminals (and no, Israel is not the only criminal). If there never was an Alex Jones, what would there be in his place?

      My impression that in his place would be nothing but a number of small time, small budget individuals with limited to no audience.

      What you wouldn't have is the millions of casual listeners that are now more awake than not, because of Alex Jones.

      So what (in the minds of the casual listener) if Alex has turned them on to the idea that the US perpetrated 9/11? That's getting you about halfway there.

      I'd rather Alex's millions know something is up with 9/11, than the alternative...being asleep.

      So, despite the fact that Alex will cut off any caller talking about Israel, I don't see how his existence serves the criminals more than it serves the population.

      That's just my impression.

      Delete
  6. Dear Professor Fetzer,
    I do believe Mr Oliver has a winning argument. If you've got glowing metal at the bottom of the hole (which we must believe is cooler than when the bombs blew off) then those towers had to glow brighter than an electric range dialed on high... which is NOT what we observe. Ergo, the tower tapes are fake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allison brings up a great point about the molten metal. How can there be molten metal AND the "collapse" videos of the Towers be legit?

      OK 9/11 is a very complex event. The nuclear destruction of the WTC buildings takes years of study to gain a full understanding of what actually happened. I started looking at 9/11 seriously in 2005. In 2006 I figured out the Twin Towers were nuked but had no clue HOW they did it. It wasn't until 2012 that I really had a grasp on what happened. Last year Ed Ward was sending me emails on a regular basis. He's a condescending asshole at times but he really knows what he's talking about. He knows physics inside and out. THAT is when this stuff really started clicking for me.

      I get it when people struggle with looking at the "collapse" videos of the Twin Towers and proclaiming this has to be fake. NO WAY can shit like that actually happen. Or so they think. Controlled Demolition Inc. states that they can do things that your conscious mind cannot accept. 9/11 was one of those events your conscious mind will struggle with even if you eventually accept it.

      Where did the molten metal come from? about 140 feet below street level at Ground Zero they found a "pothole." The Jew York Times states the depression was caused by a glacier. In reality it was caused by a mini-nuke. Nukes were detonated underground on 9/11 to destroy the foundations of the buildings. The heat from those explosions created the molten metal. It takes time for heat to transfer up from below the ground. This is why temperatures were between 600 and 2,000 °F for six months after 9/11. I've got a post on my blog about retained heat from an underground nuke.

      The Twin Towers were destroyed above ground by a series of mini-nukes detonated sequentially from top to bottom in the center columns of the buildings and configured to explode upwards. That explains what was observed in the videos. The heat from above ground blasts dissipates while the heat from the underground blasts is retained. But the heat from the underground blasts takes time to transfer up through the bedrock.

      Delete
    2. Excellent post Don.

      This 1999 USAF paper explains where the nuclear weapons came from:

      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

      Some excerpts:

      "French experts secretly built the Israeli reactor underground at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba."

      "In 1962, the Dimona reactor went critical; the French resumed work on the underground plutonium reprocessing plant, and completed it in 1964 or 1965. The acquisition of this reactor and related technologies was clearly intended for military purposes from the outset (not “dual-use”), as the reactor has no other function. "

      "There is little doubt that some time in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear weapons."

      "Dimona had rapidly solved the problems of designing smaller weapons"

      "Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs. A technician from Dimona who lost his job, Vanunu secretly took photographs, immigrated to Australia and published some of his material in the London Sunday Times. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents, tried and imprisoned. His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads. The boosted weapons shown in the Vanunu photographs show a sophistication that inferred the requirement for testing. He revealed for the first time the underground plutonium separation facility where Israel was producing 40 kilograms annually, several times more than previous estimates. Photographs showed sophisticated designs which scientific experts say enabled the Israelis to build bombs with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. These facts have increased the estimates of total Israeli nuclear stockpiles In the words of one American, “[the Israelis] can do anything we or the Soviets can do.”"

      "Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of “monolithic views and sinister intentions.” Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly?"

      "One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their “use” on the United States."

      "Regardless of the true types and numbers of Israeli nuclear weapons, they have developed a sophisticated system, by myriad methods, and are a nuclear power to be reckoned with. Their nuclear ambiguity has served their purposes well but Israel is entering a different phase of visibility even as their nuclear capability is entering a new phase. This new visibility may not be in America's interest."

      Delete
    3. Explain please, why we should believe in all this nuke stuff when we not even have a Ground Zero in Hiroshima, and no crater after the Trinity test.

      That Manhattan was nuked must be an even bigger story than Osama did it, and even less credible than the story on the Magic Passport.

      It certainly takes a lot of faith to make oneself believe in this stuff, and dismiss dynamite.

      Delete
    4. Which are you? Brain dead moron or gatekeeper?

      Have to be one or the other to keep pushing the nukes are fake BS.

      Delete
    5. ...said the guy who cant even find any Ground Zero in Hiroshima and the Trinity crater.

      Delete
    6. El Dipshit's inability to find the Ground Zero at Hiroshima in no way shape or form refutes the existence of nuclear bombs. For the record I've seen Ground Zero at Hiroshima and had no problem finding it. I'm sure all of the Japanese who who got sick or died from nuclear radiation poisoning will vouch for the fact that nuclear weapons don't exist. MORON!!! Or more likely Jew gatekeeper.

      Ian - great nuke info! I've been on that site before and it's got some very good info. Nuclear weapon info is all over the internet. It's common knowledge. Put in a few hours of homework and you can figure out how they work. Don't stick your head in the sand like El Dipshit and say they don't exist.

      Delete
    7. I was born within sight of Sellafield, the huge nuclear facility, it had four Magnox reactors, a pressurised water test reactor, two large reactors that produced the UK's weapons grade material, plus the largest nuclear reprocessing facility in the world. Family and friends worked there, still do, I know people who fought the fire in 1957 that broke out in one of the reactors and caused a large release of radiation. I know far too much first-hand to ever believe for one split second that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are fake. I have friends in europe who lost unborn babies due to the fallout of Chernobyl, I know people here who lost relatives to radiation induced disease stemming from the 1957 disaster, so I just don't even entertain anyone who comes along with this BS about nuclear fakery.

      Mordechai Vanunu is one guy who blew the whistle and can't be doubted in his honesty. The fact he was brutally treated by Israel shows there is no doubt about his info, he's no Snowden or Assange where doubt does exist. Thanks to Vanunu we know that Israel has had neutron bombs for over 30 years and has nuclear technology of a very advanced nature for decades.

      So all in all, there's no room in my mind for BS about nuclear fakery, not because I'm close-minded but because I'm too well informed on the subject.

      Delete
    8. Don, I'm just trying to make it really simple for you nuke hoax deniers by pointing out the missing Ground Zero in Hiroshima and the missing Trinity crater. You have a link to this stuff? Shouldn't be hard at all to locate this for a moron, provided it existed of course.

      Radiation? Shouldn't Hiroshima, according to the reports, have been buried under concrete for decades? They simply just built it up again, with no discernable radiation problems.

      We can look at the missing EMP damages to trolleys and cars later if necessary, and so on.

      So when was the first real nuke blast then? When did they stop faking it, and when was the last time they faked it?

      Delete
    9. Ian, how about pointing out the missing Ground Zero in Hiroshima and the missing Trinity crater instead of blowing up all that emotional smoke?

      Delete
    10. How about shutting the fuck up about that BS?

      I have no time for it, it's laughable and you just make yourself look ever more stupid or corrupt every time you repeat it.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    12. Here is a useful exercise for you Ian. You can study how the Linear No-Threshold model came about, or how it was developed. The LNT model is another of their many magical tricks they have when they developed this radiation scare. As Aristotle would have put it: “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”.

      http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/NukeLinearDoseEffectRelationship.htm

      Delete
    13. El Dipshit,

      I realize you're probably just doing your job to clog up the discussion thread but it's getting old. If you're really so stupid as to believe that nuclear weapons don't exist then this isn't a good place for you to post. You should hang out over at the Fakeologist's blog.

