Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Janet Phelan / Larry Rivera

"War on Terror" / JFK show #16 (w/ Gary King)

128 comments:

  1. Gary King , wonderful job. Your shows are really coming together. I like your style and authenticity. Is it me, Gary, or are musicians disproportionately in this truth movement? I play bass and noticed it is common, from Kevin Barrett to Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Creations. By the way, I cried for some reason hearing. "imagine" this time, and your sound montage really hit home how John Lennon was one of us. And the "brotherhood of man" line really got to me. We all congregate in places like this, trying to evolve the Earth, and it's a great feeling knowing we have each other in spite of the chaos of the avarice. I wish there could be further ways to solidify the tenuous connections formed online to create a kind of "militia of the mind" where we knew our own. I have supported Jim as he has taken flak as he boldly and courageously gies where otherss fear to. I encourage others to express gratitude for the work all these fine people do for us for free. It is truly an honor to listen to such fine fouls and to assist in whatever manner we are able. Hopefully one day soon we will begin to look around and see that everyone is in a similar "band" of brothers and sisters, each helping the other to find wisdom, and optimism. I like JFK because he was a troubadour in his way and he lamented that more rulers should be poets. How true. I salute this show and it's audience of wonderful souls, each with their diverse pieces if the puzzle. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solfeggio -

      " Hopefully one day soon we will begin to look around and see that everyone is in a similar "band" of brothers and sisters, each helping the other to find wisdom, and optimism."

      "..... more rulers should be poets."



      You sound like a G*da*ned commie to me, boy. Btw, Stalin wrote poetry as did Hitler. We don't need any more poetry writing mass murderers.


      Are you on drugs or what?





      Delete
  2. Fine souls, not fouls, darned iPhone spelling, lol...!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you on the musicians thing... there does seem to be a connection to plucking strings and wanting to know the truth... isn't it amazing that John is singing about world peace as JFK and there is a song sung by the same man screaming out his killers names, Like the CIA and FBI and the BBC "main stream media in the cover up" Youtube Revision of Evidence and see how JFK and Synthesizer just go hand in hand.

      Delete
  3. Maybe to claim definitely that nuclear weapons are a hoax is to go too far. I remain skeptical about they being real though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sceptical on what grounds?

      The physical evidence alone constitutes concrete proof.

      Delete
    2. If you doubt that nuclear weapons exist you are either totally scientifically illiterate, a complete moron or a shill.

      Delete
    3. One reason Anders is skeptical to nukes is because the reported Trinity crater looks like it was made by a bulldozer since the radial lines don't align with the center of the crater as they should, had they been caused by an explosion. You Nukeologist haven't responded to this either:
      http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/148/ttcz.jpg

      You have to be totally scientifically illiterate if you can make yourself believe that the biggest reported explosions in the history of war history destroyed entire cities without leaving any traces of a shockwave on the ground. The obvious conclusion here is that Hiroshima was firebombed by swarms of B29 carrying M69 amiable cluster firebombs. That explains also the absence of evidence for a massive shockwave. The damage signature is exactly the same as the damage signature of the Tokyo firebombing 6 months prior to Hiroshima. The evidence for firebombing is obviously very clear.

      Also missing lots of reports on eardrum ruptures. Nukes should be quite load, like about 248dB(?), and eardrums rupture
      will occur at about 195dB. Where did all those deaf survivors go?

      More here from the founder of the modern nuke revisionism, Roger Desjardins:
      http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/250336-atom-bomb-hoax-revisited/page-1

      Delete
    4. Anyone who doubts the existence of nuclear weapons
      needs a "Little Boy" stuck up his heinie and remotely detonated.

      Look, mom!! No crater!!

      Delete
    5. Is that all you have Elmo? That wasn't much.

      Delete
    6. El Buggo

      It certainly rattled your cage!!

      Thanks very MUCH for your reply,
      LITTLE BOY!!

      Elmo

      Delete
    7. No Elmo, you are nothing more than an annoying mosquito, or like a two-year-old still in diapers, and nothing you say can offend me the slightest.

      Your behavior is very understandable though, as it must be really hard for you guys to prove that this fiction is real. If it was real, there wouldn't be so very many huge holes in the story.

      Delete
    8. El Buggo

      Why are you getting so emotional again?

      Calm down right now!

      Delete
    9. Why are you also so dishonest, Elmo? Please prove you're not a robot

      Delete
    10. Why are you so emotional.....and a deluded fantasist?

      Prove you're not a "Hiroshimoron".

      Delete
    11. El Buggo:

      "..... you are nothing more than an annoying mosquito, or like a two-year-old still in diapers."

      Two year olds in diapers ANNOY
      you??!! Why?

      Is it because they are older than you?

      Are you nuts?



      Delete
    12. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb that was primitive by today’s standards. Only 1.38% of its uranium actually fissioned. The main effect of the bomb was fire. The mass fire burned for 6 hours and consumed 4.5 square miles of the city.

      The Little Boy Bomb:

      Dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, it was the first nuclear weapon used in a war. Following are some approximate statistics for Little Boy. If you require more extensive information on this weapon, please contact us:

      Weight: 9,700 lbs

      Length: 10 ft.; Diameter: 28 in.

      Fuel: Highly enriched uranium; “Oralloy”

      Uranium Fuel: approx. 140 lbs; target – 85 lbs and projectile – 55 lbs

      Target case, barrel, uranium projectile, and other main parts ferried to Tinian Island via USS Indianapolis

      Uranium target component ferried to Tinian via C-54 aircraft of the 509th Composite Group

      Efficiency of weapon: poor

      Approx. 1.38% of the uranium fuel actually fissioned

      Explosive force: 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent

      Use: Dropped on Japanese city of Hiroshima; August 6, 1945

      Delivery: B-29 Enola Gay piloted by Col. Paul Tibbets

      Pound for pound nukes are not as loud as chemical explosives. Nukes make more of a rumble which is what you hear as the Towers come down.

      Delete
    13. Thanks Don, for this Wikipedia report you just dropped.

      Of course, they have created some data for the bomb in the story - of course.

      Re: The main effect of the bomb was fire.

      That is the exact main effect from the M69 amiable cluster firebombs too! That would cost <$1mil for the same area destroyed as this reported >$1billon nuke.

      According to the reports, that nuke ROCKED Enola Gay at 32,333 ft TWISE. So there must have been some explosion there too, if we are going to believe these reports from this very controlled military source. This is also consistent with this gigantic smoke plume that rose to 40000 ft they also reported.

      One of the very many huge holes in this nuke report is that we are totally unable to see or detect or find traces of any shockwave on the ground. Must be something there to be able to believe in those biggest explosions in the history of war reports, but no, we cannot get that verified - no evidence for a shockwave on the ground in Hiroshima. Very consistent with AN-M69 Incendiary bombs though.

      Here is how they may have fooled the pilots in the swarms of B29: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg0faujaOow

      Would like to have your comment on Anders observation that the Trinity crater was dug with a bulldozer since the radial lines don't align with the center of the crater as they should, had they been caused by an explosion: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/148/ttcz.jpg

      What we hear the Towers come down depends on what video and what version of it we are listening to - soundtracks are very inconsistent, so we really cant tell.

      I know it is hard to prove that nukes are real as dynamite when we bring up the very many huge holes in the story all the time. Sorry about that, Don.

      Delete
  4. If Jim Fetzer and Simon Shack will have a debate my guess is that Jim will win about the WTC collapse footage being real and Simon will win about nukes being a hoax. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you believe the WTC videos are real then you have little choice but to accept the nuclear demolition theory. Nothing else on earth can explain those giant buildings disappearing from the skyline that fast.

      Delete
    2. Don, as Frankly Speaking explained so well, if you are going to believe that Manhattan was nuked 911, you cant simultaneous believe that the live video was genuine.

      Delete
    3. My current belief is that the WTC towers had been constructed to collapse like that. And the towers were largely hollow (most floors missing). That explains the small pile of debris at ground zero. The big dust clouds were created by a huge number of cement bags mounted on the inside of the facades.

      Delete
    4. I forgot to mention that ordinary explosives were used in the WTC demolition and thermite to weaken the floors where the collapses started. Plus there were huge explosions below the towers a few seconds before the initial collapses.

      Delete
    5. The towers had been built to collapse? Cement bags to make dust?

