Friday, March 28, 2014

FS from the EU

The World is Upside Down

121 comments:

  1. A truly excellent show that starkly illustrates how an open mind, some common sense and rational thinking can cut through the official narrative and give one insight into the true machinations of the world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian said: "A truly excellent show that starkly illustrates how an open mind, some common sense and rational thinking can cut through the official narrative and give one insight into the true machinations of the world we live in."

    Three quarters of the show was about how 9/11 planes could not have penetrated the WTC towers. What's so "starkly illustrated, common sense and rational thinking" about the no-planes theory? Are you all just now agreeing there were no planes? Furthermore, don't some of you still believe drones or missiles made the gashes in the facades?

    The last quarter of the podcast was devoted to the international scene and the resurrecting of Russia as the great Satan. This was enlightening, so thanks for that. The Ukraine will be loaned billions of our dollars for weapons to fight the Russians and Syria will be left to its own devices. More money for the defense contractors.(Sigh.)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you inferring that you know what made the gashes in the facade? Of course you don't know, neither do I, it's just another detail of 9/11 that is definitely different from the official narrative (plane strikes) but is still of unknown nature. Anyways, it doesn't matter whether the gashes were made by thermite cutting charges, conventional explosives or whatever, it's a detail that isn't important; what is important is getting somewhere with obtaining justice for the victims of 9/11 by establishing beyond doubt the culprits and their motives. Obsessing over details isn't going to achieve much of anything.

      Delete
    2. The gashes in the façade? That was just some Hollywood CGI they put on the "live" news reports.

      Is protecting the victims part of the story important to you Ian? Why? Is it because it is part of the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with?

      How many victims should there be if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before hey blew them up, Ian? Are there any videos or images of the evacuation of these allegedly 50000 office workers after they had reported that a plane had crashed in WTC1? Something or some footage? Why not? And why no tears to be seen anywhere in this operation? No tears anywhere! There should be million of victims family members, according to the reports, but still no tears anywhere.

      It will take you at least 1000 years to understand what happened 911 if you don't understand that what they aired on "live" news 911 was a Hollywood horror movie.

      Delete
  3. This dude sounds so much like myself.. So great to hear a layman of sorts speak with the professor Fetzer.. Brilliant as always. Thank you for these amazing podcasts. They keep getting better.
    If someone can remind me of the podcast that was posted here a few years ago demonstrating the faked phone calls and reactions of persons observing the towers being 'struck', (that were obvious staged scripted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - please post the link or if possible remind me was the guest?
      Many thanks fellow Fetzer fans!
      Peace!

      Delete
    2. It would be with Mike Sparks, or at least several about that were with him. Search his name.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Clare. I still think Paul is still alive though; )

      Delete
  4. Maybe a bit off topic but not really...

    "podcast that was posted here a few years ago demonstrating the faked phone calls "

    This reminded me of a statement that Alex Jones made on two recent shows.
    Alex tells us that all the 9-11 cell phone calls from the planes have been proven fake, which is true, but then he tells us something I have never heard before, to wit, that there were two calls, made from air phones by stewardesses that were genuine calls that did go through. He said the message on these real calls from the planes was “There’s gas. We can’t breathe.” So this again is speech that supports the hijacker, real planes official story.

    Alex Jones and other talk show hosts are never wasting a crisis in their using of the missing Malaysian airliner incident to subtly tell us about the "hijackings" of 9-11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, though others think Jones is being an intentional gatekeeper, I have heard him talk himself around in circles of apoplectic shock about people who think there were no planes, and I understand why to a bulldog thinker such as he is, replacing planes with fake ones seems airy fairy.

      If there were any calls from real people, even real victims, what he does not realize is that that could have been from another flight or a lie call from agents. How one gets straight the proper significance of evidence is in realizing planes could not function in hitting as shown, and further, the gashes could not be from planes anyhow, even if there were planes doing something. At that point, one is not stuck thinking calls that went through has the significance he thinks they do.

      It is a matter of lining up facts as evidence and then PRIORITIZING which facts show a condition for the other facts to fit in. He has not done that. He has a manner which shows he cannot think this no-planes thing is anything more than weird, airy fairy nonsense; and that he hates (boy's boy that he is) stops him, in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Alex Jones is cointelpro, a disinfo agent working for Israel, he is financed by Israeli interests.

      It's blindingly obvious that Jones is running a gatekeeping operation, a large part of his raison d'etre is to discredit the truth movement, every time he goes off on one of his crazy rants it's nothing more than a well-practised show put on to make the general public think that all seekers of truth are crazy conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Jones.

      Delete
    3. No it isn't, it was proven that he was being financed by Israeli interests, his wife is Jewish and he does everything he can to deflect blame from the Zionists onto anyone he can. He talks about 'Illuminati' and 'NWO' constantly because he's gatekeeping for the Zionist Jews.

      http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=387

      Delete
    4. Jones is a carnival barker.

      The only thing missing is the striped coat, straw hat and cane

      Just another in a long line of East Texas hillbilly snake oil salesman excellent at separating people from their money

      Delete
    5. As usual, subtlety is not your strong suit, Ian. Jones can wish to help Israel in not being constantly harping on Jews as the "cause" of the world's woes, but his nature is visible: he would tend to not ask certain things anyway, and can't see through certain political realities in the right wing, and is generally more a dupe, not asking certain types of questions than others, in my opinion.

      Delete
    6. Where is the room for subtlety in telling the truth? It's a black and white case, ether Jones is cointelpro or he isn't, subtlety be damned.

      As usual, you spout nonsense and appear completely ignorant of the facts. Go do some research into Jones then you might have a clue.

      Bottom line, Jones is a cointelpro gatekeeper, this has been proven and no amount of semi-coherent nonsense out of Clare can alter that fact.

      http://alexjonesisazionistshill.blogspot.co.uk/

      http://alexjonesexposed.info/

      http://truthernews.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/10-reasons-why-alex-jones-should-be-tried-for-treason/

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

      Delete
    8. Calling Alex jones cointelpro is a waste of time. If he is he's screwing up royaly.

      Delete
    9. It is never a waste of time to expose cointelpro gatekeepers and disinfo agents.

      Delete
    10. Well, I listen to jones and extrapolate the good stuff and ignore the bad... Self sensoring everything isn't good for you. Don't be afraid to think for yourself.

      Delete
    11. Yes, this is a good approach. All gatekeeping operations work by giving out mostly good info,but with key twists to mislead away from the real culprits and answers. Jones will tell you lots of good info about an event but also try to lead you to the belief that the people that were behind the event were some spurious Illuminati NWO group rather than the Zionist Jews.

      Thinking for yourself is crucial, I strongly encourage that!

      Delete
    12. Exposing cointelpro is fine, but assuming which are or are not is not fine. Jones is obviously not dedicated to calling everyone an honourary Zionist or Jew when something goes wrong, and he does expose direct Israeli crimes.

      His oversight about the planes is perfectly understandable through normal psychology fitting his personality, as I mentioned. It comes across as airy fairy, too easily, and once that feeling is held, no argument gets through to many people.

      One has to start with the arguments, and in real time, the arguments were not fully developed when he first would have heard of them. He is now prejudiced and can't separate the people he knew promoting the idea offensively in the early days, from the arguments now available, in my strong opinion.

      Delete
    13. Clare said re. Alex Jones...
      "His oversight about the planes is perfectly understandable through normal psychology fitting his personality, as I mentioned. It comes across as airy fairy, too easily, and once that feeling is held, no argument gets through to many people."

      I strongly do not believe that to be a correct assessment of why Alex Jones always held to the Steven Jones theory. I was up close and personal throughout all of this and heard Alex Jones and Steven Jones on many a radio show ridiculing people who were exploring and accepting no-planes and ridiculing Dr. Fetzer, calling him a "buffoon" among many other names.

      Steven Jones is a Mormon, a religion founded on Freemasonry, which is founded on Cabalism. Mormons will never say a word regarding those of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Alex Jones was raised in Dallas (Cyrus Scofield) "Christian Zionism" land holds basically to that "religion" that believes God will curse anyone who curses Israel. Alex Jones' wife is of Jewish ancestry so he states.

      I have always drawn a straight line between Dr. Steven Jones and the Judaic planning and perpetration of 9-11.

      I submit that the above are the relevant factors in understanding Alex Jones' behavior and coverage regarding 9-11, not anything to do with his "airy fairy" personality.

      By the way, Alex has almost totally abandoned any mention of 9-11 on his shows. There's no money in it.

      Delete
    14. Why wouldn't you "draw a straight line" between Steven Jones and MORMON planning and perpetration of 9-11.?

      Steve Jones is a Mormon, not a Jew.

      Delete
    15. Read my post more carefully.

      Mormonism is Judaized false "Christian" cult and "Christian Zionism" is Judaized Cabalistic "Christianity."

      These two people from the beginning always "held on to" or "left the gate open to" real planes and real Islamic hijackers.

      Delete
  5. I think the no planes thing definitely has merit but I also think that trusting the video to be authentic of the building must also come in to question. I mean they didn't fake the plane graphics on live feeds the day of the event did they?? That debate a few podcasts ago with the European gentlemen really made me think about how far

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They could well have set up cameras and when a likely missile flew in (the "ball" image, for example, shows a likely missile, small, distorting the image), took the imagery which would have been pre-masked, as it is 1/2 way across the screen, and quickly set the pre-set Boeing image to start where the missile appeared and end-point to be the actual hit height, not noticing the slight drifting of the camera in the last frames, changing the mask area slightly off of the building which had moved. As such, they would get a nose-out and freak enough to fade to black.

      Delete
  6. - you can go once you accept that at least the planes were faked.

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

      Delete
    2. Before you understand that they faked the "live" news reports 911, you will be stuck in the virtual reality they created for us that day, with no links to the real world and what really went on that day.