      I'll let Jim know you're just not up carrying on an intelligent discussion here and he can block your stupid ass so the rest of us don't have to wade through post after post of your utter stupidity.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. Only half hour of audio here - cuts off unceremoniously. Hopefully we'll get to hear the rest of it someday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It did that for me too. You just have to hit the PLAY button and it starts again where it left off.

      Delete
  8. Doesn't work for me, I get 23mins and nothing more. :(

    ReplyDelete
  9. Long time lurker, firzt time commenter, 2nd. time down loader today.File weighz in @ 7.9 mb. In need of new dose of the doc.
    To one and all, all the best for the coming year.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ian GreenhalghJanuary 16, 2014 at 1:42 AM

    Ian GreenhalghJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:44 PM

    Get some kip e'.

    The konspiracy'll still be here tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well spotted, I'm suffering from severe insomnia at the moment.

      It'll wear off hopefully, sleep is important.

      Delete
  11. sure you are ian. sure you are. it must be them nukes and jews playing heavily on your mind, eh?
    you sure have put in a lot of overtime since arriving on the scene recently.
    easy you must take it, greenhalf.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don Faux said : "The Twin Towers were destroyed above ground by a series of mini-nukes detonated sequentially from top to bottom in the center columns of the buildings and configured to explode upwards. That explains what was observed in the videos."

    Which videos Faux, which videos?

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Destruction videos and photos. We have been over this.

      Some are layered, some are quite natural by impression; and as Shack asks in September Clues movie, for "more natural look" than the controlled and rainbow coloured options of video provided to different networks to make the scenes look individual, so, too, we have to ask what looks natural in photography of the destruction sequence.

      The METHOD of destruction may seem counterintuitive, but if the photography (aside from layering) looks natural, then the best explanation is that the scene of dust is itself natural.

      Having said that:

      A fellow told me yesterday his friend from West Point, who became a "Commander in theatre of war" posited that the signs on his bombs showing radioactive warnings, and watching not fire but DISINTEGRATION of tanks below him, meant that these warheads sometimes do something he didn't know they could do.

      So stop it, OBF.
      There was dustification in large part, and also some layering in faraway shots.

      Delete
    2. I am pruning posts that contribute nothing new, which includes most of obf's. Alas, when I take them out, the comments on those posts are lost as well. So bear in mind that some may be lost for the good of the integrity of the thread.

      Delete
    3. I think you should leave them.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me? First of all: PID is quite real.

      As to aliens or our craft in secret places or no antigravity at all: They don't have to do with PID. Someone on another thread was discussing being open to Shack's thesis that ALL 9/11 footage was utterly fake and premade; and that person mentioned being open to "Atlantis" (pre-bronze-age alternate civilizations) and antigravity options.

      I mentioned that being open to things being true (a general DOUBT does not mean finding support in all cases (becoming a RADICAL DOUBT).

      Either you do not read (on PID or what is posted in the forum and just cherrypick comments), or you missed the info (on both), or you are an agent. I doubt the lattermost, so I exhort you to do better reading (on both).

      Delete
    2. Second of all, slandering one position of mine, PID (which happens to be well supported, but even if it were not, it would not mean my other work was bad), is moot here.

      We are not discussing PID on this thread.

      Delete
    3. I see that, if I do not remove them completely, the comments on them will remain. I will do that in the future and the pattern will emerge.

      Delete
    4. Clare:

      It's a perfectly valid query; How do you square your references to aliens elsewhere on Professor Fetzer's blog with your more mundane PID pursuits? No one is slandering you. You are on record as having referred to "aliens" as regards alternative power/energy sources. Can you, please, extrapolate on how your clearly announced belief in aliens
      relates to or impinges on your PID belief? It was YOU who mentioned the words 'alien' and 'aliens', Clare. I am merely seeking clarification on your position. If to point out what you have written elsewhere is slander, Clare then it would seem that you feel 'slandered' by your very own words, Clare. A very strange use of the word 'slander', Clare.





      Delete
    5. To Jim, remove what?

      To the Uncareful reader of a reply in hypothesis of someone else, who was positing openness to anything and not being careful to distinguish between issues (9/11 100% fakery vs. international reports of flying weird craft):

      This is silly. I said to the fellow who raised the issues HIMSELF, that radical doubt of mainstream positions is dangerous but that some things have tentative positions which are made.

      I put quotation marks around "Atlantis" and "aliens", which means I was discussing the positions with kid gloves.

      Slander includes using straw men and ad hominems.

      Antigravity craft, IF they exist, could be "ours" or "theirs" (according to many people), and that the OTHER person who mentioned these could be right or wrong about these things and STILL be wrong about 100% fakery.

      That is the point.

      You used it here as a deflection (the topic on this thread had not even mentioned PID), and a slander (of PID by association with aliens, which was even from someone else's implications in their comments).

      I never said I believe in aliens as having to do the craft, or the craft having to exist.

      And if I do, then it has nothing to do with whether there is a case for PID (there is, a strong one).

      And you do not see the context, which was to REPLY to someone's radical doubt in mainstream story and say SOME things are interesting at least (Atlantis -- if broadened to a worldwide culture phenomenon lost to regular history studies -- and antigravitic research -- if it is real, and if it is or is not derived from aliens), while other things, such as 100% fakery on 9/11 is unsupportable outright:

      there is natural photographic quality in the destruction sequences, though there is foreground layering in the faraway views.

      Besides,

      all one can say about Atlantean-like civilization is that it is a strong postulate, or about aliens is that I personally do not know but it certainly is one famous explanation for at least SOME of the antigravitic craft reports, and even those craft if made by humans are, of course, doubted in many places.

      PID however is simpler.

      Delete
    6. Clare,

      What we have here is a severe case of frantic backtracking from you.
      " I never said I believe in aliens
      as having to do(?) the craft or the craft having to exist. "

      ...And yet you feel compelled to
      write your drivel about 'aliens' and the "craft" (both of which don't, of course, exist...). So why do you even write such nonsense....unless, of course, you really DO believe such rubbish.? That is the ONLY possible inference to be drawn from what you have written about your "aliens" and "craft".


      Delete
    7. No, I said if one is discussing antigravity, then one often runs into the idea of "aliens". It is you who must backtrack in the healthy sense.

      Delete
  14. Clare,

    YOU have been peppering your PID related comments on threads that had absolutely no connection with your PID beliefs. One has only to check out recent podcasts that had NOTHING to do with your Paul Is Dead beliefs but that did not stop YOU from cluttering those threads with your PID related comments.
    You were told on several occasions by other bloggers to desist from posting your totally irrelevant and out-of-place PID comments and yet you continued unabated. All of sudden, YOU, The most flagrant poster of irrelevant PID comments are calling on other bloggers to desist!!

    Why this strange volte face, Clare?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, others raised the issue. I replied.

      Delete
    2. Yes. You replied big time. Enthusiastically,
      eagerly and knowledgeably.
      You were really enjoying yourself
      talking about those aliens and that alien craft (UFO).

      Delete
  15. Clare:

    I feel Pofessor Fetzer - a professor of reason and logic will see the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of
    you and your statements. I think in your case, Clare slander means throwing your own words back in your face. It would seem your own words "alien", "aliens" and "craft" are enough to trigger your "slander attack".





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't attack. You did. You attacked PID on a thread it wasn't mentioned in. You gave a remark out of context (it was a reply about radical doubt and other subjects, such as Atlantis and antigravity, which the poster took as likely true, and I replied what those positions entail as parts of the questions).