      Come on Anders, are you friggin crazy or what?

      The WTC towers were steel structures and they were destroyed with nuclear weapons which vapourised a large part of the material.

      At least attempt to study the evidence before making up these insane theories.

      Delete
    6. @Ian Greenhalgh It's not my own theory. I heard it from someone from the the Let's Roll forum I think it was. It's the most plausible explanation to me so far. I will change my mind if something more convincing pops up, or if the idea becomes falsified.

      Delete
    7. There's nothing plausible about it, it's an insane piece of nonsense, which is all you will ever learn from disinfo outlet's like let's roll and sept clues - nonsense.

      Educate yoursel - 9/11 was a nuclear event using enhanced thermobaric nuclear weapons that were manufactured in Israel using W54 warheads illegally transferred from the USA.

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/28/deconstructing-christopher-bollyn-and-steve-jones/

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/04/369796/most-lethal-weapon-in-us-hands/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/

      Delete
    8. Agree Ian, there is nothing plausible (except that "ordinary explosives" part) with Anders demolition scenario. But it is still within the laws of nature, and this is not very crucial, so I didn't comment on it. It must be something he has picked up in Lets Troll forum. Simply too silly for cluesforum.info.

      When are you nuke hoax deniers going to comment on Anders excellent observation re the photo of the Trinity crater? This isn't very promising for your faith and science fiction stories if you cannot even explain why radial lines don't align with the center of the crater as they should had they been caused by an explosion. Looks like a bulldozer could have made it:

      http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/148/ttcz.jpg

      I have asked you at least 5 times now. It all needs to hang together, you know. Cannot possible be a problem for you Ian. Just throw it into you BS generator, and post the output here. Thank you.

      Delete
    9. El Buggo

      "Just throw it into you BS generator, and post the output here."

      So that's how YOU do it!!

      Don't worry. Your secret's safe with us,
      bullshitter!

      Delete
  5. Solfeggio said : "Is it me, Gary, or are musicians disproportionately in this truth movement?".

    'Don't know that I want to be counted as part of any so-called "truth movement" [ all movements suck IMO], however I do claim to be musician of sorts.

    And yes, there do seem to be a lot of musicians involved, for whatever reason.

    Gerard Holmgren was a musician, so is Simon Shack [whose self-composed music I greatly admire BTW]. Even Ace Baker is a musician.

    As to my own claims to "musicianship", I just recently posted 3 remixes of other artist songs that I have reinterpreted, for anyone out there that's interested. they are all in what I call a "noir, blues/hip-hop" style :

    "Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58oApfKcVE&list=UU7SbJcPzRCkhlNrJujH6jyw

    "The Thrill Is Gone":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99Cq6u4DqM

    "Face In The Crowd Blues":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SARKokyLAfo&list=UU7SbJcPzRCkhlNrJujH6jyw

    Enjoy! [or not :-)]

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anders Lindman said : 'If Jim Fetzer and Simon Shack will have a debate my guess is that Jim will win about the WTC collapse footage being real and Simon will win about nukes being a hoax. :D"

    It depends on what you mean by "debate", Anders.

    A real debate would need a neutral moderator to interject/prevent behavior such as browbeating, scoffing, talking down , ad hominem etc. etc.; all of which are standard operating procedure for Fetzer on his own show.

    Besides which, Mr Fetzer apparently has absolutely no idea as to what specific signs/giveaways to even look for with regard to C.G.I. [i.e video fakery], and is reluctant to even admit that much- so the only way for him to "win" any such "debate" regarding imagery fakery would, I assume, presumably rest on his ability to successfully scoff, brow-beat, talk down to etc. etc. in his time honored fashion.

    Hey! If it "works", why change?

    Reagards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, Onebornfree!!

    Why don't you be the moderator?
    You could supply all the
    " browbeating, scoffing, talking down , ad hominem etc. etc." in YOUR time honored fashion.

    Whadya say?


    Rearguards, Elmo!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Think about how difficult it would have been to generate computer graphics for the WTC collapses. Compare with the shockingly crude 2D plane silhouette inserted in the live television feeds. Did they make such a monumental difference in quality and difficulty just as a double conspiracy theory detour bait? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ONLY fake imagery on 9/11 were the live insertions of 2D plane silhouettes. Very easy to do. The rest was real footage. Sure, loads of extras running around, planted witnesses and plastic dummies thrown out of windows, but it was all done LIVE, except for the amateur videos etc which had planes inserted after the event.

      Delete
    2. should it not also be very easy to scale down the wtc and recreate the collapse in a lab?

      and if it isn't, why not?

      is it because of the lack of the requisite magic weaponry?

      i'm no philosopher of science, but i thought scientific "debates" were generally settled in the lab.

      Delete
    3. I will say this, "we must entertain those notions that seem at first absurd, even such that certain weapons systems could be part of an international psy- ops. Hell, even MacNamara's cryptic comments on nukes implied the unspoken rule was that we could never, ever use them. I believe in approaching all ideas without ridicule. While I currently do believe in nukes, I just don't think anyone can a priori put any position down. How many do this to the notion of 911 being a false flag to come around later? Nukes are also cloaked by the NST. But I believe for certain in the video fakery of a) plane compositing; b) crowd compositing; c) Anders Brevik as a composite (sounds crazy, but look it up). I don't have reason to think the destruction as seen was an effect but then again, it could be, and is worthy of debate. I think Fetzer has always been respectful in debates with a person. He may express incredulity with other guests in an off-debate fashion, but he would be respectful in any neutral debate. The notion of evidence is key here; as there is much evidence for nuclear detonations. If the whole case on the other dude is based on conjecture and analysis of test explosions, I think it needs corroborating evidence. But maybe that exists. But I don't think Simon Shack's work is just about the existence of nukes, so it shouldn't be framed that way. Rather that should just be one conjecture among many. I think Shack's work is important because the issue of fakery is not given its due. But if people start going too fringe, it poisons while fakery well and turns off people who might entertain the no- plane theories. So it remains to be seen what the ultimate answers are, but healthy discussion and debate is integral to sorting the wheat from the chaff. I think the nuclear ground zero theories are most promising as of now and such truth would be red hot. I would expect people rebutting this; but it must be more than picture analysis. I think the Vic-Sim report is important and good work. So why there should be a tone of sarcasm or animosity among fellow truth seekers is beyond me. Avoiding debates based on straw man arguments is weak. If people have strong ideas, why not bring them? I see Fetzer always modifying his views as new or better evidence arrives. Maybe Simon' great work was bought out; I hardly hear him out defending his position all these years, and those who do, end up saying JFK did not die. So Shack's work has a marketing problem, if it's base is indeed solid. And that still remains to be seen in this climate of disinformation. I can yell its merits from the mountain top but it's own advocates and representatives seek acrimony and hide from the sunshine. I'm trying to change the world and you're worried about debate conditions? Sounds like a bit if ego is dominating the will to serve the commons. One shouldn't claim lofty status as being above debates as one shirks for them. You want to do it neutral; do it neutral. But complaining before the fact when you have the incredible position to persuade is not smelling well.

      Delete
    4. my point was debate is meaningless if we are indeed concerned about the science.

      no need for clap-trap. the issue is whether the collapse can be recreated in a lab? and given all the resources in the world even my not-so-humble ego wouldn't have the slightest idea how to turn a structural steel tower into dust in 11 feckin seconds.

      would yours?

      Delete
    5. plastic dummies RC operated by the master puppet from the bunker.

      Delete
    6. @Solfeggio, the evidence is key and there is 0 evidence for the nukes apart from of course the "vast body of evidence" which exist purely in imagination. For nearly 100 years of this hoax the nukes or the nuke tech never made it into the real world in any usable form, be it production or engineering. The idea of something small exploding with the excess power of thousands of tons of gunpowder is out of this world, eg. it never happened in nature. I will bet it is not possible to create such a device. Look at the whole science in front of it. There is very few who get it and the rest is nodding their heads.

      Delete
    7. Shack hasn't done any great work, he hasn't even done any valid work, it's all disinfo nonsense.

      As for how to vapourise the WTC tower in 11 seconds no need to speculate, we know exactly how it was done - they used nuclear demolition munitions, in particular an enhanced type that uses a remanufactured W54 warhead as it's primary core and has an iron-oxide secondary. This type of bomb is designed to destroy large metal objects - the iron oxide functions to vapourise iron and steel, hence the presence of tiny iron spheres in the dust.