      It was the gang who control the MSM who ran this operation, together with their top agents in the Gov. And media is of course protecting and gatekeeping their own involvement in this operation, as best as they can. Very important to keep their Weapons of Mass Deception a secret, you can imagine. They need them for all their other operations of course

      Delete
  7. nothing new whatsoever in this show. what was his beef with you again, ahjim? keep spinning those wheels, eh?
    is FS from the EU our Clare in radio drag?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ian said: "...., it doesn't matter whether the gashes were made by....., it's a detail that isn't important;

    what is important is getting somewhere with obtaining justice for the victims of 9/11 by establishing beyond doubt the culprits and their motives.

    I think the billions allegedly paid out to the "victims" families is "justice" enough, Ian. I can't believe you don't know who the culprits were or what their motives were.

    Are you sure you're not the troll? Whenever this group gets close to solving the important details of 9/11, the foot-dragging troops, of which you appear to be one, come out to name call and derail the discussion. Is the plan to delay resolution of the mystery by playing for time?

    ReplyDelete
  9. A few years before 9/11 there were some news stories describing how the US military was preparing to conduct psychological warfare (only OVERSEAS, of course) by fabricating whole TV news reports -- using the same state-of-the-art (at the time) computerised special effects that Hollywood had been busy showing off in spectacular fantasy-and-action movies of the 1990s.

    So why, Lady Clare and her fellow (moderately doubting) travelers, is it SO HARD to accept the possibility that the "live" 102-minutes of network 9/11 television coverage WAS just a convicing, high-tech movie (with perhaps a half-dozen different sequential edits) prepared for the not-so-independent news channels to run -- under a government mandate?

    And if the teams of skilled CGI artists who prepared it (working, of course, to modify REAL images of Lower Manhattan shot earlier) were told that they were labouring to create good-quality supporting materials for an upcoming terror-response DRILL (just like the actors who performed on the "phone calls") -- of course the cyber-artists would do professional work.

    Yet with time and budget constraints mounting (as that bright "September Morn" drew nigh) these skilled digital craftsmen ultimately did allow various "minor glitches" to remain in their finished product, such as mismatched or missing buildings, inconsistent backgrounds/foregrounds/skylines, cloned clouds, impossible air speeds, the hot-knife-thru-butter insertion, etc. For within the confines of their isolated workstations (and worldviews) these imperfections weren't viewed as crucial -- since the finished video product was only for a DRILL.

    And then the long-awaited exercise was "flipped LIVE," requiring those understandably shocked computer artists to be either frightened into silence, generously bought off, abruptly liquidated, or easily convinced (if they were of the "chosen" ethnicity) that the gigantic 9/11 fraud was ABSOLUTELY (TALMUDICALLY) NECESSARY for the protection of the future of their TRUE, Mideastern homeland!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post Andy.

      I think this is exactly how these false flags are carried out - everyone is working on a drill until the last moment when it is flipped into a live event.

      Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, 7/7 in London, they were all drills that went live at the last second.

      Delete
    2. High compartmentalization is the key. The people working the videos could have direct knowledge of the plot along with certain key persons at the networks. Those individuals who stumble upon the true nature of the scheme wouldn't have enough of the total plan (just as we don't) to make a definitive accusation. Very few individuals are willing to risk everything on concrete evidence mixed with hunches directed at extremely powerful individuals, America was founded and prospered on limiting the power of any one or small group of individuals. That concept has steadily been eroded back to where tyranny resides and thrives in the hands of a few who remain behind the scene,

      Delete
  10. Interesting that FS from EU comes to almost the exact same conclusions as me. There is something so natural about fractional reserve banking. Something so blameless at the start of the process.

    What I want to bring to the table is that fractional reserve banking is actually, though it seems so innocent, the worm in the apple of liberty. I think I can explain conceptually that it MUST lead to this mess of infinite lies and satanic murder-as-masturbation that we have found ourselves in. I think I can explain how this is more or less inevitable, unless we go back to the source and never allow nor tolerate this practice, as innocuous as it may seem when it first kicks off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GMB

      Judging by your many posts on this blog, masturbation in all its forms is, it would seem, a very personal and solitary (hopefully) preoccupation of yours.

      Is there anything else you'd care to share with other blog contributors?
      On second thoughts...Let's not go there. This is one occasion where the left hand definitely does not wish to know what the right hand is doing.











      Delete
  11. Getting right back to the gist of things .... Is it not a worthy thing to investigate the Huey Long murder? Because Huey defied the communist capitalist dichotomy. I'm not saying I'll sign on exactly to his suggestions. But note how they fall outside the communist, capitalist, big welfare spending trichotomy.

    We were given big government welfare, total expropriation of everything, and state supported USURY supported by infinite imaginary PERSONS and derivative persons and derivative\s of everything and derivatives of derivatives.

    Huey reckoned that that the small businessman made good ought to deserve his winnings. And maybe he ought to even have his a mistress or two. But he thought that their ought to be a limit on wealth. So he had to be murdered. Because with a few caveats this is a workable system. And we don't need great aggregations of wealth for capitalism to work. And we know this because Lichenstein is still the wealthiest state in Europe. If not the world. And its a place where nothing but small business is possible. Banking excepted only.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael Piper's book that is a compilation of Huey P. Long's wrightings is so great. Long just made too much sense. I think one of his ideas was that $2 million was all an individual was allowed to have. He thought that was enough and any overage had to be redistributed to the people.
      I used to collect his sayings and here is one of my favorites.

      "You give me a couple of elections commissioners and I'll make those lever machines sing Home Sweet Home."

      _______________
      E. Michael Jones's new book, which should be published very soon talks about how sterile money is. Capitalism, which he defines as "state sponsored usury" has money as "sterile" and not money as man working and producing and making things grow for the greater "common good." Very interesting ideas.

      ___________
      I am open to all the video fakery material but I always wanted it to be treated more professional in its own Internet venue and by non-anonymous people. Maybe Dr. Fetzer sees his allowing the "hit or miss" video fakery discussions on his blog here by the SS and acolytes as being fair though he does not personally have much respect for them, but I think the subject has not received the kind of discussions it deserves in this venue and has only degraded this important topic and this great blog of Dr. Fetzer's.

      The nuke theory does not rely on "collapse" videos but other objective data, including several first responders having blood cancers and non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other kinds of rare cancers that known to be caused by radiation exposure. (I do not completely buy into the nukes in basements and crater's under buildings idea that Don is working on, but will wait until I see more on this.)

      I guess my main concerns about the "Shacksters" is that they are really promoting the classic or conventional "controlled demolition" hypothesis which was always the "program" of Dr. Steven Jones and his influence on about 90 percent of the "9-11 truth movement" from its beginnings. There is just too much evidence to show that the Towers were done away with by some other than conventional explosives method, and it does not rely on videos or TV videos.

      Dr. Fetzer and all of us know how "the media" including print media is joined at the hip with the US shadow government and really have not been independent for about a century and we all know whose money owns the media so anyone who thinks Dr. Fetzer or any of us is "protecting the media" is just making an excuse, usually an excuse for promoting conventional controlled demolition.

      Delete
    2. It is to be expected, Jeannon, that if one gets so fanatic as not to accept any image as real, that method of demolition would not be a concern to determine. Once one is less concerned with method, then the physics of different methods becomes less important to learn at all, and might well fall for classic controlled demolition methods, albeit done from the middle down, not the bottom up. And many people don't know the different methods; heck, most of us probably didn't know the different methods until 9/11 research took us in the direction of asking about it.

      The "Shacksters", as you call them, because of problems in some imagery, neglect to work out the hypothesis of mixed imagery, where some are fake and which are likely not if there is a mix of real and fake. Without working through such an hypothesis, the likely real imagery gets tarnished with the assumption that it is fake, too, even when it looks very real and has many contextual and internal features of real imagery, such as, let's say, the existence of the "ball", which would not be in the visual record without being real. As such, they stretch credulity to the extent that it was maybe planted to seem real. In the context, however, of many groups trying to blend different real shots and different pre-set camera angle shots of real events, it is perfectly understandable as real and a mistake, where it was not noticed by a camera crew and image feeder crew.

      Same with after-imagery: many photos exist of the aftereffects and the "Shacksters" have to stretch credulity even farther to maintain their fanatic conviction of all-fake to deny the aftereffects, when lots of legitimate sources of imagery would exist.

      Delete
    3. I vote for high concentration space based energy weapons as the main take down tool, with conventional explosives and video fakery as the cover story to hide our weapons technology achievements.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, okay, whatever, that is sci-fi nonsense. There is zero evidence that such weapons even exist and your theory completely ignores the evidence for nuclear fission.

      Why do people have to prpetuate this Judy Wood beam energy weapon nonsense when we have advanced far beyond that point in our understanding of the events of 9/11 and have gathered a large body of solid evidence that proves the use of nuclear weapons and refutes the other theories like Harrit's nanothermite which simply isn't capable of the blast effects necessary to have destroyed the towers.

      Delete
    5. That is my opinion based on my observations nothing else. I know that HAARP exists out in the open. It reportedly can direct 1 billion watts of radio wave energy to a single target. So to assume that something more powerful could not be developed using a near space platform is not "sci fi nonsense" And to use more convention explosives to include mini nukes etc. in addition to provide cover for the big kill shot is plausible . The pulverization of most of the buildings material superstructure seems to me (IMHO) from the top down would indicate a directed from above energy vibrational isolated pinpointed phenom. You have your opinion and I have mine and I don't feel the need to convince you since neither of us can conclude with any certainty what happened..

      Delete
    6. You're just dreaming up wild speculation without any evidence to support it. The dustification of the buildings is explained by the use of nuclear weapons. Wild speculation is a bad thing because it gets us nowhere and opens us up to criticism.

      Delete
    7. We actually don't know if there were some kind of nuclear EFFECTS from beams (nuclear particle beam weapons) as well. The 60-storey corner and spire were missed by the nukes if that is what did the main blasts, and maybe had help from other weaponry as a plan B.

      As well, special cookie-cutter holes are all over the site, which are highly unlikely to be random holes from shape charges, nuke or not.

      So there would be some likelihood of multiple techniques used. Don't think Wood has to be entirely correct or incorrect; she may be onto something in spite of not conceiving of mini nukes as well.