      It is you who must backtrack and recollect your thoughts. Good luck.

      Delete
    2. Clare,

      Calm down. Just because you believe in aliens and alien craft
      doesn't mean you're a bad person. I did not attack PID.
      I asked a simple question as to how aliens and alien craft i.e. UFOs fit into
      the Paul-Is-Dead Hoax?
      Why do you not give the name the "radical doubt" "fellow" who posted the original comment?
      (Easy to find out in blog comments. I must check my logs)
      If you really must backtrack, Clare - be sure you get your facts right. Anyway, as I wrote: Just because you believe in aliens and UFOs does not mean you're a bad person.

      So, for how long have you believed that Paul McCartney was abducted by aliens and replaced by an alien double?












      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. On the subject of post removal bias , here are some choice quotes from Fox/ Greenhalgh still up in this thread [funny, that :-) :

    Ian GreenhalghJanuary 17, 2014 at 4:03 AM

    "Which are you? Brain dead moron or gatekeeper?"

    Don FoxJanuary 17, 2014 at 4:28 AM :

    "El Dipshit's inability .......MORON!!! Or more likely Jew gatekeeper."

    Ian GreenhalghJanuary 17, 2014 at 5:15 AM

    "How about shutting the fuck up about that BS? "

    Don FoxJanuary 17, 2014 at 6:00 AM

    "El Dipshit,

    I realize you're probably just doing your job to clog up the discussion thread but it's getting old. If you're really so stupid as to believe that nuclear weapons don't exist then this isn't a good place for you to post. You should hang out over at the Fakeologist's blog.

    I'll let Jim know you're just not up carrying on an intelligent discussion here and he can block your stupid ass so the rest of us don't have to wade through post after post of your utter stupidity."

    No Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Agreed, they have been rude. As have you, and baited them, as they, you.

    Neither of you is correct in entirety, either.

    Sometimes one position is entirely true and another untrue, but in the case of fakery vs 100% unnatural, the discussion is clouded by both you types (those defending the destruction sequence, which has natural photography, and only the faraway shots showing layer alterations, but not understanding the extent of overall control, not outright fakery, vs your side, OBF, which overreaches, discrediting its own good work).

    And both sides are rude, I'll grant you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clare:

    Your language in here a few days ago,
    Clare was beyond rude. It was "No! You f*** off!". Quite atrocious. I don't think you're in any position to comment on rude comments, Clare.
    Of course being rude is healthy in a debate. Sometimes rudeness can clear the air and put the discussion back on an even keel.

    I was wondering if you could now see your way to answering my query on PID, the Aliens and those UFOs.

    ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said it in REPLY, doofus fuckwit. See, I can do it too.

      :)

      I already answered you. Go to Solfeggio's post. It's where the original comments were made (by him, which you clearly did not read) and my reply (which you noticed and did not understand).

      Until you can read, you are being a fuckwit who deserves a frozen mukluk to the head. :) Smiles to you, my sunny boy!

      Delete
  21. FYI: Our September Clueless article has been posted on Veterans Today! Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for link, Don!

    I'm on my way! Hot footin' it!!
    You're darn tootin' I am!!
    Yee haw!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Clare Kuehn, The Paul-Is-Dead
    Hoax And Her "Uncareful"
    Talk About Aliens,
    Anti-Gravity And UFOs.

    Discuss.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clare is more thoughtful and careful in research than most of those who post here. And she did a terrific job in presenting her views about PID on the next "Real Deal" show, which is not yet up. So save your comments on that issue for then.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, and as Y El Sol Mi Canta doesn't seem to realize (maybe the sun is making his singing head dizzy), Solfeggio had written of antigravity, Nazis, Atlantis (and much else) and I was pointing out that in stating such things we have wider cases: electro-gravitic (antigravity) craft are themselves debated, that Nazis had them is debated, that all of them (if they exist) are human made is debated; and for Atlantis, the larger debate is about a worldwide, not island-only culture lost to official history -- so that if Solfeggio is going to mention these things, he might be more careful about the actual debates.

      It has nothing to do with PID. And originated with someone else's thoughts ... so Y El Sol Mi Canta, read the post (Solfeggio's) to whom you were pressing reply without reading, or you would have realized I got the word antigravity as an alternate to his more limited idea of electro-gravitic, and was not introducing the subject out of ... well, thin air (yes, that is a joke).

      Delete
  24. I knew this would happen- one of my posts was deleted from yesterday. Here it is again, so get it while its hot folks, before Fetzer deletes it again [he can't sand the truth] :-) :

    "Jim Fetzer had said: "I am pruning posts that contribute nothing new, which includes most of obf's."

    Fetzer, you _personally_ started calling me names [as did Don Fox, who was no doubt encouraged by your own behavior], back when you published the Veterans Today articles by Don Fox, what, 6 months ago? - to the extent that you were ultimately called out on it by a VT colleague , Stuart Ogilby.

    Did that stop you? NO!

    At that time, [as anyone can still easily verify in those comment threads, I _never_ retaliated, to yours and Fox's childish BS- not even once.

    I even subsequently appeared on your show for the 3rd time and _still_ held my fire.

    Sometime after that appearance, after you continued calling me names in various threads here, I wrote an article titled :

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

    In that article I said :

    " [Disclaimer: this article is not intended as a character assassination of Professor James Fetzer, who, after all, was gracious enough to invite me onto his popular show, despite him already being fully aware of my opinion regarding the events of September 11th 2001. An opinion that he had in fact already publicly derided as being "crackpot" :-) . However it IS to be freely construed as a direct attack, by this very same "crackpot"{myself}, on the revealed scientific methodology, or rather the consistent lack thereof, of Professor Fetzer with regard to his own published 911 research to date, ..."

    Since publication of that article you [and Fox] have continued to name call here.

    Well finally Mr Fetzer, the gloves have come off- as I said in one of my now deleted posts "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

    In other words Messrs. Fetzer and Fox, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. Simple.

    No regards, obf "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't contribute ANYTHING of ANY value, all you do is post endless attacks and spurious BS that no-one who is interested in serious research wants to read.

      You even stated that you are a SICK INDIVIDUAL with a SICK MIND who posts here for no other reason than because you find it some kind of SICK ENTERTANMENT.

      No-one wants you here, no-one wants to facilitate your entertainment, so I fully support the deleting of your posts. I would go further and ban you so you have to find your sick entertainment elsewhere and we don't have to have the discussions disrupted with your pointless BS.

      Delete
    2. You just aren't saying anything new, obf. We have heard it all OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I know you and some of the others are not going to be good citizens of this blog, because you have an agenda that diverges from the search for truth. If you had anything of value to contribute, I would not bother. Indeed, you are not worth the bother.

      Delete
    3. He does have things to contribute, but it is at the level of PARTIAL insights. Like the Zapruder, there is real info in the video/media general controlled (and partly fake layered) material.

      His post on the Hall study is interesting, not for its radical doubt of all radar info, but because it shows some of the plane "hit" imagery has different heights for the "hits".

      This does not mean, as he thinks, no image is real gash-height on the buildings, but rather that some imagery of the "hits" (gashes only, not planes themselves), might have been done later by other groups with faked heights, getting the real height wrong, because working from "clean" towers, ones with no hit yet.

      Delete
  25. Ian Greenhalgh said : "
    You don't contribute ANYTHING of ANY value, all you do is post endless attacks and spurious BS that no-one who is interested in serious research wants to read. ..."

    First off dipshit [to use one of your buddyboy Fox's favorite epithets], you would not know serious scientific research if it bit you in the ass.