      The time for debating how the WT was destroyed is over, we now have the answers in the form of hard science .

      These articles tell the story and contain some highly classified material that has recently been leaked, not least of which is the real 9/11 report carried out by Sandia Labs in 2003 on behalf of the Department of Energy:

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/04/369796/most-lethal-weapon-in-us-hands/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/

      Delete
    8. damn, ian once again with conclusive proof. how does he do it?

      Delete
    9. You must not be paying attention seu bobo. Have you bothered reading the links he posted? Gordon has been getting some great info from behind the scenes lately.

      Gordon's sources have confirmed that yes 9/11 WAS a nuclear event. As much as that will make the shills like Shack, OBF and El Buggo howl, there it is.

      Not like we didn't know already. The USGS dust samples clearly show nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

      Let's look at two elements found in the USGS dust samples: Strontium and Yttrium:

      Strontium was found at very high levels in the dust samples. Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope of strontium produced by nuclear fission with a half-life of 28.8 years. It undergoes β− decay into yttrium-90, with a decay energy of 0.546 MeV. Strontium-90 has applications in medicine and industry and is an isotope of concern in fallout from nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents. Yttrium-90 is a decay product of strontium-90. Yttrium-90 is produced by chemical high-purity separation from strontium-90, a fission product of uranium in nuclear reactors. We see strontium decaying into yttrium in the USGS dust samples. This absolute proof of nuclear fission.

      Delete
    10. secret government sources produced from one of the government's "big science" labs that is currently run by lockheed are useless to me. the government and industry have impugned their own credibility my whole life-time, but now i'm supposed to believe a report from watermelon labs or the usgs because gordon duff wrote a half page article in feckin veterans today?

      you guys are a trip.

      Delete
    11. @seu bobo Several angles of video and photos of Manhattan with the WTC towers collapsing, that would have been difficult to do convincingly with models I think. The dust clouds for example, falling out of the sides of the collapsing towers would have looked faked if models would have been used. And computer graphics would have been difficult to make convincing-looking too.

      Delete
    12. i don't care how the towers were demolished, i just want somebody to re-create the collapse in a lab. i don't think it is possible.

      as far as the cartoon we were shown on tv, i have no idea how it was done. i'm not in show business.

      Delete
  9. FIRE THE PRODUCER HIRE GARY KING!

    "I have invited him to vary the cadence for those he puts up. Sorry you are not a "happy camper"!"

    Well, here I am again singin' 'em same old blues. Day Tripper ... same shit over, over over over over over over over.

    Obviously your producer did not take your invitation seriously Doc.

    In 1st segment the guest's volume is at least 3 times louder than your volume. 2nd seg oK. Gary King does a wonderful job!

    Why do you settle for an inferior product? After spending so much time and effort. Seems a bit loony to me.

    IMO, the producer is MOONING your fan base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 911truthnc:

      Put a sock in it, Michelle, ma belle, honey.

      Get your ears tested.

      You moron!

      Delete
    2. Dick Cheney is talking about a "new 9/11" that will be far more deadly than the last one. Perhaps 200,000 people killed next time. And you're bitching about Day Tripper...

      Delete
    3. We vary the cadence from time to time, but I am responsible for what goes out on the air. It is a shoestring operation and we do not have a studio. So it's a minor miracle I am on the air at all! Enjoy what you can of it and hope that you'll like other shows better.

      Delete
  10. The devil face in the WTC smoke looks artificially created but I think that can have been done with deliberately placed charges if it was not merely a coincidence.

    http://www.larrygc.com/gra/wtc/pl2face.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would be much simpler (and safer) if some Hollywood animators had faked the whole thing than to use these explosives artist.

      Can you explain Anders, why this real amateur video of the WTC is of so much higher quality than the >20 times more expensive broadcast cameras?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQiqoI0QNwg

      Watching the "live" broadcast videos, we cannot even tell what the color the sky had that day.

      Delete
    2. The original broadcast videos no doubt have high quality. I admit that it's a bit strange why those high quality copies haven't been released by now. Or maybe they have, and that it's just that nobody can upload them to YouTube for copyright reasons.

      Delete
    3. Re: The original broadcast videos no doubt have high quality.

      You mean, so high quality that we even could tell what color the sky had that day? Well, in any case, that has not been demonstrated, and that is one of the significant problems with the story.

      Re: nobody can upload them to YouTube for copyright reasons.

      Anders, you are grasping at straws now.

      Delete
  11. Anders Lindman wrote:

    "Think about how difficult it would have been to generate computer graphics for the WTC collapses."

    Difficult?

    As in "difficult-to-make-it-look-realistic-enough" ?

    Well, here's what was shown "LIVE" on NBC, Anders:

    http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/wtc2collapsenbc-live_5069268_GIFSoup.com.gif

    (note that the "WTC2 collapse" shown on NBC lasts for about 15 seconds or so - but in any case considerably more than the '9 seconds' stated by NIST.)

    I honestly think that this French artist would have made a better job of it - 100 years earlier...

    GEORGE MELIES- THE FATHER OF SPECIAL FX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGBHi3gejuM

    And here is what was shown "LIVE" on CNN in order to depict 'the collapse of WTC1' (note how the film sequence starts with a 'prescient', long zoom-in motion supposedly filmed from a TV camera chopper):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?
    feature=player_detailpage&v=Ul--oYht2RE#t=157

    And here are the exact words uttered by Aaaron Brown on that clip: "And there is, as you can see - perhaps - the second tower, the front tower, the TOP PORTION of which is collapsing."

    The "top portion"? Was Aaron Brown on LSD that day? And why on Earth does he not even correct himself shortly after - as billions of TV viewers would have 'clearly witnessed on LIVE TV' the WHOLE frigging building 'turning to dust'? But I'm digressing... So what do you find "difficult" about these images, Anders? Do you think they look all-too-real to be fake? That Hollywood technology wasn't able to make such computer animations back in 2001?

    Thanks for a honest, no-nonsense reply.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would have been very difficult to simulate the WTC collapses from different angles with computer graphics. And using models to blow up would have been difficult too. It was different in for example the movie Independence Day where they could blow up a model of the White House in isolation.

      Delete
  12. Anders Lindman wrote.

    "The original broadcast videos no doubt have high quality. I admit that it's a bit strange why those high quality copies haven't been released by now. "

    Anders, in late 2007 (after I'd released my 1st version of September Clues in june 2007) I was able to find and download several clips of the 9/11 broadcasts in mpeg2 format - the video coding industry standard for digital TV. The official TV archives no longer allows to download the 9/11 broadcasts in mpeg2 format ... for some reason. As it is, the reason why I decided to remake September Clues all over again (in 2008) - was because I had found this far sharper mpeg2 material. As an example, here's an enlarged frame from my mpeg2 NBC video files:

    http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/NBC%209_11%20manhattan%20view%20high%20res1.jpg

    As you can see, the image resolution is pretty good - and about as close you could get to original broadcast quality. As you can also see, the yellowish skyline view of Manhattan depicted in that NBC frame is, well, as close as you could get to "Playstation quality". It certainly bears no resemblance to real photography.

    As for your comment that "It would have been very difficult to simulate the WTC collapses from different angles", well - that's precisely why they just showed us a handful of hazy (prefabricated) collapse angles on "LIVE TV". Of course, the material 'finally released' by NIST in 2010, features many more "WTC collapse" angles (at a never-seen-before higher image resolution) - but that 2010 material would have been thrown straight out of any court of law if it were presented (as it indeed was) a FULL 9 YEARS after the crime. However, and luckily for us (the people), the 2010 material also features innumerable other inconsistencies and aberrations which, of course, only go to support our case for image fakery.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compare doing video fakery for ONLY the crude 2D plane silhouette with doing CGI fakery of the WHOLE 9/11 event. And it's easy to insert such plane live. Ask Ace Baker. He has an excellent explanation for how it could have been done.

      Delete
  13. http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/03/fs-from-eu.html

    Ian GreenhalghMarch 30, 2014 at 7:56 PM Wrote:
    "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."
    ___________________________________________
    How does one go about "establishing beyond doubt the culprits and their motives," Ian?