      Delete
  12. Your opinion of course Ian which is starting to mean less and less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His opinion is well informed about nukes and the nuclear residues found and the circumstances of the destruction -- sequence and aftereffects.

      However, he is not considering that there could have been a need for more than one method other than regular controlled demolition chemistry, and that it is quite possible some other weaponry has been developed which Wood's work suggested.

      It is highly likely that Wood is, in gist, incorrect, i.e., the idea that because it looked weird in a number of ways, the whole main takedown was from weird weaponry; just as it is incorrect that all was fake (from many considerations).

      But it is also possible that there was some weird weaponry developed -- we have many indications of that from claimed witnesses over the years and patents, but whether those witnesses were lying (covering up, deflecting, in usually UFO communities who've taken the claims on more than other communities) or whether the witnesses were telling the truth, is unknown.

      If such weaponry was developed, it may be a plan B, an assist, allowing more targeting of the problem areas, such as the spire.

      The cookie-cutter holes, so randomly affecting many buildings in the area, also argue against the likelihood of only nukes or regular explosives. The question would be why have seemingly randomly placed shaped charges here and there throughout the complex.

      9/11 in NYC remains a bit of a mystery. But that nukes were the major takedown method is becoming clearer, with all lines of evidence considered.

      Delete
  13. The powdering action of instantly dissolving concrete (and steel for that matter) from the top down in a specific targeted way with almost no outward blast projection of material ,only downward piling of dissolved material is really unprecedented . I have personally spent maybe 10 minutes listening to Judy Wood. I am using HAARP as evidence of Government developed energy directed hardware that we know about. With that alone in mind, considering the Govt, has advanced aircraft under wraps, advance weaponry under wraps does not reach the level of "wild speculation" in my view . This weapon from the top coupled with conventional methods is a clear possibility as sound as any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A mini-nuke sequence could be set to start near gash points, and yes, there are major blasts outward.

      However, you might be right, if such posited unknown forms of weaponry (not quite defined, so far) are able to leave nuclear residue.

      Delete
  14. There was a lot of outward blast projection, the most obvious example being the projection of one huge piece of facade over 400 feet to land on and crush the atrium of the winter gardens.

    HAARP is not evidence of anything to do with directed energy in a weaponised form, that is a leap you have made. What is HAARP? What is it's purpose? Until you can determine that then you have no basis for hypothesising that it is a weapon and responsible for anything to do with 9/11.

    What you are doing is the sort of unfounded theorising that we should actively discourage because it is counter-productive. Anyone can come up with a theory but is is rather harder and more labour intensive to come up with one that is fully supported by evidence and fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fukushima, Haitian Earthquake , Katrina,, 2004 Sunami, Tornadoes in Joplin and Oklahoma all have evidence of scalar square and HAARP sigmatures. If that isn't directed energy in a weaponized form I don't know what is. In addition who made you decider of what is acceptable evidence worthy of submission.

      Delete
    2. Upntheedge: you are right that all items should be considered and Ian is now limiting the discussion somewhat, however, nukes are sufficient for the main takedown and what is seen. The question would remain only whether there is room for some help from other weaponry. Wood theorized (not understanding that theory isn't a dirty word) that the whole takedown could be weird-looking enough to posit entirely that some unknown usage of electromagnetic and/or nuke pulse weaponry (directed energy weapons, mostly undefined) would do the whole thing. Because of the subsequent nuclear signatures in the dust and water and the blast signature, it is unlikely to be HAARP alone, which is tornado not beam. But ... can such things be needed to help along a particle beam weapon's effects? Maybe. Can a particle beam assist as a backup in some way when a mini nuke maybe doing main blast? Maybe.

      One way or another, mini nukes seem to be part of the picture. We may not know more, for 50 years, when other weapons get declassified. But whatever the case, there is nuke evidence, or nuke residue from other weapons.

      Already, that is enough to put the question out of regular controlled demolition, and that is important enough for now, while we wait for more information.

      Delete
  15. "There was a huge, seven-storeys high at points, debris field. No, there were only acres and acres of fine dust. But there was nuclear destruction from below ground level, proven by seimic records, USGS test data and Hellfires that raged for months down below. No, that's impossible, or the "bathtub" would have cracked and Lower Manhattan would have flooded. But we have lots of great pictures of the huge debris pile. No, the pictures are fakes, and there was certainly no debris pile indicative of a hundred-storey building collapse. But Giuliani's vast army of dump trucks cleared most of the debris away while the area was evacuated and cordoned off. No, that's just a planted, fake news story, because the buildings were thorougly dustified, with nothing solid remaining larger than a doorknob. No, they weren't; they left a gigantic rubble pile, and the smuggled photos of the fugitive FEMA photographer prove it. No they don't, and he's just another shilly actor." and on...and on...and on...

    SO, AFTER A DOZEN YEARS WE STILL CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND, WHEN THE "SMOKE CLEARED AWAY".

    A giant heap of twisted rubble? A vast field of fine dust? Authentic photos of the aftermath or just more PhotoShop forgeries?

    I'll bet Cass Sunstein knows.

    But he sure ain't tellin'!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "SO, AFTER A DOZEN YEARS WE STILL CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND, WHEN THE "SMOKE CLEARED AWAY". "

    I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years. I remember clearly that toward their beginnings they said that ALL OF THE AFTERMATH STILL PHOTOS WERE FAKED. They based that grand assertion on that special little device that the perps could have used that would have prevented cameras and camcorders from functioning. Now all of that has been dropped and the Shaksters make few or no claims regarding that special little device or the aftermath still photos.

    This factoid is why I think it is futile to discuss the Shaksters' claims in this blog rather than in a non-anonymous professional dedicated venue.

    The Shaksters and those who get caught up here and other places in responding to them produces the ideal Sunstein-like results -- chaos and confusion and diversion in 9-11 truth seeking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post.

      Part of the Shackster's game is to cause disruption, thus derailing the research of honest people. The only way to deal with the Shacksters is to debunk them then ban them from the site so they can no longer disrupt things.

      Delete
  17. "I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years."

    And so has Dr. Fetzer, Jeannon. We live and learn -- sometimes.

    But (to adopt Clare's mixed-fakery stance for a moment) let's remember that the 102-minutes of "live" network coverage (before the Shrub-response was shown, purportedly "live" from Florida) was but a very brief window in time -- during which Lower Manhattan was quickly covered over with a blinding, photography-impeding, toxic cloud.

    The "tall rubble pile," or "vast dust plain" (choose your own meme) stood, behind a strictly enforced cordoning-off and evacuation, for a much longer period before it was slowly, or rapidly, (choose your own meme, again) cleaned up.

    It's inexcusably cavalier of you to dismiss ALL the fakery claims made against the "rubble-pile photos," Jeannon. Some of those pictures absolutely scream "PhotoShop, PhotoShop!!!" via their impossible perspectives, bizarre size differences and blatant "rubber stamping" of cloned people or debris pieces.

    And as to THAT curious bit of fakery, much more research needs to be done, to ferret out the perps' true motivations and the long-term effects that THIS aftermath-deception had on public consciousness -- including the ongoing nuke arguments, right here on the Fetzer site.

    ReplyDelete
  18. “"I think it is quite relevant that the Shaksters have profoundly changed their claims and assertions over the years."

    And so has Dr. Fetzer, Jeannon.”

    No, we are talking apples and oranges here in terms of changing. Dr. Fetzer has consistently and repeatedly stated that he is searching for 9-11 truth in as objective a manner as possible, evaluating all of the “relevant available evidence.” He has indeed set forth various possible “theories” over the years, even appearing so enthusiastic about some of these that he gave the appearance of totally accepting them, but he has always conveyed the idea that he too is “living and learning.” (Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood each know how important it is to avoid saying they have a “theory” or taking a clear firm position, though each in their own way.)

    The Shackters have had only one issue, photographic/videographic fakery, but they have profoundly changed their claims or “thesis or theses” regarding the one, multi-faceted issue. The Shacksters always have a list of ready excuses as to why they have always kept their work stricktly anonymous and unprofessional. As I have stated before, they seem to confine their disjointed, hit or miss forum comments/observations to ostensibly attacking Dr. Fetzer. The Shacksters never claimed they had a thesis but to intelligently address some of the Shaksters claims and assertions, one has to try to identify their albeit undeclared thesis.

    “It's inexcusably cavalier of you to dismiss ALL the fakery claims made against the "rubble-pile photos," Jeannon.”

    Straw Man!
    I have NOT dismissed “all” the fakery claims (Equivocation! You are using the word “all” here in a different way than I used it. I was saying they dismissed all the photos and you are saying that I am dismissing all their claims!) made against the “rubble-pile photos.”

    I am simply stating that the Shacksters and their claims need to be addressed in a professional, orderly, non-anonymous venue where they can be afforded the most respect and the most productive outcome, i.e., greater body of 9-11 truth.

    Likewise, the nuke “theory” should be dealt with professionally and non-anonymously, as Don Fox and his site and the VT articles have tried to do. On this Fetzer radio blog comments, these big topics should only be addressed in a cursory manner and readers should be referred to the proper sites for quality in-depth discussion.
    Perhaps it's inexcusably cavalier of you, o Solomonic judge Andy, to argue against me based on such reckless illogic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another excellent post, well done. Great explanation of how the Shacksters work, I am very glad that others can see what their game is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, how they think, how they miss certain points.

      Mind you, you do too.

      Delete
  20. in reality, after the 9/11 dust settled, there must have been very little of any rubble pile visible from vantage points across the water.
    I think the best explanation to date is that the buildings were pre-emptied and the whole structures were lowered down in one piece underground, elevator style.
    the public were offered up a movie for consumption and have been said and lead by a 'truth' movement set up to come to conclusions based on faked video and planted evidence.

    where the towers stood now stand 2 fountains, below which are 2 deep, deep pools.
    I will hazard a guess and say that these deep, deep pools are due to rainwater that has collected in the twin tower 'elevator shafts' over the years since 9/11.

    shut it ian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You talk so much rubbish one can only think you're employed to spread it - a disinfo agent.