    Second of all, dipshit, _you_ attacked _me_ _first_,[several threads ago] and then loudly proclaimed to all and sundry that you would ignore all of my future posts.[of course, hypocrite that you are , that "threat" went right out the window very quickly, as anyone can see :-) ]

    And so dipshit, as I said to Fetzer," if you can't take it, don't dish it out, simple", otherwise STFU. Got that, dipshit ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. onebornfree responded to three of his critics on Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" with this comment: "The only interaction I might seriously consider with that particular lowlife vermin would perhaps be “up close and personal” , with my trusty old Mag. 44 ..."

      Does anyone believe that a genuine "truth seeker" write something like that? That sounds like the ravings of a demented loon. So tell us, obf: Is this where you stand with your Mag .44?

      Delete
    2. Tell me Jim, how many times during your 35 year career in academia did a fellow academic research threaten you with violence?

      I'm guessing never.

      Delete
    3. Getting a little bitter there OBF?

      Delete
    4. Making threats of violence and actually specifying the weapon to be used IN WRITING has to be the product one insane sick mind.
      Now I know what the initials OBF
      REALLY stand for:

      One Bada#@ F***wipe.

      Delete
  26. The Prof. seemed touched by the dreaded lurghi for this show.(1\10\14) Hoping he is over it by now. A wily thing, the dreaded lurghi.
    Comfortable chat last night with Ab,ObF.
    Have either of you thought of doing Tuezdayz &Thurzdayz? & which with The Prof. m/w/f, should keep researcherz n' radikal skeptikz alike, happily podding all week.
    (+a wee bit of c2coazt for uFo updatez)
    i am not a robot but have found it difficult prove.Capz lock or virus/

    ReplyDelete
  27. OnebornfreeJanuary 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    Reply
    OnebornfreeJanuary 18, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Reply


    Radikal. Anyone have the gizt?

    ReplyDelete
  28. There was nothing of significance there. That's why I took it out. If you are looking for SOMETHING IMPORTANT, you should just skip obf's posts.

    Now and then, I try to tidy things up, but it is a losing proposition. He and others are going to continue to post the same comments OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it not possible to ban/block troublesome individuals?

      Always a shame to have to employ censorship, but in this case, deeply warranted.

      Delete
    2. Poor OBF. From a once highly valued blog comment poster to public leper. How cruel is that? Kinda sad. Still, OBF could make a comeback. Life is like a game of ice hockey.....there's always another face off down the line.

      Delete
    3. Jim, one idea might be to, for each thread, create a 'shit box' (aka filtered comments), to which you can easily move 'shit comments'. This would allow you to isolate / hide, the blatant psyop crap that some of these guys are posting, without completely removing it. This would allow you to maintain the integrity of each thread / the forum.

      Don't know if you can implement something like that in this forum context but for those of us legitimate visitors / posters, it would be great if you could make it happen.

      Delete
    4. Overdone, fanatic, not necessarily psyop.

      Delete
    5. It seems like a systematic disruption to me, hence...psyop!

      Delete
    6. How much more evidence do you need that OBF is an op Clare? Does he need to post a picture of his ADL contractor badge on his blog? He threatened us with a .44!

      Pull yer friggin head out!

      Delete
    7. Yeah. Wind your neck in, Clare!
      You're the psyop and agent provocateur here!!

      Delete
    8. Y El Sol Mi Canta, who can't read Solfeggio's comment in another thread before thinking PID and aliens are related ... I'm a psyop and agent provocateur?

      Even Don doesn't bother with that accusation.

      Don, OBF isn't threatening you. He's using his angry words in free speech. The article came across as a hit piece, NOT as a balanced point of view about the value of the WORK at Clues and LetsRoll vs the non-value of the overall overeager overarching conclusions of some there.

      In other words, like Zapruder (but done after the fact for that one), much live broadcasting on the day (i.e., at the time, not after the day) of 9/11 was in SOME sense "a movie for psyop" but only in the sense that footage was somewhat real and somewhat fake and somewhat combined, like the Zapruder. In 9/11 some shots were pre-set, with pre-arranged main shots and layering, some fake "postcard shot" compilations, some ad hoc stuff and some fully live.

      Delete
    9. OMG, you're STILL defending OBF and STILL talking up the work of Shack.

      How long is it going to take you to get a grasp on reality when it comes to these issues?

      OBF is an increasingly angry man because he's being thoroughly exposed, hence his threat about his 'trusty .44 magnum'. Don't try to explain that away Clare, it is patently clear to everyone else that it was the words of an angry man growing ever more frustrated at the failure of his disinfo work.

      You're not always right Clare, I hope you can come to realise that.

      Delete
    10. Here she comes!! She's started again!! Clare, will you stop making references to your *** (Clue: DIP spelled backward) balderdash. Professor Fetzer has called for a moratorium on such blatant and shameless self-promotion from you, Clare. Please abide by Professor Fetzer's ruling i.e. no more ***( Clue:DIP spelled backward) references, hints or allusions (should that be delusions?) from you, Clare. Save it for your podcast when , hopefully, Professor Fetzer will tear you limb from limb - in the nicest possible way and metaphorically speaking - of course.No Mag. 44 needed. Professor Fetzer will demolish your *** (Clue: DIP spelled backward) crud
      with a few choice words.

      As Bill Clinton once said:

      " My pen is?
      ....Moodier when abroad......"

      As for Solfeggio..Show one reference from Solfeggio to "aliens" "alien" and "craft".













      Delete
    11. Ian,

      " You're not always right, Clare.."


      Don't you mean:

      " You're not always unwrong, Clare.."......?


      You gotta speak Clare's weird language, Ian.


      Delete
    12. LOL

      Good point!

      Aah, ya gotta have a humour of sense

      or should that be sense of humour...

      Delete
    13. Yeah. You got to speak the lingo!!
      I'm still trying to get my head round Clare's use of the word "uncareful". Whatever happened to plain old "careless"?
      Maybe it's just me. I have to start getting "unstupider" in here.

      Here have start to "unstupider" getting I really in.

      As Confucius one wrote....and "unslowly" deleted. Ah so!!!

      Delete
    14. Ian,

      Btw, forgot to ask...

      How are your "careful lines of combined reasoning" coming along? Looking good? Great!!

      I think you'll find a teaspoonful of sugar on the leaves and roots will work wonders. That's what Clare recommends, anyway. An old tip she picked up during her time at the Venusian Conservatory...so she says....




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

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

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

      Delete
  29. ART IS "ON THE MONEY"!!!
    ALEX JONES IS "A REPUBLICAN PARTY OPERATIVE", FRONTING AS A PATRIOT, WHO HAS DISCERNMENT, BECAUSE HE SUPPOSEDLY PRAYS TO THE ILLUMINATI'S GOD OF THE BIBLE!!!
    ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS RON PAUL OR RAND PAUL, IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, AS ALEX IS!!! ALEX'S JOB/ASSIGNMENT WAS TO GET HIS LISTENERS TO SUPPORT PAUL, WHICH WAS A VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY!!!
    RON PAUL IS/WAS "A BANKERS DELIGHT", HIS PROPOSALS IN THE LAST ELECTION WERE EXPOSED BY WEBSTER TARPLEY!!!
    PROFESSOR FETZER, YOU ARE TOO SMART TO KEEP SAYING RON WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT MET YOUR APPROVAL (AS GERALD CELENTE TOLD JONES, BEFORE THE LAST ELECTION, "RON PAUL HAD SOLD OUT", NO PERSON RUNNING COULD GET HIS VOTE): RON PAUL TOOK MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE BILDERBERG GROUP, AND IS A "UNION BUSTER". HE OFFERED NO LEGITIMATE PROPOSALS TO REBUILD AMERICA (WHY WAS ART A RON PAUL SUPPORTER? DID HE READ PAUL'S PROPOSALS?)
    YOU ARE "STUCK ON STUPID" BEHIND RON PAUL...HE IS A TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH, SNAKE IN THE GRASS...YOU CAN'T BELIEVE A WORD HE SAYS: COPY AND PASTE INTO YOUR SEARCH ENGINE: RON PAUL IS A UNION BUSTER: PASTE INTO YOU TUBE: RON PAUL BOOED BY 9/11 TRUTHERS: YOU WILL SEE RON PAUL SAY, "THE C.I.A. BACKS HIS VERSION OF 9/11"...NO MORE NEED BE SAID ABOUT THAT IDIOT!!!
    PROFESSOR, UNSTICK YOURSELF, YOU ARE "STUCK ON STUPID"...YOU ARE BETTER THAN RON OR RAND PAUL, PERIOD!!!
    CYBERFRUME10-4NMRK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So there are seven candidates on the stage and six of them are tripping all over each other to show they are THE MOST EAGER TO NUKE IRAN. Ron Paul explained that he wanted to end these wars, bring our troops home, close our bases and end foreign aid. So which of them is nuts and which is sane?