    The only way to establish anything, i.e.,to find the truth, is to study the evidence.

    We know the government has not proved any of its allegations about 9/11. There is not a shred of evidence showing planes even existed or crashed at any of the sites and there is no evidence Muslim hijackers boarded any flights. (See Elias Davidsson: http://aldeilis.net/english/no-evidence-that-muslims-hijacked-planes-on-911/)

    If there were no flights and no hijackings, there could have been no phone calls from passengers, no passengers, no plane shaped gashes in the facades of the towers. The 9/11 Commission Report is a lie--a total myth written and edited by Philip Zelikow, PNAC member.

    We do have a treasure trove of evidence in plain sight and overlooked by most researchers but Simon Shack. For the past several years, he and his associates have taken it upon themselves to study the archived footage that was shown to billions of people worldwide on 9/11 and subsequent days as film of a live event. These photos and videos have been the basis for thousands of off-shoot YouTube video productions. Has any other event lasting less than two hours had so much photographic coverage?

    Dr. Jim Fetzer and his associate, Ian Greenhaigh, have insisted on ignoring the video archives and have thereby ignored evidence of what preceded the take down of the buildings and jumped to the question of what type of explosive was used to demolish the WTC. In the above podcast, though not listed in the title, there is a conversation between the two parties mentioned about challenging Shack to a debate on his views concerning nukes in general. (Cue up to 33:33 to 58:50 to hear.)

    This insistence on vilifying Shack for his work and challenging him to "debates" is harassment. IMO. We have massive fraud and open fakery in virtually every important event, and Shack is blamed for studying the available evidence.

    9/11 is not a philosophical question or a lesson in "critical thinking." It is far more specific than that. It is a legal question as a crime has been committed and the direct evidence is being ignored by the very people who should know better.

    So, let's stop fooling around and do some serious work, for God's sake. Start studying the videos and ask yourself how likely it is that the perps, about to demolish a seven building complex and who have ignored every detail to make Shanksville and the Pentagon plausible, would take the time to actually set fire to the towers, blow out plane-shaped holes in the facades, trap thousands of people in upper floors minutes before they push the remote? All this effort just to convince a few witnesses?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't forget, the geniuses who planned 9/11 claimed flight 93, which carried the "let's roll" hero Mark Bingham, claimed the plane disappeared into a mine shaft at Shanksville and could not be retrieved. They did find a few intact driver's licenses and other ID from the alleged deceased passengers. A red bandana in perfect condition belonging to one of the "hijackers" was also found.

    Flight 93 National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)
    After a seven-year campaign, the memorial, near Shanksville, Pa., where United Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, has raised $20 million of the $30 million in private donations needed to build the site, which is part of the National Park Service. The National Park Foundation, the park service's fundraising partner, says it wants to raise the remaining $10 million by year's end .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you know how easy it is to photo-shop gashes in the facades shaped like planes? Just for fun, I did it in about ten minutes and it looks exactly like the ones in the videos. In fact, you should look carefully and see how the shaped changes depending on which network you are watching

    Have people figured out yet that each network was given its own tape to run as "live" footage in real time? That's why there were CGI planes in some of the network coverage and the "dive-bomber" plane in the NBC "live" video." Did the perps make those mistke knowingly or just to cause discord among us?

    Another thought I've had from the beginning has been how calm and matter-of-fact the reporters like Jennings were on that day. One would think if America was really "under attack," these high paid anchors would be hiding under their desks like Peter Arnett did while reporting on Gulf War I.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Such a load of rubbish I don't know where to start...

    Defending Shack and insisting that studying the videos is so important just smacks of outright shill...

    Just a lot of nonsense not worth our time to dispute and refute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, the "live" news reports is by far the best evidence we have. If we cant trust that part, how could we trust anything else they tell us?

      All the national news networks aired a pre-recorded animated Hollywood cartoonish horror movie as live. Their top agents in the Gov backed up that big lie. That is what that is important, Ian. Again, it is really suspicious that you want us to look at something else instead. It is almost like you are protecting the medias role in this swindle.

      You are even promoting the victim part of the story, as if it should have been real. If it had been real, we should at least have spotted 1 tear somewhere, but we cant even find that. No real tears=no real victims.

      Delete
    2. Utter nonsense, but that is what we have seen a constant stream of from el buggo and the rest of the disinfo entities for a long time now.

      It's such a pathetic, transparent game - don't look at who the perpetrators were or how they did it, only look at the pretty pictures because you can spend a lifetime looking at them and never, ever discover a single thing of any value towards solving the crime.

      Anyone who continues to bang on about the videos is a shill, no doubt about it, the videos are irrelevant, nothing more than a distraction to keep people away from what really matters which is that Israel and the Zionist Neocons in the US collaborated to murder thousands of innocent people using nuclear weapons.

      The time for squinting at videos and arguing how the WT was destroyed is over, we now have the answers in the form of hard science .

      These articles tell the story and contain some highly classified material that has recently been leaked, not least of which is the real 9/11 report carried out by Sandia Labs in 2003 on behalf of the Department of Energy:

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/04/369796/most-lethal-weapon-in-us-hands/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/

      Of course, buggoand theother disinfo scum will continue to scream 'nukes don't exist' and 'blame the media' because they are desperate for the finger of guilt to be pointed anywhere but at the perpetrators; this makes them every bit as much lowlife scum as those who planned and carried out the attacks.

      Delete
    3. Ian - here is how they blew up WTC with real dynamite:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr6Jb0MQafI

      No need for fancy science fiction nukes at all.

      Delete
    4. "Why not nitro glycerin?"

      Exactly! Rodriguez Psheat... wait a minute?!?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin


      Indeed Nitroglycerin... what has El buggo been saying again?

      Delete
    5. Ian,

      Why does the clown El Buggo insist dynamite was used on the Twin Towers? Why dynamite?

      Why not trinitrotoluene (TNT)?
      Why not triacetone-triperoxide (TATP)?
      Why not hexamethlene triperoxide?
      Why not diamine (HMTD)?
      Why not urea nitrate?
      Why not C-4?
      Why not semtex?

      Why dynamite or as the
      meathead El Buggo calls it
      "real" LOL dynamite?

      Has the idiot with the cowboy avatar El Buggo been watching too many westerns?

      Why dynamite, Ian?

      Delete
    6. Jim Hollander

      Really, Jim! You must try to keep up. Nitro glycerin and dynamite are synonymous.
      You got that, Jim?
      S-Y-N-O-N.....Oh, forget it!!

      Delete
    7. Typical of one of Ian's dogs... deleting posts to obfuscate...

      Delete
    8. Jim Hollander

      You should delete your posts more often. Just like Onebornfree, El Buggo, Simon Pimon and the rest of those poodles.

      Delete
    9. Why did you remove this comment from your list of explosives?

      "Why not nitro glycerin?"

      Was it because I pointed out that dynamite is nitroglycerin based?

      Deleting a post to edit a few typos or add comments... is what I consider to be good forum etiquette... Deleting a post after a reply has been made is bad forum etiquette....

      Now fuck off

      Delete
    10. Rodriguez, you shouldn't ask Ian about real stuff like dynamite, he gets so pissed. He is more into these science fiction demolition that we can find in the movie Independence Day and such.

      I guess they used dynamite to blow up WTC because it simply works, and is inexpensive and widely available and relatively safe. There are also millions of people who know how to handle this stuff. Besides, that's what they always use in the other demolitions. Here is a longer version of this recipe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h-oHFx4GMQ

      TNT is almost the same as dynamite, but much safer to store for longer time, and much more expensive and much harder to get. I fail to see the point by using TNT over dynamite.

      Don't know what triacetone-triperoxide and hexamethlene triperoxide is. Sounds rare.

      Urea nitrate is basically the same as dynamite, but of lower quality and cheaper. Much more bulky I guess. Rarely used in other conventional demolitions as far as I know.

      C-4 and semtex is hard to get in relevant quantities, and quite expansive. The producer are also tightly monitored. Terrrrrorrrrist used to like those a lot. I guess it even is illegal to possess those without really special permit.

      Anyway, they used the same stuff for blowing up WTC as they would have used in other similar conventional demolitions.