      If you're not then you're just a complete idiot.

      Delete
  21. Replies
    1. Yes, it is true, you talk so much rubbish you come across like an infantile idiot.

      Delete
  22. Why is there so much fuss over the evidence of what we all agree was a government hoax? What is so extreme about concluding the video was doctored and pre-taped? Why can't this be discussed without personal attacks and accusing posters of having agendas and being shills? The only logic for shilling is to protect the government fiction. September Clues exposes the fiction.

    I have been independently "researching" 9/11 since it happened. I could not believe the plane story nor the suicide Muslim hijackers. How ridiculous if you've been following all the assassinations since the 60s, Watergate, the October Surprise, the invasion of Greneda, Panama, the destabilizations in El Salvador and Nicaragua, the CIA trained death squads, the OK City bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge--the harassment of the militia/survivalist groups, Iran/Contra, the Kosovo war with its DU bombardment of Yugoslavia and Iraq, the Gulf War, and on and on and on.

    What we do know now in the computer age--this past decade and a half, TPTB don't have to have an actual event to gain support from the people. All they have to do is SAY something happened and an obedient media will report it as fact complete with actors playing all the parts. These fictitious characters are even writing books!

    (See Scarlett Lewis and Wayne Dyer: On December 14, 2012, Scarlett Lewis experienced something that no parent should ever have to ... I Can See Clearly Now by Dr. Wayne W. Dyer Dr. Hardcover $21.13 .... Scarlett lives with her family on a farm in Newtown, Connecticut)

    It is this recent fakery of events such as Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon which has shaken our brains into the realization that if they could just say hijacked planes hit the WTC towers among other lies, the videos shown on TV that day, might also be false. They might have even been pre-taped. The release of the archived footage showing CGI planes was plenty to go on.

    I seldom go to websites like September Clues. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the format because I find it difficult to navigate. Also, the print is quite small. I don't see enough arguments or serious papers. I just want the facts and don't have time to wade through so many posts. There is some sniping and negative press directed at the so-called truth movement.

    I did see SC videos early on and they were impressive but YouTube kept taking them down. Every discussion board I was ever on froze in horror at the mention of Simon Shack. Anytime you went near his theories, even your allies would put him down. I thought it very strange. At least this experience here has taken the mystique out of his views.

    The false flag fakery of recent years should open the eyes of leaders of the truth movement like Jim Fetzer. Discussion should not be off-limits. If Jim can expose fakery that was Sandy Hook and Boston, why not 9/11?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " If Jim can expose fakery that was Sandy Hook and Boston, why not 9/11? "

      Dr. Fetzer has done more than any "leader of the 9-11 truth movement" to "expose fakery",every kind of 9-11 fakery. Video fakery is only one part of the 9-11 fakery. In fact, he is still doing more than anyone in allowing the Shacksters to post on these blog comments.

      The Shacksters have not treated him well from the beginning and yet he kept inviting Shack to his conferences to present his ideas and he refused. Couple all of that with the fact that another anti-Shackster and anti-Fetzer person and group, the Steven Jones person and associated groups, had already taken over the "9-11 truth movement" before Dr. Fetzer began his work and before Dr. Fetzer began developing his thoughts and acceptance of no planes.

      The video fakery study has been established by Simon Shack but it has been established and built up on the quick sand of anonymous and undocumented study. And really the whole study of the videos is a special area of highly skilled expertise and must be done in a quality way. This obviously cannot take place in Dr. Fetzer’s radio blog comments area.
      Given these facts, Dr. Fetzer has been more than generous in allowing the commentary here by the Shacksters and he continues to allow this continued “exposing of 9-11 fakery” here, such as it is.
      I have not followed this saga on this blog closely on this issue because I saw the Shacksters entry into this comments area as disruptive and not contributive. There were times when SS made some highly questionable assertions and to my amazement no one even questioned them at all. Many commenters found these endless back-and-forths, usually ending in juvenile ad hominem exchanges, offputting and have withdrawn from this formerly great venue solely because of the tone and nature of these “discussions”. The Shacksters seem to have brought out the worst in all of us as far as forum behavior.
      Of course, Dr. Fetzer recognizes “video fakery” but if anyone truly wants this area of inquiry to be treated with full respect, he should get on with doing the very best that can be done with the uncataloged, unindexed videos of unknown or dubious original source and chain of command. Thus far, the Shacksters appear to have another agenda for their material and findings.

      Delete
    2. On soft grey mornings widows cry,
      The wise men share a joke.
      I run to grasp divining signs
      To satisfy the hoax.
      The yellow jester does not play
      But gently pulls the strings
      And smiles as the puppets dance
      In the court of the crimson king.

      Delete
  23. Correction"

    change

    "chain of command"

    to
    "chain of custody"

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joan Edwards said: "Why is there so much fuss over the evidence of what we all agree was a government hoax? What is so extreme about concluding the video was doctored and pre-taped? Why can't this be discussed without personal attacks and accusing posters of having agendas and being shills? The only logic for shilling is to protect the government fiction. September Clues exposes the fiction."

    Joan, apparently people do not like to have to admit to themselves[let alone to others :-) ], that all of their pet 9/11 theories, which they had put so much thought into to date, are all based on fundamental , never questioned assumptions that should never have been made in the first place.

    This is doubly true of "professional" researchers with either scientific or legal backgrounds , for example, J. Fetzer; also: R. Hall, D.Fox, J.Wood, A. Johnson, A. Baker, S. Jones, M. Reynolds, D. Kalezov; all of whom have completely eschewed simple, basic, common sense evidence verification procedures in order to reach their grandiose, fanciful, and currently supposedly "incontrovertible" 9/11 conclusions [whatever they might be], and all of whom are therefor either no more than private charlatans, professional, paid, 9/11"gatekeepers", or just plain old dimwits .

    Here are a few of those never questioned assumptions:

    Never questioned assumption [1] :

    that MSM does not/could not/did not lie en masse on 911, and that the original 911 network broadcasts were all true live broadcasts, as archived, and therefor never needed to be closely scrutinized _before_ any part of that graphic "testimony" is in any way considered trustworthy and useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.


    Never questioned assumption [2] :

    that all of the, to date, subsequently released imagery that was not part of the original "live" MSM 911 image pool, including all alleged "amateur" or "professional" photography [video or still], plus all N.I.S.T. imagery released to date, was/is also authentic, and therefor never needs to be closely scrutinized _before_ any part of that graphic "testimony" is in any way considered trustworthy and useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.


    Never questioned assumption [3] :

    that verbal eyewitness testimony from completely unknown persons [ whether media, government, or private], that confirms some part of the alleged events depicted in the available imagery is believable, and that [therefor] the background of the individual making the particular testimony does not need to be fully investigated _before_ their testimony is in any way trustworthy/useable as bona fide evidence to help formulate a "911 what happened" hypothesis.


    Never questioned assumption [4]:

    that government agencies [e.g. USGS and DOE] and their supposed 9/11 "reports"/"studies" are believable and should not be seriously questioned as long as they support what appears to be depicted in various conveniently selected 9/11 videos and stills [ from any/all sources].


    Anyone [e.g yours truly :-)] , who points out the absurdity of making those 4 initial assumptions [ plus others, closely related] , is inevitably seen as a direct threat to any person who already knows "the truth" about 911 and has their own , "incontroverible", cut in stone, "conclusive" 9/11 theory, and who is either :

    [a] a private charlatan [out to make a fast buck],

    [b] a paid gatekeeper

    [c] just your average know-it-all dimbulb.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OBF, much of your above summary has real, solid merit, but your own, antisocial/anarchist/insutling attitude, so intensely expressed by not only you, but also by several other total-fakery proponents, in so many previous and angry posts has, unfortunately poisoned the Fetzer-ian well pretty thoroughly.

    And I find substantial agreement with many of the sentiments and observations in BOTH Joan and Jeannon's immediately preceding postings, too.

    Positions have so hardened here, and at comparably oriented websites (regarding either the relevance of the 9/11 fakery, its provability, or its extent) that consensus has become far, far out of reach.

    And that's probably enough, anyway, to satisfy Cass and all the Little Sunsteins.

    History (at least the truthful kind) will likely prove Simon Shack right someday -- at least regarding the TV networks' direct complicity in the 9/11 fraud via their transmission of prefabricated "live" coverage. Hoi Polloi's Vicsim Report may one day be heralded as the most ignored piece of accurate, investigative reporting of the early 21st Century. And Don Fox (and his fellow nukesters) may even be credited, in the long run, with being the first amateur investigators to convincingly uncover and document the covert/strategic use of nukes on American soil. (Outside of Oklahoma City, anyway.)

    But it may take decades, even generations, to pass before such hard, cognitive dissonance-inducing truths are no longer rudely (and knee-jerkedly) contested by shills and the ignorant.

    After all, even half a century after Dallas we still have to contend with all the Bugliosi's (and similar intellectual vermin) who monomaniacally defend the Warren Report.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Look what I found on SC by PShea: (At last a breather from the criticisms of ALMOST ALL of the 911 researchers. There is something wrong with a research site that spends so much time knocking other researchers. I have gained much from the people they ridicule such as Morgan Reynolds, the first no planer and advocate of Newton's third law and even Judy Wood who did so much analysis of the evidence both photographic and verbal.)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "I find him [Fetaer] to be polite, informative, honest and passionate. 9/11 is just one of the many areas of across the board
    corruption exposed on the real deal, and I am grateful for the knowledge i have acquired and the education i have gained from listening to his podcasts. (I was directed there about 3 mths. ago through a link in a post here. I am doubly grateful to SC).

    "He admits openly that he was slow to incorporate the notion of media fakery into his thinking on 9/11 and
    has on air expressed regret at this reluctance, and his resistance. For me, the last step for jim fetzer is to
    investigate your Vicsims report (with his usual, exceptional vigour) and, of course, we would know from
    his subsequent actions, whether he was controlled opposition or not. (I feel he is not, after having just listened to 3 years of twice weekly 2 hour shows in 3 mths).