      Delete
    2. I tend to agree with Cyberfrume. It appears that Ron Paul WAS Romney's wingman in the last election.

      Ron has some good foreign policy RHETORIC but I have my doubts he would have ever gotten any of it implemented.

      The Tea Party as a whole are a bunch of Zionists. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rand Paul have all made multiple trips to Israel. The Koch brothers are Zionists financing the whole thing.

      Libertarianism is a Zionist economic system. You should get Anthony Migchels on the show and have him break it down.

      Delete
  30. none of these actors/politicians tell you about the con that the American constitution really is or the affront that it is to all natural and universal human rights when the wording used is decoded and properly understood. nor do they tell you about the name fraud being perpetrated against the populace whereby flesh and blood human beings are deceived into representing the ALL CAPITALS dead legal fiction created with the birth certificate. nor do they inform you that they are not working for you but for a registered corporation, a dead entity that can only lawfully deal with other dead entities. nor will they tell you that all things legal are all things dead.

    jim, you are either incredibly naïve and a sucker for a set up or you are playing your part well. 6 out of 7 want to nuke iran. one doesn't. yet all know that nukes are a hoax and the whole iran drama a fabricated concoction. they are acting out their pre-scripted roles. it is all theatre and none of these high rollers are genuine, and that most certainly includes old ronny paul.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Typoerror said : "OnebornfreeJanuary 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM; This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyOnebornfreeJanuary 18, 2014 at 3:36 PMThis comment has been removed by the author.Reply. Radikal. Anyone have the gizt?"

    Just so you know, as well as having some posts deleted from here, regarding Fetzer/Fox's disgusting little hit piece at Veterans Today:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/


    to date, as of 7.30 am EST 01/20/14, NONE of my four posts to date [ 3 on 01/18/14, and 1 to an administrator on 01/19/14] have appeared, nor have I had any email notification that I have been banned there.

    You gotta love it :-)

    Regards obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering you threatened me, Don and Jim with your 'trusty .44 magnum' thenyou shouldn't be surprised at all if you end up being banned.

      There is no place for sick minded individuals like you among rational, serious researchers and truth seekers.

      Is this threat of violence how you always respond to criticism?

      Delete
    2. What's your definition of a hit piece? Most of the article is straight from the horse's mouth. You just don't like the way we interpret it.

      Oh by the way you can shove your .44 where the sun don't shine!

      Delete
    3. Well, I don't manage the comments at VT. I can delete or edit ones I see, but I have not seen any but one of yours--the one where you were complaining that the other three were not there. What is there you would add here that you have not already said? I can't see where I have denied you or SS the right to post, although others think that I've been entirely too charitable about this. What more do you have to contribute, obf?

      Delete
    4. OBF's comments are up there now. Just as an FYI for anyone who comments at VT: they are touchy about hyperlinks. They don't like them. They may let you slide by with one but two will get you rejected.

      Jim Dean sent me an email a couple of months ago when I tried to post a comment with 2 hyperlinks. I had to remove one of the links and re-post. Any comment with a hyperlink has to be manually approved. They don't like to have to manually approve comments. If you avoid hyperlinks on VT you make the admins happy AND your comments will appear MUCH faster. VT isn't the free for all that it is over here.

      Delete
  32. The Prof said:"There was nothing of significance there."

    Thanx for the info.

    I made a mistake 13 odd years ago of failing to head/pay much attention, let alone ask pertinent question of a rather boorish( a drier wit and a million times smater than yrz.truely) old timer; former signalz officer and @ the time ham radio operator, Ken the coat, who would say in his arch gandalf/ph\ian way,
    " Singifiez something, See?..... No EBS. No emergency broadcast! No emergency. See? " "Bally ( I can never recall him swearing) gogglebox, (=TV) never trusted it, never will". That and something about stock market and some currency or other behaving "curiously, peculiar, considering.Fishy"
    This kind of speculation and utterance, when confronted with a "Book of Condolences" thoughtfully provided for poetasters and pissed up patronz @ a local pub a day or so later, led to a still emoting landlady to tell this 80 yr.odd old' ex Arnhem, "hush hush". ULTRA, chap to "take his custom elsewhere". Myself and a couple of other "lunchtime totters" also took the "drunkards labourer's" advice and "quick marched" with Ken to another, though less salubrious "watering hole" belonging to a different brewery, mind you, only to find exactly the same type big red of book. Having barely had time to get one down our kneckz and wondering whether a job lot may have been left over from the PoW untimely demise, a friend volunteered to visit a local Staples office supply, Not stocked, he also visited a local stationers, Preedys or WHSmiths.No big red books.The landlord was vague his wife had "picked it up" or the barmaid. Those books are still referred to, by those of us who left the pub that day in solidarity with the old soldier, as kens' book of coincidence's.
    Ken was safely gathered in, in early 2002. He would have loved the internet.

    -“up close and personal” , with my trusty old Mag. 44 ..."

    Shouldn't that be a glock? From a comfortable distance?
    If I am given to believe what I've read.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dr. Fetzer (and Lady Clare, too) has been quite free with criticism regarding what are said to be the extreme and belief-beggaring positions of Simon Shack. A world-class scholar such as Jim certainly is entitled to have us pay serious attention to such (supposedly) well-considered criticism. But so far our distinguished emeritus prof (and I remain a genuine admirer of most of his work) has remained tomb-silent on some comparably extreme positions held by his close associate, Gordon Duff, and Jim's one-time writing partner, Jim Marrs.

    Consider, if you will, that both of them give substantial credence to the "extraterrestrial-contact" hypothesis, a propaganda line (for good or ill) which deeply infests a huge amount of airtime on the very same elite corporation-owned, cable-TV channels which endlessly shill for the true authors of 9/11 and the JFK hit by churning out "Osama did it" and "Oswald did it" pseudo-documentaries, year after year. (Could there be a commonality of interest at play here?)

    Jim, when are we going to hear from you regarding UFOs and their occupants allegedly playing a covert role in either human history or contemporary politics?

    "Enquiring minds want to know..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Clare Kuehn
      has already
      DIP-ped into that extraterrestrial pond
      (holding her nose).

