Monday, February 17, 2014

David Weiss & Timothy Rothschild

Deep inside the rabbit hole


  1. great podcast on kevins show with james tracy jim thanx

  2. I see how you do it now ah jim. repeat the same puff, guff 'n stuff over and over again and never incorporate any new thinking or research into your whole schpiel! (you like that one mike?).
    I appreciate the impact you can have on new ears but it is all ultimately misleading.
    I think the rubber on the wheels of your car are well bald, jim!

    re-tyre mate. re-tyre.

    but it's all good.

  3. Well, it's very odd. They wanted to feature me on their show and I lost my guest for that day, so I used it for my own. But it became increasingly apparent to me that they were really operating as Judy Wood shills. I have no idea why you are here. You contribute next to nothing except for nasty remarks like this. I can't see what we would lose by not having you here. My take.

    1. He doesn't contribute anything Jim, seems he's just here to attack proper researchers and push the ludicrous work of people like culto (JFK assassination was fake) and Shack (everything is fake).

    2. Ian, again please remember that Culto and Shack are not in the same category at all.

      Shack has uncareful moments leading to an uncareful overall conclusion, but much of his work is wonderful, on the actual problems of the films and audio: that it was controlled in various ways -- not entirely fake, but a fake effect of what we ultimately thought was fully going on.

    3. FFS Clare, when will you learn that Shack's work is a pile of rubbish deserving of zero respect.

      I've explained this in detail so many times, but you refuse to listen.

      I'll copy and paste one of my prior explanations, not that you'll pay any more attention than you have in the past:

      Why do Shack et al focus so much on video fakery? Because they want to limit the discussion to that level which, as I have stated several times before, is pretty pedantic and will never lead you to any understanding of what happened.

      Why do Shack,OBF etc keep saying the USGS data is suspect and probably faked? Because they don't want anyone to look further than the video fakery.

      As I keep telling you Clare, Shack's work is fundamentally flawed and largely invalid for the simple reason that he doesn't do anything more than make up theories based on looking at the videos and photos, he doesn't look at other data sources like the USGS dust samples, the seismic data etc.

      They don't want people to dig any deeper than the superficial level, that's why they constantly bang on about the video fakery, it's superficial, it won't lead to any worthwhile discovery.

      Why do Shack, OBF etc keep attacking Don and Jim? Simple, because they are talking about Israel, the Mossad, the Zionist US Jews and the use of nuclear weapons. They are trying to disrupt anyone who tries to research in those areas.

      Clare, until you can grasp that Shack, OBF and their cronies are gatekeepers spreading disinfo and disruption, you can't understand them at all. They are using the 'analysis' of videos as a smoke screen, they want people to spend their time and energies looking at these faked videos rather than at other data that is far more valuable. They want to convince people that the videos are faked (which some of them are) and once they have hooked people on that fakery line, they then want to convince them that everything else is probably fake. Once trapped in this fake mindset, you can be manipulated easily, they can mislead you simply by pressing the fake button. A person discovers the USGS data - Shack simply presses the fake button.

      You must grasp this Clare - Shack, OBF etc are trying to programme people into a state of mind were they can easily be convinced that anything is fake. That is the key to their psyop.

      Once they have programmed a person with this fakery mindset, thy can simply mislead them away from anything potentially sensitive by labelling it fake.

      They don't want people to realise that nuclear weapons were used n 9/11, hence they are pushing that nukes are fake.

      They don't want people to realise that mass murder was committed on 9/11 hence they are pushing that the victims were fake.

      Gatekeepers Clare, nothing more, nothing less.

    4. Clare have you no discernment whatsoever? Judy Wood does a better job on 9/11 than Simon Shack. At least Judy acknowledges the devastation and tries to explain it whereas Shack and OBF just say it was all fake and it didn't happen. You call that "work" wonderful?

      At least Judy Wood's gatekeeping makes you think a bit. The Shack/OBF load of BS is comical. Shack can be debunked in a matter of minutes. All you have to do is listen to that clip of Frank Morales on my blog and that's the end of Shack. It took me 2-3 months to completely debunk Wood.

      They both have the common denominator of denying the use of nukes and Israeli involvement in 9/11 of course.

      As Ian said "Gatekeepers Clare, nothing more, nothing less."

    5. Ian, it's amazing that for someone who can type so much, you end actually SAYING very little. You don't want to deal with any of the actual points raised, you don't want to debate this issue; scratch that, you can't debate this issue on any level that requires actual thinking and dealing directly with the points raised.

      So of course, the easy way out is simply to believe we're all gatekeepers and agents who are protecting Israel and nukes. You can't seem to grasp the simplicity of what is being stated by Shack, OBF and others, so again, I'll try to lay it out as easily and simply as possible: The legitimacy of the 9/11 imagery has, and can easily be brought into question, thus none of what has been shown can be considered evidence until verified as authentic. Get it?