    "I really think it would be worthwhile if both You and Simon could broach the idea of appearing on the real deel. I believe that he would be very receptive, and all here know the justice that You and Simon (among many others) can do for the persuits and truths associated with SeptemberClues

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well, he hasn't budged an inch since I wrote that joan. I do not trust him now to deliver the real deal.

      Delete
  27. Andy Tyme said: "OBF, much of your above summary has real, solid merit, but your own, antisocial/anarchist/insutling attitude, so intensely expressed by not only you, but also by several other total-fakery proponents, in so many previous and angry posts has, unfortunately poisoned the Fetzer-ian well pretty thoroughly."
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Andy, I was thinking the same thing. OBF, as much as I hate to say it, you will not let go of hostility towards Jim following the podcasts you were on. It is time to forgive and move on in a constructive way. Too bad when Simon posted here on your behalf, he did not explain his thesis on the fakery and also other startling claims. I don't like coyness and evasion. They have no place in scientific discussion.

    And the other side needs to loosen up and be more flexible when it comes to new material and new ideas. There is no need for rudeness and insults--ever.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Andy Tyme Said: "After all, even half a century after Dallas we still have to contend with all the Bugliosi's (and similar intellectual vermin) who monomaniacally defend the Warren Report."

    That is perfect, Andy! This has been my grievance with the JFK thing for years. How is it there are so many books and personalities supporting Oswald as the lone gunman? Not only books written by that idiot Bugliosi, and Gerald Posner, G. Robert Blakey, but the countless others, TV documentaries not to mention the presence of Arlen Specter and his big mouth until recently at last mercifully silenced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they were paid to write them of course!

      There has been an on-going campaign of disinfo to cover up the truth ever since the assassination took place.

      Delete
  29. Andy Tyme said: "Don Fox (and his fellow nukesters) may even be credited, in the long run, with being the first amateur investigators to convincingly uncover and document the covert/strategic use of nukes on American soil. (Outside of Oklahoma City, anyway.)"

    Andy, please relate exactly what you'd label as "research" by "Fox (and his fellow nukesters) ".

    I can't wait. :-)

    I have seen none- just the verbatim regurgitation of 2 government reports that is supposedly verified via entirely unverified imagery.

    Nukes at OKC? Oh please, give me a break! :-)

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Joan Edwards said: "OBF, as much as I hate to say it, you will not let go of hostility towards Jim following the podcasts you were on. It is time to forgive and move on in a constructive way. "

    Joan , FYI, I have no intention of backing off Fetzer .

    I don't forgive, no way.

    He deserves everything I throw at him [and a whole lot more] as far as I am concerned.

    I'm sick of his name-calling and pontificating/talking down tactics, and have been for quite a while.

    He started publicly insulting me 8 or 9 months ago for no reason whatsoever, and has not stopped since.

    "All" I have done in " retaliation" is to try to expose the blatant and ongoing fraudulence of his supposed "scientific" methodology , which he has used in order to reach his 9/11 conclusions to date [i.e . mini-nukes, Israel, and holographic planes].

    The fact that my repeatedly pointing out the complete fraudulence of his "scientific expert"- from- on- high claptrap obviously bugs the crap out of him [and his near mindless acolytes, Fox, Greenhalgh, jeannon etc.], and pleases me no end.

    One day I might tire of this trivial game, but for right now I plan to continue until I find other, better ways to amuse myself.

    So forget the illusory "peacemaker " crap [unless perhaps, Fetzer publicly apologizes to _me_ ] .

    I've tried to tell the truth as I see it, nothing more - unfortunately for Fetzer, in real life, the truth often hurts.

    obf

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ian Said: "Because they were paid to write them of course! There has been an on-going campaign of disinfo to cover up the truth ever since the assassination took place."
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    No kidding, Ian? The real question is why those in the know won't or can't speak up and make it clear THERE IS NO EVIDENCE Oswald did it. Jim Garrison and Mark Lane were saying this on talk shows in the middle 60s. Here's a rebuttal by Garrison to an NBC editorial in 1968: It could have been written yesterday.

    ? Jim Garrison Response - Kennedy Assassination - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Over 100 people closely linked to the assassination have died in circumstances that are suspicious. Threats against the person or the family can be very powerful and effective in maintaining silence.

      Delete
    2. "Jim Garrison and Mark Lane were saying this on talk shows in the middle 60s."

      It is almost a sacrilege to mention the names of these two polar opposites in the same sentence.

      Courageous patriotic American Jim Garrison sacrificed his life for JFK assassination truth and justice.

      Mark Lane is a subversive liar because there is no truth in him because his father is the father of lies. Mark Lane is a bottom dwelling slug.

      http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2...collins-piper/

      “This would mean that the so-called right-wing patriotic and anti-Semitic publications of the Liberty Lobby, such as the Spotlight and American Free Press, are actually controlled-opposition outfits controlled by the Zionist Jew, Mark Lane.”

      Delete
  32. PShea Said: "well, he hasn't budged an inch since I wrote that joan. I do not trust him now to deliver the real deal."
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well, we were all young and idealistic back in 2011. I thought it was nice the way you defended Fetzer. They were beating him up pretty good in this thread.
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=bbbb7b1fca978baba8412c3398310460

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh my gawd!

    Speaking of 911 scamsters/gatekeepers, now Morgan Reynolds, who had a post on his site titled "Fed Up with Fetzer" not so long ago, is now, just like Uncle Fetzer, apparently busy promoting Richard Hall's holographic plane theory:

    http://nomoregames.net/2014/03/24/richard-d-hall-talks-about-911-video-evidence/

    Sure looks like Fetzer and Reynolds were just pretending to disagree for our benefit- a variation on the old "good cop bad cop" routine maybe ? :-)

    regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This man is sick. Mentally ill. Morgan and I had serious differences over this. What rubbish from obf! But then, what else should we expect?

      Delete
  34. OBF, what is preventing you, Simon or others from SC from posting their thesis of what really happened to the WTC on 9/11?

    I think the main and first objective was to destroy the WTC because it was old, outdated for the computer age and that it would be too expensive to destroy legally. Since it was a publicly owned building, as have been most of the "terrorist" destroyed targets, they figured out a way to have the government pay for this demolition by creating the fiction of the Muslim hijackers to alibi an invasion of Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. But primarily, I think it was done for the money--especially the insurance and the terrorist plot was an after thought.

    The focus, then, was on how to demolish the WTC safely. Therefore, a lot of thought went into this process. Now, if you study how CDs are done, you know the buildings have to be prepped and empty for a successful CD. They had to keep people away from the site early on. Also, the building had to have been emptied of all impediments such as utilities, fixtures, furniture, electronics, partitions, etc.

    They created a TV movie for each of the networks--all similar but with some variations--which were run AFTER the building preparations--to voice overs by each network's main anchor. Note that all the stars were there that day--Bryant Gumbel, Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, etc. The videos lasted one hour and forty-two minutes, enough time to countdown to the demolition. The videos complete with CGI planes were shown on a huge screen in Times Square. The plane-shaped cookie cutter gashes on the towers were photoshopped in--an easy process.

    These early reports kept the public busy and anyone foolish enough to go to the scene was probably met with a huge smoke screen and lots of police and firemen. They were not looking for gashes or planes or fireballs, so lots of smoke and police presence would have seemed normal.

    The buildings were demolished in the safest and most inconspicuous way--not only WTC 1&2 but 3,4,5 and 6. Note that most of the tenants were government agencies and brokerage houses and their numbers had been dwindling. They had probably been moved from the premises little by little. It is a practice to use chutes probably in the elevator shafts to move tenant's belongings.

    Lots of footage of witnesses/actors had been pre-filmed probably during drills of some kind. Footage of fleeing crowds and dust filled streets were shown during the rest of the day and weeks that followed. Let's remember the south tower hit that is thought by some to have been a hologram was not shot on 9/11 but was a clip, one of many, shown later in the week.

    How is this so far?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only people who can put together a decent picture are the new yorkers who saw it and who had a fairly good look on the towers as to be able to differentiate between what they saw and what the rest saw on TV. They are unfortunately lost in the sea of rampant disinfo contributed by anyone else including the best legit researchers. To what extend the pigs were ready to differentiate the video material with the actual procedure cant be told from the videos alone.

      wrapping up the towers in clouds of obscurants, and then detonate the hidden buildings is what gave a chance to fool the onlookers and blend the real thing with TV stuff. the wrapping up of towers in obscurants served double purpose. first purpose was to hide the buildings from view. second purpose was to simulate top down collapses.

      Unless real time watchers were completely ignored, in which case it could have been done as one pleases, it's a fair bet.Thats where all speculations terminate and best would be to leave it like that unless a better proposition is offered or the theory is intelligently enhanced.

      Delete
  35. That's a very good start, so far, Joan, although it doesn't account, of course, for lots of "loose ends" such as the (NON-photographic) nuke evidence cited by you-know-who, the very in-your-face occult/Masonic/Kabbalistic symbolism of the destruction ritual, the selection of the anniversary the Pentagon's founding date, etc.

    Good job!

    Now, let's hear from the "usual suspects"...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Joan Edwards said : "OBF, what is preventing you, Simon or others from SC from posting their thesis of what really happened to the WTC on 9/11? "

    First of all, as I have repeatedly stated both here and elsewhere, I am _not_ a member of the September Clues site/forum, and can in no way claim to represent Simon or the general viewpoint of his and Hoi Polloi's site.

    As to Simon's views about what did and did not happen that day, as far as I can see his site has ample postulations/conclusions drawn from his thorough analysis of both the imagery, and of the main characters in the 9/11 made for TV action/drama.

    See : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477

    As to my own conclusions/postulations drawn from what I consider to be the 9/11 facts, I have very few [as I had stated in the John Friend debate with D. Fox].

    Here are the 9/11 facts [as far as I'm concerned]:

    1] all of the original MSM "live" broadcast footage was pre-manufactured on computers .