      Delete
    11. El Buggo:-

      Thank you for your very civil and courteous reply. Unlike some rather foulmouthed and highly
      strung individuals on Professor Fetzer's blog who are ready to lose their cool at any imagined slight like deleting a post.

      However, I must say I find your post otherwise inadequate.
      It would seem the bottom line as to why dynamite may have been
      used according to you was expense: dynamite is cheap and readily available in large quantities.

      You cannot be serious!!

      What evidence have you that dynamite was used? Dynamite leaves traces after an explosion and these traces can be detected.
      Please supply any data you have in the way of dynamite traces which would tend to support your theory that dynamite was used.

      Rodriguez



      Delete
    12. Jim Hollander:-

      I suppose "Now f*&! off!" is part of your "good forum etiquette".
      What chapter does that appear in of your Good Forum Etiquette book? I have a good mind to report you to Professor Fetzer for your outrageous behavior.

      Delete
    13. No conventional explosive is capable of destroying the twin towers in the way they were with half of the material (half a million tonnes) being vapourised - a large proportion of the steel was vapourised and ended up spread about Manhattan in the dust as tiny 7 micron iron spheres. No conventional explosive can do that and just think of how much energy it takes to vapourise half a million tonnes of concrete and steel - so much energy you would need thousands upon thousands of tonnes of explosives. How do you suppose they managed to bring in what would have been thousands of truckloads and hide it in the building without anyone noticing? Also, the steel that was left after the destruction was bent like pretzels, which requires intense heat that is not produced by conventional explosives.

      Then there is all the evidence for nuclear weapons havingbeen used - the cordoning off of the site for 72 hours to allow the radiation level to fall, the spraying of millions of gallons of water on the site to control the radiation, the presence of tritiated water, the presence of all of the rare isotopes that would exist if nuclear fission and fusion had taken place such as lanthanum, tritium, yttrium, berylium etc etc. Then there is the EMP effects which toasted thouands of cars and other vehicles in the vicinity, the deaths due to rare cancers of over 10,000 responders and the illness of over 70,000 more New Yorkers due to radiation.

      All this evidence and more has been known for several years now, but recently there has been leaks of highly classified information which confirms 100% the use of nuclear weapons and tells us where they came from, who made them, who deployed them, what type they were, how they were deployed and how they destroyed the buildings.

      In short, there remains absolutely no doubt that nuclear weapons were used and anyone such as el buggo who claims otherwise is either a moron or a disinfo agent.

      The time for debating how the WT was destroyed is over, we now have the answers in the form of hard science .

      These articles tell the story and contain some highly classified material that has recently been leaked, not least of which is the real 9/11 report carried out by Sandia Labs in 2003 on behalf of the Department of Energy:

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/04/369796/most-lethal-weapon-in-us-hands/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/

      Delete
    14. Rodriguez,

      Why would they blow up the buildings in a way no one has done before? Why make this operation into a first time experiment?

      The objective was to get rid of the towers in the safest and most predictable way. Money wasn't the problem per se, but when spending more money, the operation tends to grow, and the risk for leaks increases, etc. That is the problem with spending the money.

      Dynamite is the least suspicious explosive there is. There are thousands of tons on the road every day. Lots of people know how to handle this substance, and that made it easier to recruit a competent crew. The assured that the operation risk was kept as low as possible.

      How much dynamite was required? IDK, but lets say 100kg for each floor. That would be 11t for each tower. DynoNobel production capacity is about 1 mil t/y. Shouldn't be too hard for this gang to get hold on 22t.

      Here is some powerful dynamite porn from DynoNobel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paoQ74yss0U

      But this is not a very crucial point at all - the WTC complex was demolished 911 one way or another. I will accept the views of an experienced real world demolition expert, with a track record, any day. I could even accept this silly nano-termite stuff, just so that we can move on.

      What I cannot accept are these ridiculously insane science fiction stories on energy weapons and that Manhattan was nuked 911. Those ideas are designed to make us all look like insane fools. So lets keep it real please.

      Delete
    15. This is the most pure, unadulterated fantasy bullshit I have read in a long time.

      100kg of dynamite per floor wouldn't have done much more than blow out the windows.

      The evidence is absolutely undeniable, but you ignore all of it for the simple reason that it destroys your bullshit theories utterly and completely.

      Delete
  17. Norwegian said : "GEORGE MELIES- THE FATHER OF SPECIAL FX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGBHi3gejuM "

    Wow, Simon, what a strange coincidence!

    I just happen to be reading a biography of L.Frank Baum, the author of the book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz".

    In that book, the biographer mentions that Baum was [in 1907 or so -long before the Hollywood movie version of his book was made], very interested in the then relatively new invention of movies, and the recently discovered craft of faking images in movies to create a magic "fairy story" on screen, as accidentally discovered by one George Melies!

    Small world, indeed , Simon. :-)

    Regards,onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joan Edwards said : "This insistence on vilifying Shack for his work and challenging him to "debates" is harassment. IMO. We have massive fraud and open fakery in virtually every important event, and Shack is blamed for studying the available evidence......... direct evidence is being ignored by the very people who should know better. "

    ".. direct evidence is being ignored by the very people who should know better. "

    Exactly, Joan.

    My only quibble would be that the alleged footage or photos are not really "evidence" at all, initially, only potential, or possible evidence.

    To become bona fide evidence [of anything at al] they first have to be closely analyzed to establish whether they are genuine, or not.

    As I have repeatedly stated in these blog forums and elsewhere, Mr Fetzer and associates refuse to undertake any such [essential] video analysis to first try to establish their authenticity [or not], and , at the same time , and as you point out, to continue to vilify/castigate both Simon Shack's research, and my own continued bringing to the readers attention the fact that by conveniently ignoring the issue of 9/11 video authentication entirely, Mr Fetzer is ignoring standard "run-of -the mill" scientific research procedure/protocol.

    However, in Fetzer's defense, it would be remiss for me to not mention the fact that he, like 99.9% of "scientists" and related [e.g. persons with University degrees in the philosophy of science], has been "educated" [i.e brainwashed] into this completely unscientific methodology by the, er, "educational"system through which he/they all passed- specifically the [state funded] University system.

    And not coincidentally, that's the exact same "educational" system that to this day produces all of the MSM network news anchors.

    And so it goes :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  19. OBF said: "My only quibble would be that the alleged footage or photos are not really "evidence" at all, initially, only potential, or possible evidence.

    "To become bona fide evidence [of anything at al] they first have to be closely analyzed to establish whether they are genuine, or not."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Whatever was shown on television that day was "evidence." If there was a blackout. if they showed cartoons, if there was one feed on all the networks, etc. That would be "evidence." It's the old "dog that didn't bark" evidence. It's what is absent. It's what is there that doesn't fit the rules of perspective. It's ALL EVIDENCE. It is difficult at first to grasp this concept but once you do, it is easy. What I think is amazing is that there exists these video archives. For years I didn't know they existed. I thought they were just released a couple of years ago. I remember on 9/11, they announced the local NYC stations were knocked off the air due to power failure or loss of antenna, which was plausible. It's remarkable, don't you think the networks were able to transmit all these pictures and remotes while "America is under attack"?

    My point is everything we need to know is in those videos, especially because they are obvious fakes. Are parts real? I doubt it very much because the footage had to have been taken was ahead of time. The backdrops are real, but elements have been added and or subtracted. And that's why the name "September Clues" is so apropos.

    I don't mean to "shill" for Simon. He and you don't need MY help promoting your ideas. That's not what I'm about. I have operated on my own all these years and it is just recently coming together for me. The hardest thing to "get" is that the perps made separate tapes for each network. I am correct in this, am I not, OBF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very excellent Joan. Looks like you have escaped the virtual reality they created for us that day, and now you can study what really went on.

      We have indications for that all news networks got the feed from the same source. They talk about it here at 55s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEWA_BMu-Kg

      The best 911 news broadcast (?) came from WNYW (Fox?). Best in the sense that it is so bad that it isn't even in the TV Archive:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQdpTzqh8Ag

      Maybe study the (historical!) first eye witnesses interviewed on "live" news 911 at 6:45. Looks like he is software! They didn't air this interview over and over again.

      Jim had an excellent show with Christopher Holmes that also could be helpful when analyzing the "witnesses" in the "live" news reports. I liked it a lot: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.no/2011/03/christopher-holmes.html

      Thanks Jim!