      Delete
  34. I might be an idiot don, but I am not an idiot!

    why don't you check out the real history of America and the real (and true to who?) natures of some of it's 'founding fathers'? (any sign of the Vatican/Jesuit/jew influence there at all?)

    don't tell me you believe the his-story books and their 'real' truths regarding your CONstitution. it is all legalese and written to deceive. just because it reads one way to the 'layman' doesn't mean that it reads the same way to those who understand the real meaning and intentions behind the particular wording used/chosen. (who decides what words really mean then? if word meanings are malleable, then any word can be made to mean anything, and nothing! - you decide when dealing with 'them', but you must make your definitions crystal clear, leaving no room for assumption/presumption on 'their' part.)

    what can one man (or men) give any other man (men) in terms of natural and universal human rights?
    nothing, of course! that is why nearly all nations of the world are registered corporations and all citizens are legally dead entities with no standing (who unwittingly represent the ALL CAPITALS strawman created with the birth certificate). 'they' can then control an army of zombies (walking dead) and can bestow on them any rights they so choose! of course they will give the illusion of freedom, but that is all it will be - an illusion! (do you see the significance of all the zombie movies released in recent years now?)

    take a look at your driver's licence, utility bill, bank account, court correspondences etc. and notice the ALL CAPITALS you? corporations (dead entities) can only ever deal with other corporations (dead entities).
    (I was told by an 'official' that my name was always written this way for the purposes of legibility - yea right!)

    exposing the name fraud is the key to ending their legal/all things dead, corrupt and deadly system. are you a dead legal entity DON FOX, or are you the living and lawful flesh and blood human being Don Fox, who just won't take it anymore? (or is Don Fox an alias, which I suspect it is?)
    you had better be clear in stressing exactly which one you are to yourself (and most especially to 'them', when dealing with 'them').

    you see, like 9/11 (with no real deaths and 100% faked video), all this can be achieved above board, in the legal technical sense, with no universal laws being transgressed. lying isn't a crime.

    this is the nature of 'their' hold over US.
    'hold' my ARSE! is what I now say!

    and I might not be an idiot don, but I am an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You not be an idiot, but you have over exaggerated some truths, and done a bit of lying yourself.

      Delete
    2. I use my real name. Christopher Bollyn and Judy Wood have run full background checks on me. I'm a regular guy with a FT job.

      You make a few good points but mix in some BS with it. The ALL CAPS thing is BS. So is the "nobody died on 9/11" crapola.

      The Constitution was written by rich men for rich men. But the mere fact that there were limitations placed on the government was a giant leap forward.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. Don, your unreasoningly aggressive attitude toward ANY of the fraudulent-victims-and-imagery claims of the Shacksters is still quite troubling, while I can certainly sympathise with honest sceptics of the Clues Boys' extended, blanket, "nobody died on 9/11" leap of faith. And your nukes theory does have compelling arguments and non-photographic data to support it.

    But when it comes to making a claim for your own, personal identity and integrity on the basis of being "background checked" by, of ALL people, Wood and Bollyn... you're making an even greater credulity stretch than the IMPOSSIBLE claims of The Amazing Randi's former manservant, Willie Rodriguez!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First I never stated that ALL of the victims were legit. However there is plenty of evidence that A LOT of people were nuked at Ground Zero. For the Clueless crowd to claim that NOBODY died on 9/11 is completely disgusting.

      Secondly I don't always talk about what happens behind the scenes. Bollyn called my parents and he got my phone number from them. He was trying to dig up dirt on me. He couldn't find any. He did dig up some on Jeff Prager and posted a hit piece on his blog. It looks like he took that down now.

      "Emmanuel Goldstein" (member of the Judy Wood crew) had left some comments on my blog that I didn't approve. Goldstein knows where I work and where my brother works.

      All I'm claiming is that YES I'm a real person using my real name. If I WASN'T who I say I am you can rest assured that the disinfo crowd would be all over me like a cheap suit! In fact you would have heard all about it in 2012.

      FYI to all of you who post here or are thinking about it. You might as well use your real name. THEY know who you are anyway. THEY are NOT going to intimidate me. We're all on a list anyway. I've got nothing to hide. No hidden agenda. I don't make any money writing articles or appearing on Fetzer's show. I'm just doing what I can to get the info out and point out the disinfo lowlifes where I find them.

      Delete
  38. Typoerror said : "Shouldn't that be a glock? From a comfortable distance? If I am given to believe what I've read. "

    Typo, you might be interested to read this reply I gave to a Veterans Today reader concerning the same quote.

    I posted this yesterday there, but it never appeared , even after "awaiting moderation" which has now happened with 4 of my posts there, so this attempted re-post may or may not appear there also [ link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/ ] .

    Here is the text of what I just tried to re-post there :

    "Craig McKee said : "Onebornfree responded to three of his critics on my blog, Truth and Shadows, with this comment: “The only interaction I might seriously consider with that particular lowlife vermin would perhaps be “up close and personal” , with my trusty old Mag. 44 …” Would a genuine truth seeker write something like that?"

    McKee, you disingenuous low life, you know exactly why I made that particular comment [because of YOU].

    FYI, I still stand behind it _100%_, as do I behind the complete text from which you "lifted" it in order to attempt to cast dispersions and make your scumbag insinuations here.

    For the unbiased, none- reading comprehension challenged, here is the full text from which that particular quote was taken :

    "Is The "Truth and Shadows" Blog Just Another Shill/Perp. Site? " :
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-truth-and-shadows-blog-just-another.html

    No regards, obf."

    End of Veterans Today post.

    Typo, I hope you take the time to read the rest of the text from which that quote was lifted.

    regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  39. SIMON SHACK AND OBF INTERVIEW ON THIS VT ARTICLE ON 01/19/19:

    For anyone out there interested, Simon Shack and myself were interviewed this Sunday last [01/19/14 on the Fakeologist radio show on the subject of the recent Veterans Today piece by Fetzer and minions attacking the research of Simon Shack and the www.septemberclues.info site.

    The interview can be heard here:

    http://fakeologist.com/2014/01/19/ep85-simon-shack-and-obf/

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You guys should just quit while you're behind. Do you really want me to listen to this and get another bunch of audio clips? The last show you did gave me so much material we could barely fit it all into one article.

      Delete
    2. I bet that show's a good cure for insomnia.

      Delete
  40. ....and here is a link to a total demolition of the Fetzel/Faux Simon Shack/September Clues $hit piece recently posted at Veterans Today, by Hoi Polloi, Simon Shacks primary research partner :

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&p=2389025&sid=ffdaaeb77095105012df8b4cc3feec58#p2389025

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a joke too. If this was a boxing match the referee would stop it. Stay down OBF or you'll get hit again....Stay down... Stay down...

      Delete
    2. LOL, hoi.polloi fails to make a single valid point and just trots out the same pathetic, laughable nonsense about nukes don't exist, satellites don't exist, everything is Zionist media lies. If that is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal then we have nothing to worry about.

      Delete
  41. what lying have I done PM? please do inform me, as I have come to detest the deliberate practice.

    ReplyDelete
  42. let's hear you respond to hoi polloi's critique of the VT article then don. there is only one side on the ropes here and that much is crystal clear (all according to plan, I dare say).
    and the birth certificate dead legal entity fraud is not bullshit. it is the key to smashing their system wide open, and being finally free, absolutely and totally.
    I AM THE WITNESS...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pshea,

      hoi polloi is ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. That VICSIM deal is disgusting. I found several people in there who were real and I only spent 45 min on it.

      I was reading his line by line break down of our article today and he thinks the picture of the round Earth is photoshopped. He's a complete moron just like the rest of you guys.

      Delete
  43. @ OBF
    "Typo, I hope you take the time to read the rest of the text from which that quote was lifted."

    "Is The "Truth and Shadows" Blog Just Another Shill/Perp. Site? " :
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-truth-and-shadows-blog-just-another.html


    Typo Certainly will.
    Arghh!

    Fiefox Warning: A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to .........

    Typo. "they" must be crawlin all over it.I'm outta there.


    Off to see whatz happenin' @ George Noory Suckz.

    A post for the "shit bin."