    2] all of subsequently released 9/11 imagery [video and still, N.I.S.T. and other] that has been closely examined to date has also proved to be fraudulent/highly questionable.

    3] most, [if not all], of the alleged victims listed on the on-line memorial sites and elsewhere are pre-fabricated, faked identities with faked personal histories, faked relatives, and very badly faked photo portraits.

    My conclusions from these facts follow in my next post.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As to my own relatively few conclusions to date,[for what it's worth], based on the 3 previously listed 9/11 facts, they are :

    1] By the end of the day [9/11] the entire WTC complex 9 buildings [7 buildings plus 2 others close by] appears to have been mostly destroyed. [Possibly more demolition was carried on that night and the following morning -impossible to know for certain.]

    2] because the original MSM imagery for that day is all fake , including any /all that depicts towers WTC1,,2 and 7 collapsing, and because all of the subsequently released post-9/11 video and still photographs also appears to have been faked [ N.B. there may well be genuine 9/11 imagery out there somewhere- I just have not run across any to date- neither has S. Shack, apparently]; it would be highly presumptive of me to claim that I know exactly how the WTC was demolished .

    Even if I ignore all of the visual "evidence" , the other "evidence", [mostly alleged eyewitness testimony, or US government agency reports], is _totally_ unreliable for a variety of reasons that I will not get into here.

    All that means that I [happily] conclude/admit that I don't know exactly what brought the towers down- dynamite, nukes, or D.E.W.[ although like S. Shack, I lean towards more or less standard demolition procedures using dynamite]; nor do I even care what technology was used.

    What's the point of trying to analyze faked "evidence" [ alleged imagery, eyewitness testimony, alleged US govmt. reports etc.]?- its a complete waste of time - a distraction, as far as I can see.

    3] As to why 9/11 was carried out, I talked about that in my John Friend debate:

    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/03/realist-report-911-fakery-debate.html#comment-form

    Very briefly, I believe [although I don't know for certain :-)] that 9/11 was a major US military based psyop initiated to carry out a coup d'etat - to achieve a more or less complete destruction of the last vestiges of the Bill of Rights, and to directly benefit both the Pentagon [who badly needed a new "evil" to replace the USSR and to thereby justify its own existence and continued growth in revenues/expenditures], and to benefit other various deep-seated sycophantic interests, both within and outside of the US government- sycophantic interests [too numerous to name] that must _always_ exist if you have a government in the first place.

    For, as historian Randolph Bourne famously said: "war is the health of the state".

    As economist/ historian Murray Rothbard said, government " is a gang of thieves writ large" .

    And as historian Harry Elmer Barnes famously observed : the US government is engaged in a " perpetual war for perpetual peace" ..... as all governments everywhere, must _always_ be, in my opinion.

    Regards obf

    ReplyDelete
  38. Joan Edwards said: "Let's remember the south tower hit that is thought by some to have been a hologram was not shot on 9/11 but was a clip, one of many, shown later in the week."

    The Michael Hezarkhani clip [to which I think you are referring], was first aired on 9/12/01 on CNN at 12:15am : https://archive.org/details/cnn200109120005-0047

    As I have tried to show in my analysis of that clip , here:

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html

    ..that clip is 100% fraudulent. [i.e. it is _not_ a genuine real-time video of a holographically projected plane image as R. Hall claims.]

    ....for even a hologram plane image traveling at 500+ mph [which is what Hall alleges], is physically impossible for a photographer to track/keep in frame - it just cannot be done in the real world.

    See my above linked post for more detail.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jim Fetzer said :"This man is sick. Mentally ill"

    Two weeks ago I was merely a "moron".

    FYI, I feel honored to be labelled as a "moron", "sick", "mentally ill" etc. etc. by a person who displays such a cavalier disregard for simple rules of evidence verification which inevitably result in making the 4 entirely unprofessional assumptions you have made [and continue to make] , and that I have listed in this same thread on April 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM.

    Therefor, I wear your labels ["moron", "sick", "mentally ill" etc.] as a badge of honor, and I would encourage others to do the same.

    Keep it up, sir, you're doing great :-)

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you yourself described yourself as a 'sick minded individual' and said that you only post here in orderto derive some kind of 'sick entertainment'.

      Well, to be honest, a sick little shit like you has no place among serious researchers and the sooner Jim gets sick of you and bans you then the better. You've made hundreds of posts and not one of them has made a single valid argument; Don Fox absolutely wiped the floor withyou in the debate you had and anyone with half a brain can see right through your act to the sick shill underneath.

      Delete
  40. obf regularly repeats claims that I have long since refuted. We know the origin of most of the photos and films of 9/11 and verify their origins for yourself.

    The photos and films are taken from many locations and perspectives, some from New Jersey, others from helicopters. They all hang together the right way to be authentic images of the same enduring event.

    We have them present; then they are gone--in about 10 seconds apiece. Now there are enormous clouds of very find dust, not previously present, where the Twin
    Towers were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust.

    The USGS dust samples confirm that this was a nuclear event. ofb offers the bizarre suggestion that neither the videos nor the dust samples can be trusted, even though the contradict the official account.

    He has no idea what happened on 9/11 and would have us discard some of the most important evidence on the ground that they are faked (for which he offers no evidence at all) or came from the government.

    Why in the world would anyone fake videos that show the official account of their collapse cannot be correct? And why fake dust samples that prove it was a nuclear event? This is convoluted thinking from a man who does not deserve to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jim dust is by its nature very fine, That's why it's called dust,no need to emphasize it with spare adjectives.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ I. Greenhalgh:

    Keep it up Greeny, you are doing an excellent job here of representing the "Fetzerian" , er "mindset" here- good work, I'm really impressed :-) :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-).

    Love and kisses, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  43. J.Fetzer said :"...He .....would have us discard some of the most important evidence on the ground that they are faked (for which he offers no evidence at all)"

    "(for which he offers no evidence at all)" .

    That is not true,[and you know it] but lets forget your convenient lie for the moment here and instead ask:

    exactly what would you consider to be proof that the videos or photos were fake?

    Please be specific and list ALL of the important features/anomolies that you _know_ would point to video and/or photo fakery, in the order of importance, say 1 through 6, or, if that's too many, how about 1 through 4, in order of importance?

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 9/11 VOLCANOES OR CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS?

    Notice how the WTC towers look remarkably more like volcanoes than demolitions. Where did all that ash (dust) come from? The buildings were almost all made of steel and tons of that steel, mainly core columns and seven story tridents, is stored in a hangar filled to capacity at JFK. (See Nova video on the New Ground Zero Supertower.)


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SoufriereHillsVolcano.jpg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBH67rpjd7M
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    ? Ocean Tower - Controlled Demolition, Inc. - YouTube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

    (Notice how the building turns to dust in mid air.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it looks like a volcano because what you are seeing is a pyroclastic flow where a very hot dust cloud is flowing like a liquid almost, this is a phenomena seen in volcanic eruptions and requires a LOT of energy to generate. The dustificaton in mid-air requires a huge amount of energy, which is one of the pieces of evidence for nuclear weapons - what else could produce the required amount of energy? Certainly not the dynamite that Shack and his cronies claim nor Harrit's nanothermite.

      If you think about it, and as Jim has pointed out, the the appearance of the collapse footage in and of itself blows a massive hole in Shack's theory tat the footage i faked because if you were to fake the footage, you would make it look like the pancake collapse claimed in the official narrative, whereas what we see in the footage completely contradicts that story - pyroclastic clouds, huge pieces of facade being blown outwards hundreds of feet, the 'collapse' occurring too fast and many other anomalous features.

      Just look at this photo of a small nuclear detonation as part of a series of tests to see if nuclear weapons could be effectively used for mining:

      http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/fishmerised/26_nuke1.jpg

      Notice the many similarities to the 'collapse' of the WTC towers - the pyroclastic clouds, the ejection of debris horizontally.

      Delete
  45. New World Trade Center 9/11 aerial images from ABC News | Mail Online

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html

    "All we see is the spectacular moment of collapse, what film directors call the wide shot, showing the towers in their urban setting, before, during and after their fall.


    Even for those who were there, like me, running from the cloud and choking in the dust, it is hard to believe. But what is all too evident to everyone is that this event changed the world, with consequences that will haunt us for decades.


    With the Twin Towers collapsed the world we thought we knew.

    These dramatic images were taken by police photographers in helicopters and it is the first time they have been seen, having been released under a Freedom of Information request made by America's ABC News.

    Burning buildings can be seen crumpling in on themselves as plumes of smoke rise up over the New York skyline that terrible September morning.

    The images show how the police helicopter first began taking images from afar before moving in to reveal the devastation taking place underneath.

    They also reveal the horror faced by those trapped in the burning buildings and then the walls of smoke and debris that enveloped the surrounding area as the towers came crashing down,

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Where are the pictures of the evacuees? Surely, some made it out of the buildings? If no planes, then no gashes, no fireball hits trapping people?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dr. Fetzer rhetorically asked:

    "Why in the world would anyone fake videos that show the official account of their collapse cannot be correct?"

    Here's why, Jim.

    A really effective psy-op needs a strong and long lasting EMOTIONAL PUNCH!!!

    Network television's endlessly repeated, astonishing, CGI-fabricated videos of the top-down, descending-and-dissolving "Tower Volcanoes" (great term!) were intended to be far more spectacular, shocking and gut-wrenchingly memorable than would have been some genuinely live, close shots of the way each tower actually fell, mostly cloaked behind a massive smokescreen -- as the result of an actual, bottom-upwards, controlled demolition. (And how could the public, even as gullible as they proved to be, ever accept a bottom-up collapse being caused by a fire at the top?)

    The decision to eventually assign NIST to "explain" the towers' collapse may or may not have been part of the original plan -- but hey, no matter!

    What those much-credentialled, "scientific' experts were then confronted with was their "patriotic duty" to come up with a highly technical-sounding EXCUSE for the towers' inability to survive the very kind of damage they were purportedly designed to withstand.