      Delete
  20. Today videos can not be taken as evidence as it used to be. All thanks to 911 and the September Clues. They are on par with written and spoken word. So as such the material from 911 can not be taken as evidence in court or anywhere else. Perhaps that is why the perps released the new batch of videos, to underscore the absurdity of video evidence in this hoax. Mind you they released it soon after the Vicsim Report was shown, blowing the whole thing out of the water once and for good. Another possibility they shown this new material is they were caught in their own nets, seeding videos like Loose Change. There could have been enough people who may have bought it, and they went on harassing White House of mass murder asking for the real trial. The White House responded with some half ass "investigations" or similar Mickey Mouse slapsticks, but that may have not been enough. And nobody wants 911 to become a legal issue cause it would damage American legal system and that would be a serious thing.

    Simon's work in this respect would be a helping hand either. I am not saying Simon's on the fix, and even if he was, he is still talking business.

    What can not be taken as conclusive evidence have to be taken as something that can be seen as a case behind reasonable doubt, which 911 is. It was a damn movie made like any other Hollywood movies are made and sold as a real event, in bad resolution. The nitty gritty stuff like how exactly the demolitions of the towers were done from behind the smoke curtain is not worth pursuing. The perps can have it if it helps them to sleep tight.

    Anyone like Jim or his uncivilized pupil need to address single issues, one at a time. Like for example how could a man sized object exceed 3x its size, or why in some videos of the collapse the two Wtc 3D objects have a gray out shade compared to the buildings surrounding it. This is just the dish of the day taken from countless of similar examples.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joan Edwards said : "What I think is amazing is that there exists these video archives. For years I didn't know they existed. I thought they were just released a couple of years ago. "

    Yes Joan. Many researchers are either unaware of their existence, or, if aware, steer clear of them and favor higher resolution, more clearly defined imagery as seen in the massive N.I.S.T. "dump" of imagery in 2010.

    I believe that it is important to recognize two distinct classes of 9/1 imagery:

    Class A Imagery: the original , as archived, on line , "live", network footage [CBS,NBC,ABC,Fox, CNN] , here : https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/

    Class B imagery: everything else. That is, all videos and photos that were never a part of the original "live" broadcasts, but appeared later on.

    The reason that I believe this distinction is important is that if it can be demonstrated that the original broadcast imagery is fake [I believe it can], then any honest researcher must then ask themselves some important questions:

    "If the broadcast [Class A] imagery is fake, why should I assume that any of the Class B imagery is genuine? Shouldn't I at least be starting from a review perspective of bias against any/all Class B imagery? Should not my standard of proof for my review of all Class B imagery, regardless of alleged source, be considerably higher now that I believe that the Class A imagery is fake? " And similar, related questions.

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  22. Joan Edwards said: "The hardest thing to "get" is that the perps made separate tapes for each network. I am correct in this, am I not, OBF?"

    You might be right, maybe different versions were pre-fabbed for each network, [it is impossible to know for sure], but at this time my own guess is slightly different [although only perhaps superficially so].

    I'm not going to claim my guess is correct, but my guess to date is that judging by the different approach angles/perspectives of Fl.175 shown on the various network feeds,that there have to have been at least two pre-manufactured , original "seed" Fl.175 sequences depicting the approach and hit of Fl.175 .

    Once made inside a computer [ or made inside two different ones, perhaps], those two original "seed" versions could then be "toggled/played around with" within the same, or another computer, to produce a new, different [but no less fake] camera viewing angle.

    This process of manufacturing a brand new viewing angle from one or two "seed" sequences which had already been made is infinitely variable and was a software "staple" for the movie industry well before 9/11- meaning that from just one "seed" pre-fabbed movie created inside a computer, it was/is possible to create hundreds, and possibly thousands of other "original" movies showing the same event , all "unique" in that they would display a slightly different viewing angle.

    The new angle[s] depicted could then be printed out and then [presumably after review weeks or months before] , shown on a particular network as "live" on 9/11.

    So, if my guess is correct, once created, the various re-toggled versions from two original "seed" versions were then shown on each of the 5 networks, giving
    the "prima facie"[:-)] impression of being 5 independently produced, unique, original "live" sequences shot live by different network cameras, or possibly, as you think, 5 independently produced, unique, original, _faked_ "live" sequences .

    For me, the main clue [i.e "smoking gun"] for my conclusion of at least two "seed" versions [at least for the original Fl.175 sequences], is the CBS "divebomber" sequence- which depicts a flight path approach radically different from what was displayed on any other network. [The closest to it, angle-wise, is the original "live" NBC sequence].

    After the hit, the most important footage is the collapse sequences depicted, it seems to me.

    It is maybe important to understand that those different collapse sequences [WTC2, and then 1, then 7] , were _not_ shown live on every channel at the same time, nor on all networks, so it may have been technically feasible to manufacture _all_ of the collapse footage sequences for both WTC 1 and 2 and 7 from just 1 "seed" pre-fabbed movie sequence for each building, I really do not know- Simon would have a better idea/guess on this, I would guess.

    Idle Speculation?

    But in the end, this is all just unprovable speculation on yours, mine, or whomevers part.

    I would suggest that once a person "twiggs" to the idea that the "live" network footage is fake [ and even if they only believe that some parts of it were faked, and not all of it, as Simon, myself, El Buggo and others here claim], the question [ I would humbly suggest :-)] becomes :

    if some parts appear to be obviously fake, why should I believe then that _any_ of it is genuine- where should I draw the line?

    Regards , onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  23. For me it's obvious the perps have shown the new material to come clean, whatever reason they had to do it. The videos clearly show stuff that is ridiculous. There is no buts about it. Most likely the September Clues and Vicsim Report was the trigger. The Sandy Hook Hoax is also about coming clean. They had no options left The hoax was up, maybe not for all but enough had gotten it. I think it's a good thing the perps are willing to sit down and talk.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Or.....it's going the way of the JFK case--killing of the witnesses.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/07/sandy-hooks-disappearing-witnesses.html
    Activist Post: Sandy Hook’s Disappearing Witnesses

    "From Douglas Cottle, who died Sept 29, 2012, at age 62 to Michael Bellmore, who died May 3, 2014 at age 27, more questions than answers seem to arise. The Connecticut State Police Commander, the Connecticut State Police Commissioner, the Western Connecticut State Police Commander as well as the Connecticut State Medical Examiner have all been eliminated from the story either by retiring or death. What better way to cover up any possibility of ever disclosing the truth ? What better way to perpetuate conspiracy theories?...........
    ..
    ......More recently it has been revealed that a person could face detainment and even further punishment just for simply speaking about the possibility that all is not as it seems regarding the Sandy Hook story."

    ReplyDelete
  25. El Buggo said: "The best 911 news broadcast (?) came from WNYW (Fox?). Best in the sense that it is so bad that it isn't even in the TV Archive:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQdpTzqh8Ag
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Thanks. This is very interesting. According to these people at local NY station UPN9, all the broadcasting equipment for the networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and FOX, was on top of the WTC tower.

    Unfortunately, I can't understand what they are saying except that the pictures are coming only from satelites.
    Need some help on this. Would love a transcription of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Witnesses in these hoaxes count for nothing so their appearance or disappearance is of no issue. When they have nothing to write about they invent new stories to keep entertaining the reader. The entertainment value and marketing value has been underrated here. Not only these particular hoaxes, accommodated here on the Fetzer blog, but the whole hoax industry which is as deep as water in the ocean. Thus plenty of asses will be hurt when their wagers are getting cut but that’s how the dices are rolling. The aftermarket supplies much of the bitching. 9ll disinfo as such on the internet is run from but a few busy computers. I would be surprised if our very own Black Knight didn’t have hundreds of accounts with various flavours of truthing and spamming. Perhaps this is why they opened the 911 museum Disney Park, to keep the cash flow internally, so not to be accused of sponging the system with these fooleries. Ian may need some spare cash now and then, but for example such Gage and his travelling troupe need to be paid handsomely else who would want to make an ass of oneself for so long

      Delete
  26. Simon (Donkey) Pimon

    *.... who would want to make an ass of oneself for so long...*

    Ahem.....You?


    Btw, how many donkeys have you got in your "troupe" now?