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ I Greehalgh.I bet that show's a good cure for insomnia.
    Both Mr.Shack & OBF have pleasant and compelling voicez and I admit to having drifted off once or twice while listening late @ night
    My concernz for the jolly old subconscious having been left in such an unguarded manner were, with subsequent daytime listening, re-pernicious subliminal messages, unfounded.
    I am unable to say the same for the most estimable Profz. Real Deal, as the Beatlez, a tried and truzted psyop in my etc. kicking in every twenty 5 minz has an effect of scaring the livin' beejayzus out of me, while I attempt vain weary respite from the truth.

    These are pretty good for nodding off to.
    https://archive.org/details/Fdny911ManhattanDispatchesAudioEnhancement

    So, if Art worked for Mcdonell Douglaz ?....... did He mention Ufoz? I'll listen again I (all capz) nodded off.
    Failed to catch the movie/doc url. as well.

    Please forgive any perceived spamming?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Typoerror said : " Typo. "they" must be crawlin all over it.I'm outta there."

    Well at least you tried. :-)

    You may be interested to know that Stuart Ogilby, a frequent contributor at "Veterans Today" , [i.e. where the Fraudzer/Faux attack on Simon Shack and yours truly is published [ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/ ]
    ......today HAD published there [Veterans Today] an article replying to the Fraudster/Faux "article" [for want of a better term].

    In it, Ogilby allowed Simon to personally respond in his own words to Fraudster and Faux [Fetzer and Fox].

    However, now the Ogilby article has completely disappeared from the site :-)

    Details from Simon himself about this apparent censoring of Ogilby by Veterans Today [unless there is some other explanation], can be read here, complete with screenshots proving the article _was_ published:

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&p=2389052&sid=56eabf6d4390fe2b62505f0495d3524e#p2389047

    On a secondary, related issue, Veterans Today have now removed _all_ of my [4 or 5] posts that made it to date [including the copy I posted here], and has cancelled my account, much to the relief of many here, I'm sure.

    All purely coincidental, I'm certain :-)

    Regards, obf

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

      Delete
    2. OBF,

      I'm a conspiracy guy but what happened over at VT isn't a conspiracy. Like I said in an earlier post Jim Dean (Managing Editor at VT) doesn't like hyperlinks in comments. He deleted one of my comments for having 2 hyperlinks in it. He said I could use one and repost. He told me that he works hard to get traffic TO the site he doesn't want a bunch of hyperlinks sending traffic somewhere else. He told me it's a comment section. Not a blog or a message board. Commenting on the story is fine. But don't use the comments to send readers to another site. Your comments had a bunch of hyperlinks in them - that's why they got yanked.

      It's a bit of a culture shock I'll grant you that. Here on the Real Deal it's anything goes and that's what you're used to. I prefer commenting here myself. But if my article appears over there I'm expected to answer questions. If I don't I get a call from Fetzer telling me to get my ass over there and answer the questions.

      The word I got on Ogilby's story was that it was taken down because it was solely intended to send readers to the Clues Forum.

      What you guys should do is organize your thoughts and write an article that outlines your positions.

      The key is to drive traffic TO VT not AWAY. All of my articles have gone top 5 over there. Mystery Solved was #1 for the better part of a week. Try to come up with something that will draw people in and you'll have better luck.

      Delete
    3. Don's correct, Ogilby's article was removed due to it's intention of leading people to Shack's sites. It was a shockingly bad article anyways and completely out of place on a site like VT so no loss whatsoever. Ogilby might find himself booted from Vt altogether if he carries on shilling the way he has been, I got into a debate with him and he had nothing worthwhile to say, just trite rubbish that sounded like it was coming from the same script that Shack works to.

      As for OBF's posts, again, as Don says, they were removed because they were full of hyperlinks. Considering all of OBF's posts at VT were nothing more than the same BS we have to tolerate here and laced with ad hominen attacks then he really got what he deserved. People like OBF have no place among normal, rational people and hence, he got the boot.

      Shack and OBF seemed to think that the people at VT were stupid and would allow them to behave badly, they found out that isn't the case and I, for one, am delighted about it, it restored some of my faith in the common sense and morals of the VT editors.

      Delete
  46. so it's not about truth there don, but revenue. no matter, for all advertising is good advertising and this latest removal can only serve to heighten awareness of the issue itself and the truths to be found in simon's and hoi's 9/11 video and victim fakery analysis work. the informed observer can only further raise an eyebrow at these (feigned?) attempts to further censor it, here, there and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article has been reposted.

      Sept Clues is a complete joke. There is no truth to any of it. Nobody with a brain is going to believe their "nobody died" and "off camera" demolition BS.

      Delete
  47. need I say again that ian greenhalf is not to be trusted? surely this is abundantly clear by now to all regular posters here.
    he is over doing it though (deliberately?), and I am not quite unconvinced that this English john-ny come lately addition to the fetzer and veteran's today 'teams' entered the fray for the very purposes of advertently drawing wider attention to septemberclues and cluesforum's findings.
    he appeared first on the realdeal to talk about 9/11 tv fakery, he is an expert in photo analysis, and yet he had never been through the work of septemberclues or cluesforums, which are probably the only (and most important) sites on the www that specialise in tv fakery investigation. go figure, eh?

    god save our glorious queen ian!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My god you spout a lot of nonsense. I ave never called myself an expert in photo analysis, that is the sort of arrogance i leave to smug people like Shack and OBF. However, I have been a photographer for 20 years, and I am somewhat qualified having a Batchelor's degree in Electronic Imaging and media Communications.

      Why do you assume I haven't looked at Shack's work? I have, and that is why I say it is terribly flawed and invalid, you don't have to be an expert to see that, it's blatantly obvious.

      Delete
  48. good to hear don. (part of the plan? par for the course?)

    and sure 'Nobody with a brain is going to believe their "nobody died" and "off camera" demolition BS'....somebodies with brains might well do so though!

    boom! boom!

    'like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods.
    they kill us for their sport''

    what if we were Gods. do we 'kill' ourselves for the sport, only for to be reborn into greater truth?

    it's all in the game, EA!

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Don Fox" wrote:

    "Sept Clues is a complete joke. There is no truth to any of it. Nobody with a brain is going to believe their "nobody died" and "off camera" demolition BS."



    Very well, Don sweetheart...

    So when you write "nobody with a brain is going to believe",.. are you implying that the majority of people on this (round) planet are using their brains to their full extent and capacity? And this, without any sort of impediment such as, for instance, the zillions of dollars spent in propaganda and mass brainwashing? If so, you will have to provide tangible and incontrovertible proof to back up this shaky assertion of yours. Good luck to you !

    Simon Shack ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very strange implication to draw from what Don said.

      The only assertion Don made is that no-one is going to believe your BS, which is an opinion and therefore requires no proof.

      Come on Simon, I know English isn't your first language, but you at least need to try to understand! lol

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

      Delete
    3. Simon,

      You make a good point about the lack of brain power being utilized on planet Earth. Duly noted.

      For the record I personally PREFER the Sept Clues version of 9/11 to the actual 9/11. If nobody actually died hell I'd pack it up and go home. The problem is all of that pesky evidence for the WTC buildings being nuked with people in them. Chunks of bodies, 1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized and Lower Manhattan covered in a fine dust powder. Dynamite can't explain the persistently high temperatures that were between 600 and 2,000 °F at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/11.

      Fetzer makes a great point that the videos of the Tower's destruction "all hang together." Let’s take the North Tower for example. All of the videos show it blowing apart from the top down and ejecting debris up at a 45° angle into the Winter Garden. What do we see when it’s all said and done? The Winter Garden destroyed by debris from the North Tower. What was fake about the North Tower demolition? They faked the videos in a way that showed us exactly what happened?

      Delete
  50. @photographer for 20 years, and I am somewhat qualified having a Batchelor's degree in Electronic Imaging and media Communications.