    And since attributing the buildings' collapses to violent, internal forces generated by ANY kind of pre-planted explosive devices would have been an IMPERMISSIBLE, even UNTHINKABLE HERESY, those NIST boffins were "boxed in" to a seemingly inescapable quandry.

    So, after "dragging their feet" through a long series of delays, they finally decided to ignore BOTH the spectacularly false videos AND the institute's mandate to use them as "evidence" in explaining the destruction. Instead, those cowards-in-white-coats "punted," releasing a convoluted, tortuous and lengthy critique of the towers' alleged construction-design flaws -- a "study" that ends its timeline just as each collapse is about to begin its IMPOSSIBLE, free-fall descent.

    And since the controlled media would, of course, brook NO serious questioning of NIST's suspicious avoidance of explaining the (occultically symbolic) 9- and 11-second "volcanic" freefalls), the perps could sleep well, knowing they got away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. well said, andy. but don't hold out much hope of persuading ahjim. considering all the time, money and effort he has put into conferences, writings and radio podcasts, he is one closed/narrow minded son of a gun (or so it is made to appear.)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well, pshea, I still do hold out some hope, since Dr. Fetzer has, over time, changed his mind about several other conspiracy-research issues.

    But I agree that he has, by now, invested so much time, effort and emotion in relying on CGI videos to buttress the nuke theory that it's going to take some kind of "personal intervention" by a close, trusted associate or esteemed investigatory colleague to effectively motivate Jim -- to re-think his hardened position and freshly consider the tower-destruction videos with a genuinely critical eye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy, you are willfully misrepresenting Jim's viewpoint. The use of nukes is not a theory based on the nature of the footage of the collapses, it has a far, far broader basis that includes a lot of solid scientific evidence such as the isotope chain found within the dust samples, the presence of thoriated water, the vast amount of energy required to dustify half a million tonnes of concrete and steel, the very high incidence of rare cancers in responders and more.

      You people who keep attacking Jim never have a sound basis for your criticism, either you are not very smart or well informed about the current state of research, have no familiarised yourself with the facts; OR you are deliberately making untenable arguments which strongly suggests you may be shills employed to attack those doing serious research and disrupt that research by constantly dragging the level of debate down.

      Jim has stated this many times as have I - the destruction footage is not all that important in the grand scheme of things, it is just one facet of a very broad range of data and research.

      The way that many people suh as obf, pshea and Shack constantly harp on about the fakery of footage and never talk about any other aspect is clear proof that they are shills because keeping the debate stuck at the level of fake or not in the videos and images, it means nothing important ever gets discussed.

      If you people really do think the fakery or not of the videos is so important then you are either quite stupid or are shills doing it to derail further investigation. Either way,i don't see why Jim should waste him time on you.

      Delete
  49. Ian, your excessively hostile attitude seems to have blinded you to my own, frequently expressed position. I have never claimed that the nuke theory was impossible and that there was no evidence to support it except for CGI animated videos.

    While the bulk of NON-video data which suggest nuke activity at "Ground Zero" does come extensively from government sources (and thus DESERVES some healthy scepticism) it also could be accurate.

    And my most recent posting clearly referred to Dr. Fetzer's "buttressing" his adherence to the nuke theory with the CGI videos, not using them as his sole justification for belief.

    I deeply regret that the Shacksters repulsed so many honest 9/11 investigators (Jim being the most notable) by jubilantly over-stresseing the POSSIBILITY that "nobody died" and thus cutting back on their earlier, extensive, and very valuable, victim-by-victim, crowd-sourced searches for PROOFS (or the blatant lack thereof) that these "departed" individuals were real people with traceable life histories.

    Perhaps when Simon's long-planned, book-length study of 9/11 fakery is finally published, the most telling examples of his coterie's victim-verification research will be much more accessible (and open to rational examination and debate) than it, sadly, is now -- scattered as the material is among many hundreds of blog posts and in several differently titled and categorised threads.

    ReplyDelete
  50. We are making this way too complicated.

    As to the explosives used to take out the WTC, I don't rule out the use of nukes. In fact, I supported the idea when it was first talked about here mainly because Khaselov (sp?) said that nukes were the only explosives that would reduce the all steel WTC towers to dust. We needed that to happen to protect the bathtub beneath the towers. He also said the building codes said that these newer extreme high rises had to have plans for a take-down should it be necessary.

    It was also implied that the WTC towers had a built-in demolition system. This was bolstered by an earlier podcast with someone named Lewis (?) whose WTC engineer father had told how he resigned from the job when he was told a demolition system was to be built into the towers.

    Here's what I don't buy in the nuke story Don Fox is trying to sell.

    First, any take-down requires preparation such as removal of all partitions, furniture, fixtures, utilities, office equipment, carpeting, etc. Fox's nuke theory has all of these items "vaporized." In classic demolitions, these items need to be removed or otherwise they become flying projectiles. It is easy to do via chutes in the center of the buildings. They move out tenants by this method all the time.

    Second, the preparation of a planned demolition, nuclear or otherwise, would not include people. The thousands of employees entering the WTC on 9/11 couldn't have happened if the buildings had been prepared for demolition. Elevators wouldn't have been working, nor would the lights or anything else. People would have been tipped off by the empty building not to mention absence of desks and work stations.

    Third, the 3,000 number had to be pulled out of a hat. Did the perps used real bombs and destroy the staircases minutes before the demolition?. Would real explosives be used if the towers had been rigged to explode? How could so many be trapped in a building that was never struck by planes or anything else and how did they get trapped? (Why were people posting "missing" pictures of their loved ones in the middle of the night as if looking for lost dogs?)

    Fourth, where are the pictures of the evacuation of WTC after the so-called hits? Are we to believe the obviously fictitious YouTube videos such as "Inside the WTC"? Why are there videos of the towers demolishing but they never show the bases of the buildings where hundreds should be evacuating?

    Fifth, for Don Fox, et.al.,there would be no nuke theory except that it neatly explains how thousands of people could disappear by being "vaporized" along with furniture and fixtures. Why is it necessary to believe that the thugs who did 9/11 were also premeditative murderers?

    For a nuclear explosion, implosion, to succeed, the area had to be cleared of innocent bystanders and crew lest something would go wrong. Such a serious event could not allow details like the video record to spoil things. If the archived videos show inserted CGI planes, we can assume the rest of the 104 minute video preceeding the demolition was also altered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. you are correct of course joan.

    consider the 9/11, jfk and Diana sagas now solved.
    all faked. all ritualistic.

    http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=257799&postcount=786

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up...

    ....no more.

    now, let's get Sirius!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Greenhalgh said : " the destruction footage is not all that important in the grand scheme of things, it is just one facet of a very broad range of data and research."

    Horseshit, Greenhalgh you insufferable fool!

    The original, on archive MSM "live" 9/11 footage plus all of the other imagery to date of the WTC's destruction is the _ONLY_ easily accessible , fully examinable 9/11 "evidence" that we all have .

    Anyone has access to that imagery on line and can make their own determinations as to its genuineness or falsity.

    On the other hand,the other "facets" of 9/11 "evidence" you fantasize about are mostly merely government agency reports that _cannot_ be cross-checked/verified for accuracy; nor have the backgrounds of any of the alleged individuals responsible for those reports ever been closely examined; nor have the laboratories where the various dust samples were allegedly examined/tested been checked for pre-contamination levels via prior experiments/research; nor has a clear, verifiable chain of custody for any of those alleged dust/soil/water samples allegedly studied been established to date.

    Nor have the criminal histories/records of either of these agencies been taken into account, and yet "we" are all supposed to assume that in this one instance, they are both being truthful. Yeah , right. :-)

    In short, there is no good reason for an intellectually honest, fully independent 9/11 researcher to ever assume that those alleged USGS and DOE studies were ever actually even undertaken!

    Like yourself, they are all probably nothing more than hot air and BS. [ I guess like attracts like :-) ]

    obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More 'it's all fake' horseshit from obf.

      More evidence that obf hasn't go the faintest idea abut the proper scientific method of research.

      The proper method of research is to examine ALL possible sources of data and evidence then to cross-check between it. Only by following this method can valid hypothesis be formed.

      obf and the rest of the fakery fools want people to focus only on the video and photos and whether they are fake or not for the simple reason that this is a good way to prevent people doing any proper research, it keeps things on a superficial and invalid level where nothing useful will ever be discovered and no answers will ever be found.

      In short, obf is performing gatekeeping duties, he's nothing but a troll and a shill.

      Delete
  53. Greenhalgh said :"The proper method of research is to examine ALL possible sources of data and evidence then to cross-check between it. Only by following this method can valid hypothesis be formed"

    BREAKING!....this just in!....:

    there is nothing either "proper", "scientific" , nor "logical" about supposedly "verifying" one _potential_ [i.e. unproven] piece of completely un-checked, unverified "evidence" - whether it be a photo, a video, "eyewitness testimony", or a government study, with other similarly completely un-checked, unverified pieces of so-called "evidence", no matter how numerous they might be; regardless of whether they are photos, videos, "eyewitness testimonies" or alleged government reports/studies, and regardless of whether "they all hang together" or not.

    This process, as you yourself described, is nothing more than pseudo-science/false logic - that is, fake scientific research masquerading as legitimate scientific research.

    But it is no surprise to myself that yourself, Fetzer , Fox, Hall etc. continue to fantasize that this fake logical/deductive process you have all repeatedly described in these threads is actually correct [i.e. "proper" ] , when in truth, _nothing_ could be further from the truth.

    But don't stop- keep it up Greenhalgh/Fetzer et al- you clowns are doing a great job [entertainment wise :-) ]

    Regards,obf.

    ReplyDelete
  54. PSHEA SAID: "consider the 9/11, jfk and Diana sagas now solved.
    all faked. all ritualistic."

    http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=257799&postcount=786

    "fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up..."
    _________________________________
    Well, I went to the site and am familiar with the amazing numerology connections and symbolism everywhere, but what does it all mean? It seems as soon as we get close to figuring out how the deeds were done, someone then goes directly to the occult, ritualistic, Illuminati stuff. Diana and JFK did die for real, didn't they? Maybe you could elaborate on this concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course JFK and Diana died, anyone who says otherwise is either a shill or a nutjob. Culto's work is the most ludicrous, laughable crap I've ever seen, so bad it is even worse than Simon Shacks 'analysis'.