    ReplyDelete
  27. El Buggo:-

    100kg dynamite per floor and 22t dynamite for both towers. That's a lot of dynamite and a rather conservative estimate. Don't you think? How exactly did you arrive at those figures?
    You wrote that the twin towers were demolished 'one way or another'. What do you mean by that? Are you saying the WTC was demolished by the use of dynamite *or* by some other means? Can you clarify what you mean by 'one way or another'? Was it or wasn't it dynamite? Have you consulted with any 'real world demolition expert(s)'? If so, can you supply details of your consultation(s)? Also, can you also provide details of dynamite traces left by your 22t of dynamite? 22t of dynamite do not explode without leaving traces. Can I have your data of dynamite traces found at the WTC site?

    Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rodriguez,

      22t is quite a lot I think. Much less would be required just to tip over the towers. Maybe break them into several pieces? Biggest quarry blast in UK is 50t:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkxKX8Z6vhY

      We know the towers were gone 911. One way or another, they were brought down.

      Again, we know that dynamite is real, and that it works and that it is easily available in huge quantities. Do you have any better suggestions? Like what? Whatever, its fine with me. Just keep it real, and no crazy science fiction stuff.

      Never red anything by any credible professional hands-on demolition expert regarding this. Someone should have commented on this somewhere, but I have never seen any postings or reports anywhere.

      The very eminent and experienced structural engineer Anders Bjorkman has looked into this question - but he has not so much professional experience with dynamite and conventional explosives: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

      He has basically debunked the TV version of the collapses. We don't know what really happened, what the real story is - we all have to guess.

      One thing that is typical, and maybe a common denominator in all these operations, is that they tend to have total control on the area where the operation is going on. So when we want data and measurements, we have to ask the operation management for that, and they will occupy all the interesting territory as long as they need to, of course. You ask me for something that we cannot expect to get our hands on - credible independent data and measurements and observation, among other things.

      Delete
    2. El Buggo:-

      Are you equating the explosion of 50t dynamite in a quarry with the explosion of your 22t dynamite which you believe brought down the WTC? I fail to see the connection. You wrote that much less than your 22t dynamite
      would be needed to 'tip over' the towers. So why didn't your FULL 22t of dynamite 'tip over' the towers and why did they not 'break in two'?
      There seems to be some confusion in your dynamite thesis. Yes we know the twin towers were brought down and we know dynamite is real. What we need to know is your evidence that dynamite was used to bring the twin towers down. Have you any REAL evidence for your theory that dynamite was used to bring down the twin towers?
      You believe the twin towers were demolished by conventional demolition means using dynamite yet you freely admit that you have
      done no research on the feasibility of such a procedure or spoken to any "real world demolition expert(s)" or read anything about demolition procedure by any "credible professional hands on demolition expert". Could you, therefore, tell me what you are basing your belief on, that the WTC was demolished by the conventional demolition use of dynamite?
      Have you any experience at all of
      the use of dynamite in conventional demolitions?

      May I just repeat what I wrote in a previous post and which you have still not addressed.

      You wrote that the twin towers were demolished 'one way or another'. What do you mean by that? Are you saying the WTC was demolished by the use of dynamite *or* by some other means? Can you clarify what you mean by 'one way or another'? Was it or wasn't it dynamite?.... Also, can you also provide details of dynamite traces left by your 22t of dynamite? 22t of dynamite do not explode without leaving traces. Can I have your data of dynamite traces found at the WTC site? I would appreciate provide answers to my questions.

      Rodriguez



      Delete
    3. LOL, 22 tonnes of dynamite is nothing, it would barely put a dent in the twin towers.

      This is what 10 tonnes of TNT did to a German U-boat pen:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/U-Boat_Pen_Grand_Slammed.jpg/640px-U-Boat_Pen_Grand_Slammed.jpg

      It made a hole, but it barely damaged the structure.

      You expect us to believe that 22 tonnes of dynamite can produce enough energy to vapourise half a million tonnes of concrete and steel, leaving it spread out over Manhattan as fine dust?

      You couldn't achieve that with 2,000 tonnes of dynamite.

      We do know what happened, but you keep ignoring it - they used nuclear thermobaric weapons placed underground plus mini nukes placed in the central cores.

      22 tonnes of dynamite, man that makes me laugh, you made a fool of yourself with that claim... lol

      Delete
    4. Well, Rodriguez, they didn't blow out every windows in the nearby buildings, as I understand it, so the amount of explosives was limited in a way.

      50t is a relative huge blast, and is in the relevant dimension, as I see it.

      I don't have to explained the smallest details in this demolition project to postulate some possible tools they could have used. As I see it, dynamite is powerful enough for the task - no doubt about it.

      Again, what else is there, Rodriguez?

      Rodriguez, again, the TV version is fake. The operation team occupied the interesting territory for as long as they needed, to get rid of the evidence. Very few people know what really went on down there - everyone else have to guess.

      Again, not plausible they would pull off an untested experiment in this important project, when similar demolitions had been done many times before with convention tools like dynamite. Not likely at all that they were risk seekers.

      Have answered this and your other questions already: Can I have your data of dynamite traces found at the WTC site?

      What credible evidence do we have for this demolition at all actually? Not much at all, that's pretty sure.

      Delete
  28. El Buggo:-

    Sorry about all these posts.
    I'm tearing thru your posts as quick as I can. I realize it's pretty late where you are so I'll be brief. This won't take long.

    You wrote:

    ' You ask me for something that we cannot expect to get our hands on - credible independent data and measurements and observation, among other things.'

    Are you, in fact, telling me that you have no data of any kind to validate your theory that dynamite was used to demolish the WTC? What about the dynamite traces data? Surely you must have those at your finger tips?

    I look forward to viewing all your extensive and comprehensive data regarding the use of dynamite in the demolition of the twin towers.

    Rodriguez


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Data from Ground Zero (what a joke!) 911? I have told you already, the operation management occupied the territory to protect any independent and credible data collection. Should we ask the perpetrator for the evidence you think? What do you think we will get then? I can make up something for you, like other people do.

      Delete
    2. Everything you say is made up nonsense so why stop now?

      Oh, wait, maybe you've developed a conscience and realised how wrong it is to lie like you do?

      Delete
  29. El Buggo:-

    Yes. Data from Ground Zero and no you have not told me that the "operation management occupied the territory to protect any independent and credible data collection". Perhaps you are confused. What is the basis for this claim? Please provide all relevant data for this claim. I ask again: Have you done any research on
    the dynamite trace data? Have you, in fact, done any research at all as regards your belief that dynamite was used in the demolition of the TWC? As for making something up like others do, to whom are you referring? Please supply your evidence gleaned from your research which has led you to believe that dynamite was used in a conventional demolition of the twin towers.

    Where are your data?

    Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The area around ground zero was closed off to all but a restricted number of workers for 72 hours after the event in order to let the radiation decay to safe levels. During this period, they hosed down the site with huge quantities of water and brought in hundreds of trucks full of M291 resin in order to prepare for a full radiological decontamination at ground zero. Dozens of trucks arrived immediately on scene the afternoon of 9/11 with this military grade decontamination material. The NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) Radiological Assistance Program members of Brookhaven, NY RAP Region 1 were brought in and performed full radiological decontamination procedures on all the workers an trucks of debris before they were allowed to leave ground zero.

      Don Fox covers it all very well in this article:

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/28/deconstructing-christopher-bollyn-and-steve-jones/

      So yes, ground zero was tightly controlled, but it was to deal with the radiological contamination. Lots of data collection was carried out and was used in the highly classified 2003 Sandia Labs Report for the Department of Energy; this report has now been leaked and it fully exposes the nuclear nature of 9/11.

      Delete
    2. Ian:-

      That's what we want and need. Data. Data. Data.
      Data are the life blood of serious research and investigation.

      Anything else is hot air and empty waffle and piffle.


      Rodriguez

      Delete
    3. Exactly, I couldn't agree more, we must work with the available data. Until now that has been difficult because the data was somewhat thin on the ground, we had the water samples showing tritium and the USGS dust samples showing the isotope chain that proves nuclear fission and fusion, but preciously little else.