    Hello/hi Ian. My given name is Kit which should have been Chris/Christopher but wasn't and may have led an incident involving family katz, My drunken aunt kitty and travelling folk, but enough of me.

    My friend filip, after many yearz a slave to lenz, philter and developer fumez, recently got a bit of digi kit. It doesn't seem to manage anything "really" close up. He describes it with bit of photo tech waffle and then as it keeps "adjusting justiiin tind jus ti djustadjus perrrphect ktik eergh".

    I suggested firmware update.(doing so leadz to forking out for extortionate proprietary battery by not recharging other brandz). He thinkz it must be precision clockwork gubbinz inside.The i-ching has too many moving linez to be sure. So thought i might be able to run it past you? Forgotten what make it is now.Plenty of pixelz if that helpz? Krz.

    (please ignore if busy.or re-searching or)

    Forget it.
    (Nice bit of chain)

    ReplyDelete
  51. typoerror, you're craaazy, but I like you.
    and craaazy in an insane world is sane enough for me. I may know somebody with similar problems to those your friend is fullup on. or I may not.
    either way, I look forward to ian's professionally technical add vice.

    are we such dreamers to turn the world to right?
    i'll stay home forever but.....

    well, you know the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ pshea, if you are lucky enough to be irish you're lucky enough ||*( .

    Klinically you may be korrect.

    Re- Radiohead, Close but no goldfish/cadillac.
    The hit parade has done little damage on the AM or FM @ chez Typo since that very very nice, Pete"a vote for Labour would be a vote for communism, and may God have mercy on your soul" Murray invented daytime television, which was also nix'd from the gaff later that decade.
    No, Typoz Yantra, adopted as young man and worn on rugby shirt, rucksackz and foreheadz was inspired by the equally romantic,for some i'm sure, Priniplez of Doublethinkz fal$e Dogma.(very 80'z-1984) and that Ruzzian klazzik, NzFTUz.
    "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too"
    I know the rest?
    & coming up after the news and weather at the top of the hour, Terry Wogan will be chatting with a Transcending master from leicestersheershire, yes a chap calling himself, David eye.. eye, does that rhyme with stick? Is that supposed to be a silent k?
    Play the record.

    @motion Blur. BA @ Bratphut? Pub next t'theatre /close enough. t'was a kracker.Name escapes.
    Re: techreq. You can scrub through that. Not as many pixels as first thought ie. shitloadz and seemz ok for general snapping/smudging.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  55. Don Faux said : " Fetzer makes a great point that the videos of the Tower's destruction "all hang together."

    The idea that if "everything hangs together" in 911 videos then they are all genuine defies the laws of logic and critical thinking.

    If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the various collapse videos actually _do_ "hang together" , that fact alone cannot, and does not conclusively prove that they are not all fakes- it could just as easily mean that they were all manufactured on computers from the same, single "seed" source video, using the same software .

    It can never conclusively "prove" that they are all genuine - if they really did all "hang together" the best that could be said is that there is a 50:50 chance that they are genuine, and a 50:50 chance they are not.

    Inconclusive both ways. [i.e further , more specific analysis would still be required to prove them authentic or fake].

    The same is true for all the Fl175 "plane into building" videos, which Richard Hall, and Fetzer, likewise claim all "hang together" to use Fetzer's terms.

    In point of fact , and just as with the collapse videos, they don't all "hang together" [as I show in my article examining the Hall hypothesis] , but if, for the sake of argument, we assume the "plane into building" videos _did_ actually all "hang together", logically speaking that fact alone would not, and could not conclusively prove that they are all genuine [at least to someone employing logic :-) ]

    As with the collapse videos, the odds could still be no better than 50:50 that they were in fact genuine if they all hung together - and they could all still just as easily be fakes.

    Again, further, more specific testing and comparison would be required by the scientist to attempt to establish authenticity so that the videos [or photos] could be legitimately used by the scientist as evidence to formulate a hypothesis.

    See: "Total 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

    As a self-proclamed teacher of logic and critical thinking, Mr Fetzer should be ashamed of himself [ logically speaking :-) ] - however, his ongoing arrogance [to protect his extremely fragile ego, it seems] will no doubt prevent that emotion from ever occurring .

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't address the part about the videos showing us what actually happened - i.e. the destruction of the Winter Garden by debris from the North Tower. Not only do all of the videos depict the same thing it matches up with what we see when it's all said and done. What part of the North Tower demolition was faked?

      Delete
    2. He didn't make a single worthwhile point, he never does, all he ever does is spout some airy-fairy nonsense about 'the scientfiic method'.

      Delete
  56. nail on head obf. nail on head.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Don Faux said : "You didn't address the part about the videos showing us what actually happened - i.e. the destruction of the Winter Garden by debris from the North Tower. Not only do all of the videos depict the same thing it matches up with what we see when it's all said and done. What part of the North Tower demolition was faked?"

    My entire point was/is that if all of the collapse videos "hang together" , the fact of their "hanging together", does not/ would not/could not prove that they were all necessarily genuine.

    Simple enough [except for simpletons, apparently :-)]

    Now get back to your beginners reading comprehension class, Faux, and take peabrain Greenhalgh back with you while you're at it.

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll try to re-phrase this AGAIN for you dipshit:

      If a video shows us exactly what happened how can it be fake?

      Delete
    2. Of course Don, of course it can be faked, of course.

      How do you know what exactly happened anyway? Studying an movie?

      Why did they use actor with talcum on his head and jacket to confirm what happened in the movie they aired on "live" news if they had real witnesses? Because they didn't have any witnesses that could tell what they needed, so they used actors like this to tell the story they wanted (2m33s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2c4DRR_150

      Delete
  58. Don Faux said :"If a video shows us exactly what happened how can it be fake?"

    Exactly how do you know it shows "exactly what happened"?

    obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Videos of the North Tower "collapse" show debris being ejected up at a 45° angle and out 600+ feet into the Winter Garden. The Winter Garden was completely destroyed by North Tower debris and had to be rebuilt. This was widely reported in the media and there are multiple witnesses to substantiate the destruction and rebuilding of the Winter Garden.

      If the videos depict what happened with the North Tower demo how can they be fake?

      Delete
  59. Don Faux said: "The Winter Garden was completely destroyed by North Tower debris and had to be rebuilt. "

    And yet, in your VT article "Busting 9/11 Myths", concerning what you allege is depicted in the allegedly " live" tower collapse videos:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews/

    you claim : "...the Twin Towers are exploding in every direction from the top down. The buildings are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust....."

    You cannot have it both ways, Faux.

    Either the nuke explosions converted everything, "top down", "into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" , as you claim, or they instead hurled giant pieces of unconverted debris 100's of yards, destroying other buildings, as you also claim.

    So which is it?

    Furthermore, if everything _was_ converted to very fine dust as you so cavalierly claim, what about all of those supposedly "real" post collapse photos showing gigantic sections of girders till standing in the debris pile, as well as all of the girder sections lying around with firemen gallantly standing on them?

    How come they were not all "converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" also? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? [ Hint: the post collapse debris photos are as fake as the collapse sequence videos .]

    Very selective, these mini nukes, it seems, in what they decide to convert "into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust" .

    Apparently just as selective as J. Wood's alleged direct energy weapons, it would appear :-)

    As to the trustworthiness of _any_ of the WTC1 collapse sequence videos, here's Simon's analysis of 3 entirely contradictory alleged "live" WTC1 collapse sequences, from "PENTTBOM" , Ettiene Sauret, and NBC:

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&p=2353593&hilit=Sauret#p2353593

    Notice how from the same viewpoint, the WTC1 antenna falls in one direction in the Sauret video, yet in the opposite direction in the NBC sequence of the same event.

    Enjoy :-) obf.

    ReplyDelete