      Don, no one is saying it DIDN'T HAPPEN. You can play these 'ridicule' cards, but the fact is, this is perfectly simple: what is being stated is that the video record is fraudulent. And therefore, we cannot use it as evidence to determine a hypothesis. Is that understandable to you?

      And holy hell, how many times does the fact that the witness statements are not verifiable evidence need to be repeated? You really think the entire body of evidence relating to media fakery is debunked in minutes due to the word of an UNVERIFIED witness? What kind of a ludicrous researcher are you?

    6. It's simple Bob, I won't waste my time debating with idiots. OBF, Shack, El Buggo, Pete Shea, they are not worth wasting my time with.

      It's simple, these people are either idiots or gatekeeepers. Either way, I'm not wasting my time on them.

      The points you raise have been dealt with already, we have long ago moved on from them, so why should I waste my time going back over the same tired old debunked points?

      You're not upto date on 9/11 research, you're still pushing arguments that have been shown to be untenable, so unless you have something new, then I'm not going to waste my time with you.

    7. Bob or OBF or whoever you are:

      According to you and the others the SHILLS the video record is fraudulent. You guys proclaim it to be fraudulent because it shows buildings getting NUKED and the JEWS who NUKED the buildings don't want people looking too closely at that. That's why the networks weren't allowed to show the Towers exploding a couple of days after 9/11. Not to mention that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence apart from videos that confirm NUKES.

      Father Frank's version of Ground Zero is corroborated by multiple other witnesses and yes in under 8 minutes Frank completely dismantles the September Shills version of what happened to the Towers.

      I'm the kind of researcher who scares the crap out of the JEWS who were behind 9/11. That's why they have all of these paid shills in here like yourself trying to confuse everyone.

    8. Ian, that surely begs the question then, why ARE you wasting your time with me? You claim you won't waste your time with this, yet you continue to waste your time. You talk a hell of a lot of rubbish and doublespeak for someone who talks all the time about theories being "untenable" and 'already debunked'. If you feel so strongly that this is the case, then why can you not produce the goods? Why can't you stop acting like a brainless moron and actually debate the issues, and argue your POINTS? As far as I see it, you have failed on every count and every level to propose even a single logical point, argument, or emphasise any actual proofs or evidence! You can sit there and claim that "this is debunked and I win" until the cows come home, but the simple fact is just saying this is so, does not make it so. Unfortunately for you, I'm sorry to say, a reasoned intellectual debate just doesn't work like that. You need to produce some facts of your own. So, either put out or step back and shut up.

      Don, you are possibly the most ridiculous excuse for a 9/11 researcher I think I have encountered in a long time. I'm growing ever tired of talking to you in polite and formal layman's terms. So, here's how it sits: Father Frank's "version" of events means JACK. SHIT. Get it? You are arguing that the giant body of evidence relating to the existence of fraudulent imagery is debunked by ONE, UNVERIFIED person's WORD.

      Do. You. Not. See. A. Problem. With. That. Hypothesis?

      As for the video record, I do not proclaim it to be fraudulent because it shows buildings getting NUKED. I proclaim it to be fraudulent because upon ACTUAL close and proper analysis, the video record can be SHOWN to be so. It is EVIDENTIALLY the case. I'm sorry if this poses a problem to your theory, but the fact is until you have VERIFIED and analysed the footage and imagery in order to confirm it as genuine, then it CANNOT be used as evidence of a nuclear thesis. Period. It's that simple.

  4. a bit harsh jim. but banish me, if you will.
    the game is up anyway. I only wish the best for my fellow man.

    1. pshea-

      You're a whole good 'un, pshea!!
      I'll say it again and I don't care who hears me -
      You're a whole good 'un, pshea!!

      Raise your glasses one and all!! A toast to pshea!!!

      Here's lookin'up your whole
      family tree, pshea!!!
      You're a whole good 'un so you are, pshea!!

    2. i'll drink to that, my friend.

      I sense a sting or two thrown in there somewhere, but fuck it!

      i'll rays/raze/raise/ray's a schmoke to it all the same!

      (you do realise btw that mike murphy and I have already been through the whole whole/hole thing recently, yes? alrighty then!)

  5. I agree, the game is up. We will destroy ourselves unless some miraculous intervention saves us from ourselves. And soon. My only hope is that the end does not come until hockey season is over.