      If pshea is pushing the idea that 9/11, JFK and Diana are solved because they were fake then he's either a complete idiot or a disinfo shill. I suspect the latter.

      Delete
  55. Joan, the use of Masonic/Kabbalistic symbolism and numerology is VERY common in the many dark deeds that bring about wars, revolutions, and even the (temporary) cessation of wars. cf. the perps' delaying the stopping of the fighting and dying in World War One until -- wait for it -- the Masonically blessed "eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month"....... or the fiery "shock-and-awe" (Shekinah/Burning Bush) invasion of Iraq being scheduled for the "Purim" celebration of the ancient Hebrews' bloody triumph over Persia (ancient Iraq). And unless you're very new to occultic-conspiracy studies, you MUST be familiar, by now, with that fantastic samizat of the pre-Internet era called "King Kill 33":

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/seldes.kingkilltoc.htm

    But it's a whole 'nother ball game to make the decidedly NON-Kierkegaardian leap of faith that the most mystical of the Shacksters do -- and posit that ALL high-profile, symbolism-and-numerology-drenched political assassinations are but elaborate charades, with their lucky targets each surviving to live out their lives in some secret island paradise (to borrow one of Jim's favourite phrases) "SIPPING MAI TAIS". ;)

    The Culto Cult is, of course, entitled to their belief system. But you, Joan, seem far too grounded in reality to be seduced... I hope!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we, the dis-informed rabble, are the "lucky" targets of the elaborate charades you speak of.

      Delete
  56. Andy Tyme Said: " [the Shacksters] posit that ALL high-profile, symbolism-and-numerology-drenched political assassinations are but elaborate charades, with their lucky targets each surviving to live out their lives in some secret island paradise The Culto Cult is, of course, entitled to their belief system. But you, Joan, seem far too grounded in reality to be seduced... I hope!

    ____________________________________
    I'm familiar with the occult stuff and why certain numbers are used as well as symbols, etc. What I don't get is why, when I'm on the verge of solving the mysteries of 9/11, for instance, my allies on the board always start posting information on these occult tie-ins. What are they trying to say? "It's useless to go any further?" "It's beyond our understanding." "Stop now or you'll regret it?"

    No, I'm not seduced by these people with their fascination with and what seems to be some kind of a need to know that "bad" people and "evil" exists and thrives in the world. I don't think the world works that way. Is there such a thing as black magic? Probably. Looking at media psy-op practices, it works on a certain scale. What I see is a department of intel agents whose job it is to plan false flag events using Masonic and theosophical symbolism and numbers to freak out the public and to divert their attention.

    Have you noticed that sometimes an event is just loaded with the occult and other times not? The Chilean miners was a case rife with numerological coincidences and you have to ask yourself why that would be.

    We are counting on people like PShea to really enlighten us on this issue. My brain is already cluttered with facts from all the insane events of the past 50 years. I don't need the confusion of more stuff unless it's really good.

    "Less is more.".....Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

    ReplyDelete
  57. JEANNON said: "Jim Garrison and Mark Lane were saying this on talk shows in the middle 60s."

    "It is almost a sacrilege to mention the names of these two polar opposites in the same sentence. Courageous patriotic American Jim Garrison sacrificed his life for JFK assassination truth and justice."

    "Mark Lane is a subversive liar because there is no truth in him because his father is the father of lies. Mark Lane is a bottom dwelling slug.
    http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2...collins-piper/"
    ____________________________________
    You are full of baloney, Jeannon. The above link doesn't even work. I've been reading some of your posts and all you do is knock 9/11 researchers. You claim to have read 20 books on 9/11. What have you read on JFK? None, I'll bet. If you ever decide to actually read something on JFK, Lane's are the first and best books to read. You have no idea what you are talking about. Lane and Garrison were close friends. You are just a hate monger and gossip like your unstable nut-case friend Piper.
    ------------------------------------------

    http://voices.yahoo.com/who-mark-lane-famed-attorney-was-first-question-6478306.html?cat=37

    Who is Mark Lane? Famed Attorney was First to Question Warren Report .....Lane is the lawyer who made his name writing the 1966 book Rush to Judgment that eviscerated the Warren Report,.....
    .In the December 19, 1963 edition of the National Guardian, Lane published an article "Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief" that University of Rhode Island Professor Kenneth A. Rahn, Sr. says on his Academic JFK Assassination Website "is the first American reaction of a critical nature" that he knows about.

    Lane became nationally known by briefly representing Lee Harvey Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. She had chosen Lane after reading the National Guardian article. He petitioned the Warren Commission, a blue chip panel looking into the JFK assassination that was chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, to represent the late Lee Harvey Oswald's interests before the Commission, but was turned down.

    Jim Garrison

    Mark Lane later worked with the even more controversial Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, who indicted and tried a local businessman for allegedly conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. Garrison told Playboy Magazine he did not question the Warren Report until 1966, and cited Lane's book as one of the sources that sowed doubt in his mind and spurred his investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mark Lane and his nearly-the-same-age father-in-law, Willis Carto, continue to be, in the twilight of their long and controversy-strewn lives, enigmas.

    Were they authentic truth-searchers, or were they both playing high-profile, public roles assigned them by sinister, hidden forces?

    There is, I'm sad to say, way too much reason to suspect the latter is true, but nevertheless these men both appear to have performed highly valuable work in causing us to question a great deal of "official history".

    Yet lingering, troubling, even painful questions remain -- whose answers lie buried with the dead of Jonestown.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Andy said: Mark Lane and his nearly-the-same-age father-in-law, Willis Carto, continue to be, in the twilight of their long and controversy-strewn lives, enigmas.

    Were they authentic truth-searchers, or were they both playing high-profile, public roles assigned them by sinister, hidden forces?

    There is, I'm sad to say, way too much reason to suspect the latter is true, but nevertheless these men both appear to have performed highly valuable work in causing us to question a great deal of "official history".

    Yet lingering, troubling, even painful questions remain -- whose answers lie buried with the dead of Jonestown.
    __________________________________
    Yes, Andy, I've heard this before. I have yet to see evidence of wrongdoing by Lane. Willis Carto ran a good newspaper for years, "The Spotlight," which was considered anti-Semitic. I had a subscription to it in the late 70s, and found it truthful. It was more truthful on domestic activity of the CIA/FBI--"The American Gestapo"--as Skolnick used to call them, than liberal magazines like Zed and The Nation to which I also subscribed. The ADL was always attacking The Spotlight. Was Carto just kidding around?

    Do you remember Lane's appearances on the Tonight Show and other late night talk shows? You can see them on You Tube. Lane's books Rush to Judgement and Plausible Denial are the very best. What other author comes even close to Lane? I hope you all have read these books and also "A Citizen's Dissent." They are great.

    I don't know what happened at Jonestown or how Lane got mixed up in it. He has written a book which I haven't read. He's the only JFK writer I trust. Whatever happened there, I can only say Lane's books are the greatest and I really don't care about the allegations of people like John Judge.

    Since Lane is one of the few to blame the CIA for JFK, I suspect they are behind the smears.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The Black Hole of Guyana--The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre, by John Judge, 1985

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html

    _____________________________________
    Who do you folks use as your main source for JFK, David Lifton, Robert Groden, Vincent Bugliosi, John Judge, the "mafia did it authors," etc.? I can't think of a single author other than Lane who got it right.

    I don't care what happened in Guyana. Lane was working on the MLK case with Dick Gregory and they wrote "Murder in Memphis" together. It exonerated James Earl Ray who died in prison decades later for a crime he didn't commit and whom William Pepper found not guilty after Ray's death in a case brought by the King family.

    So, who are you going to believe? All the CiA operatives who write misleading books about these cases? The CIA, naturally. They never quit.

    Don't forget the movie Lane wrote "Executive Action" in 1974. The cable stations never show it, but it is more accurate than Stone's JFK who used Jim Marrs "Crossfire" as the main reference. I haven't read it but hear it is next best to Lane's. Also trusted works are by Prouty, "The Secret Team" and Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassin."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK: Mark Lane, Robert K. Tanenbaum: 9781616084288: Amazon.com: Books

    The last word on the JFK assassination by the New York Times bestselling author and JFK historian!

    Mark Lane tried the only U.S. court case in which the jurors concluded that the CIA plotted the murder of President Kennedy, but there was always a missing piece: How did the CIA control cops and secret service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza? How did federal authorities prevent the House Select Committee on Assassinations from discovering the truth about the complicity of the CIA?

    Now, New York Times best-selling author Mark Lane tells all in this explosive new book—with exclusive new interviews, sworn testimony, and meticulous new research (including interviews with Oliver Stone, Dallas Police deputy sheriffs, Robert K. Tanenbaum, and Abraham Bolden) Lane finds out first hand exactly what went on the day JFK was assassinated. Lane includes sworn statements given to the Warren Commission by a police officer who confronted a man who he thought was the assassin. The officer testified that he drew his gun and pointed it at the suspect who showed Secret Service ID. Yet, the Secret Service later reported that there were no Secret Service agents on foot in Dealey Plaza.

    ReplyDelete
  62. A full length interview with Mark Lane about his latest book, "Last Word, My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaw35LPEvI
    _________________________________
    RUSH TO JUDGMENT" (1967) (MARK LANE FILM)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY
    _________________________________
    All you need to know about the JFK assassination is in "Rush to Judgement" (link above) which is the defense of LHO by Mark Lane in 1967. You don't even have to read the book as it is on You Tube.

    Unlike the 9/11 Commission, the Warren Commission used real witness sworn testimony. In their report, much witness testimony was either disregarded or contradicted.

    We now know that many of the witnesses to
    9/11 were really actors and/or relatives of television personnel. The report reads like a novel as opposed to a legal document. It is unclear what the testimony of the witnesses was and whether it was taken under oath.

    ReplyDelete