    1. Stooy44, you might find a friend's comments interesting:

      "Canada" is a 'constitutional Monarcy' with a 'repatriated constitution'. That means, that by 1982 (under Pierre Trudeau)-our last real Prime Minister---the PIeces of paper called the "British North America Act" (B.N.A. Act) were transferred from London England to Ottawa, Canada. While this transfer completed the acknowledgement that elected Parliament has full authority to make all decisions regarding the governance of this country---the symbolic (and real) authority of the British monarchy is still left in place in the person of the 'Governor Gerneral, who has authority to dissolve government in situations of votes of 'non-confidence' (failure of the ruling party to pass any legislation with a majority when it has to do with money--i.e. a 'money bill). Since the government is frequently in this situation when it has a minority situation (say a breakdown of 40%, 33%, 27%) if the two lesser parties could form a coalition they could overthrow the government with the approval of the governor general. This is approximate to the situation we were in in 2008 when we had a brief opportunity to oust the dangerous sycophantic stooge -Stephen Harper.........He foiled the constitutional power of our governor general (Michelle Jean -because she was a child without the appropriate stature to be G.G.) (Harper took her into a private room and shouted at her for two hours.) When she emerged she was crying and shaking and 'prorogued' parliament. This effectively destroyed Canada as viably as the NDAA has destroyed the United States. Now we have a soul-less monster at the helm with a 'majority government' whose initial design by alien robotics engineers was seemingly based upon Barbies boy-friend Ken. As Canadians grew suspicious about him , his handlers tried to devise ways to make him seem more 'human' and 'Canadian' --so they had him play a couple of extremely wooden Beatles songs at the last Winter Olympics in Vancouver. This deception has worn off , and another election is coming soon, so now to 're-Canadianize' him he is releasing a book about the history of hockey. Hockey, as you may know , is a Canadian cliche and the required answer on all immigration application forms. When this book about hockey is released just before the election it's effect upon the electorate will be kind of like 'Obama' announcing the 'killing' of Tim 'Osama' adjacent enough to his re-election. Sad to say then that Canada is now 'hockey', harper is the stick and the general public has been told in no uncertain terms to "Puck off"

    2. WOMAN: I thought we were an autonomous collective.

      DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

      ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing]
      her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

      DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

  6. Thank you Clare.

    On the matter of the Governor General refusing to allow the opposition parties to topple Harper a few years ago, it was my belief at the time that the Governor General was not the person who made the decision, rather, all the Governor General did was put in a call to Buckingham Palace and ask what decision was to made, and then follow orders.

    I was involved heavily in Canadian politics for a number of years. It is quite a story. I was deep into the betrayal of the former Progressive Conservatives by that sickening weasel, Peter MacKay, fought against him along with David Orchard...

    1. Yes, that was the point: the Queen or minions make such decisions and pressure the Gov General.

      I also tried to help David Orchard. He belongs as a centrist NDP, not with the smarmy Liberals, but he doesn't see that. He actually thought the Conservatives were centrist-Left in the sense of decent, as when they put in the Health Care and other social economic safeguards in the 20th century, thanks to working with the NDP; but they are not, especially now, with the Neocons and Wall St Democrat types within them. (Note that I am using the terms to denote types, not formal party affiliations, except where literal, such as "when the Conservatives worked with the NDP".)

  7. This is treasonous, seditious and anti-Canada talk from Clare Kuehn and Stooy44. It has been logged and will be reported to the relevant Canadian authorities.

    1. Lol. Very funny.

      It is supportive, corrective and positive talk ... just as all discussion on this forum is about 9/11 as a big conspiracy for the USA, as you, presumably, know.

  8. Here is a story.

    I used to work on a golf course where the then Prime Minister Jean Chretien played regularly. He was always friendly and we would chat politics briefly from time to time.

    Then one day I was walking on Sparks Street here in Ottawa with another political figure who knew Chretien personally, just as Chretien, by then no longer Prime Minister, happened to walk by.

    The two of them greeted, and the one I was with learned that Chretien and I knew each other from the golf course. He then asked me what kind of golfer is Jean?

    I responded, "He was a better Prime Minister."

  9. So how long have you been stalking
    Canadian Prime Ministers and
    other Canadian political
    figures, Stooy44?
    This is all very strange and highly suspect.

  10. if you vote, you are engaging in fraud by representing the ALL CAPITALS dead legal fiction name created with your birth certificate!
    how can a living and lawful flesh and blood (hue)man be a and dead paper entity? 'they' are lawfully allowed to assume and presume all day long. 'they' thrive on our ignorance and confusion.
    well, don't allow 'them' anymore! make it perfectly clear in no uncertain terms exactly who and what you are in all your dealings with anyone who would presume and assume anything about you!
    watch the world turn as you stand in your own truth!

    this is what it is all about, in my view. getting us to realise exactly who and what we are and exactly what power we really possess and have unwittingly given away.

    no man or group of men can afford any natural or universal rights to any other man or group of men.
    if you join a private club (knowingly, unknowingly, wittingly or unwittingly) then you are subject to the club's rules and regulations.
    but once a fraud is uncovered, all contracts can be nulled and voided.

    this is the ultimate issue now.

    ”This above all: to thine ownself be true,
    And it must follow, as the night the day,
    Thou canst not then be false to any man.”