      However, we now have a large amount of new data as the result of the leaks that have taken place. This is highly classified stuff an must be handled carefully for obvious reasons. Gordon Duff has already published some articles that give out quite a bit of data from the recent leaks, there is much more to come. I have seen and read more that is, as yet, unpublished and it makes things very clear, it tells us a lot of things that until now we could only strongly suspect. In the coming weeks more is going to be published so that no-one can be in any doubt as to what happened.

      One effect of this newly leaked data is to utterly refute and destroy the nanothermite hypothesis and expose those who pushed that as disinfo agents as we now know that nanothermite doesn't even exist outside of sub-gram quantities created n labs and doesn't even have explosive properties. The reason why thermitic type material was found in the dust samples is the use of nuclear thermobaric weapons that have an iron oxide secondary.

      I have just published an article as VT which covers this nanothermite issue:

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/16/burning-the-911-trolls/

      I also recorded a show with Jim Fetzer that covers the new data about 9/11 and the nanothermite issue, it was broadcast on Monday night and should be online soon.

      Delete
  30. El Buggo:-

    Again I ask you how you arrived at 100kg dynamite per floor and 22t dynamite for both towers? Figures which I find are derisory. But on what are these figures based? What data have you used to calculate those figures? Where are your dynamite trace data?

    Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you are just trolling. That would be a bit of an overkill placing dynamite on each floor to topple a skyscraper, kind of like deleting Kennedy by six plus snipers. There is lots of ways to pull down a building that is very susceptible through its own construction to dynamic loads. The bottom part was made of massive steel members strengthened by gravity load. This would have to be detonated first, or at least that is where you would need to stick most of the explosives. The amount would depend on the method of standard demolition and since there is no way the perps are going to reveal this tidbit you can’t tell how much it was. Since it was a steel structure, and if I were to make a bet, I would go with combined deconstruction-demolition method plus verinage. It would be elaborate project of course, but then again Joe Silverstein was a rich man or was about to become one.

      Delete
    2. El Buggo:-

      You write "that would be a bit of an overkill placing dynamite on each floor" and yet you have 100kg of dynamite per floor!! You also write
      "There is (sic) lots of ways to pull down a building that is very susceptible through its own construction to dynamic loads." but this irrelevant statement from you brings us no closer to why you believe the TWC was brought down
      by conventional demolition means
      using dynamite. Can you supply data as regards the origin(s) for your figures of 100kg of dynamite per floor and 22t for both towers?
      Or are you now saying, as you have above, that placing dynamite on each floor is, in your words, "a bit of an overkill"? Was there, as you believe and have stated above, dynamite (100kg) on each floor or not? Clarification from you on these questions is needed.


      Rodriguez

      Delete
    3. Hey four eyes, I am not Buggio. The construction of a building is relevant to how much dynamite is needed to completely tear it down. I don’t know what it is all about stuffing each floor with dynamite. Have a look at the tower toppled in Frankfurt a few months ago. http://gizmodo.com/behold-one-of-the-biggest-controlled-skyscraper-demolit-1514789024 One tone was used. It was halved in the middle with explosives right before the bottom was set off. I would imagine it was done that way to ease the gravity load before detonating the bottom. It is also safer that way when you negotiate a steel frame connected everywhere.

      Delete
    4. Simon Pimon:-

      I do apologize. You're not "Buggio" as you say but you'll do for me, Simon. The construction of a building is relevant to how much EXPLOSIVE is used. What is being discussed here is El Buggo's belief that DYNAMITE was used to bring down the TWC. El Buggo has, according to his latest post, 100kg
      of DYNAMITE on each floor and 22t for both towers. Of course, El Buggo has given no information as to where he got these figures of 100kg per floor and 22t for the towers. Have you any idea where he found these, Simon?

      Rodriguez

      Delete
    5. Whatever explosives were used the principles of demolitions are the same. The military may have something enhanced for that sort of job but it was not the best place to test it. Area 51 as we know is better suited for testing new methods of demolition. If you know of the alternative to dynamite be my guest.
      Tell me something, could you demolish the towers with dynamite? If so that is the answer.
      The amount required would be decided firstly on the strength of the bottom part, where the primary blast goes. Compare the mass and structural strength of the area where the explosives were planted in the tower in Frankfurt with the WCT and you can forward a rough estimation.

      Delete
  31. El Buggo:-

    What is under debate here is your belief that the twin towers were demolished by conventional demolition means using dynamite.
    As yet you have provided no data to support your belief. You now admit there is no evidence for the demolition at all whether by conventional demolition using dynamite or otherwise. Again I ask for your dynamite traces evidence which support your belef that dynamite was indeed used in the demolition of the WTC.
    You will not or cannot provide the necessary data to support your belief regarding the use of dynamite in the demolition of the twin towers.You have not answered the question regarding the origins or provenance of your 100kg dynamite per floor and 22t dynamite for the two towers.
    Will you please address these questions now and let us have some answers?


    Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete
  32. 9/11 Hokum: Deconstructing Christopher Bollyn and Steve Jones
    by Don Fox Posted by Ian Greenhalgh

    "I have come to realize two central truths about the events of 9/11: Israel did it and they used nuclear bombs to demolish the WTC buildings. These are the two pillars of 9/11 research: Zionists and Nukes. If you come out with credible information that supports the involvement either of these pillars expect to be attacked. The attacks will be especially fierce if you come out with credible information on the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center buildings.

    Gordon Duff recently published several articles in his VT Nuclear Education series on Veterans Today that confirmed that the World Trade Center buildings were nuked on 9/11. Right on cue the Zionist shill Christopher Bollyn came out and attacked Gordon for being a “Disinfo Toad” for supporting the WTC Nuclear Demolition Hypothesis. Of course Chris wasn’t able to refute the evidence for fission and fusion at Ground Zero.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This is thoroughly disgusting. You two have no evidence to support these claims of nukes or Israeli involvement. You can't make allegations without proof. The USGS findings are circumstantial at best. You think because you've been attacked by Bollyn who you think works for the Israelis is proof of your ridiculous thesis.

    You cite your own articles as source. I have never seen such sloppy, amateurish work in my life. I don't understand why Fetzer allows you to post this on his behalf. He is breaking all his rules of logic and critical thinking. What a shame.

    None of you has even established the video record as seen in the archives including the aftermath photos are real or created in a studio. No explanation has been given for the gashes, the fireballs or the smoke scene. You agree there were no planes, but you still think those scenes are real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there was any doubt Joan is a complete shill this removes it. She has shown us her true colors.

      Delete
    2. My thoughts exactly Don, her true colours on display for all to see.

      Delete
  33. We have conclusive proof of the use of nukes and the involvement of Israel, this proof has been presented in a series of articles.

    There's no doubt in my mind that you're also a disinfo entity, hence your reaction. You support the woeful bullshit of Simon Shack then attack the work done by Veteran's Today, that is clearly the thinking of a shill.

    You're a truly disgusting creature Joan, I hope one day you have to pay the consequences for the lies and disinfo you have been spewing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, you are repeating the same lines over and over and over. Is that some kind of catholic repentance? I would strongly recommend Prayer to Fatima 100x and Psalm 23

      Delete
    2. LOL

      An honest man repeats the same story over and over because the truth does not change.

      Delete
  34. A revolting, vile and sickening "comment" from the forum's resident donkey, Simon Pimon.

    Still, what else could you expect from the braying ass, Simon Pimon?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Joan Edwards said "None of you has even established the video record as seen in the archives including the aftermath photos are real or created in a studio."

    Or even tried to :-).

    Well, don't hold your breath Joan. Jim, Don and Ian don' need no steenkin' evidence verification procedures to cloud their all encompassing prescience - as they have all constantly reminded everyone here and elsewhere.
    :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    p.s. Judging from the responses from them to your post here Joan, you are "flying right over the target" . Congrats :-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Don Fox July 17, 2014 at 2:24 AM
    If there was any doubt Joan is a complete shill this removes it. She has shown us her true colors.
    Ian Greenhalgh July 17, 2014 at 5:40 AM
    My thoughts exactly Don, her true colours on display for all to see.

    ~~~All people can "see" is your spewing of more ad hominems. You shills are really good at it. Keep the honest researchers busy defending themselves. Well keep it up, no one is listening.

    Ian Greenhalgh July 17, 2014 at 1:23 AM We have conclusive proof of the use of nukes and the involvement of Israel, this proof has been presented in a series of articles. There's no doubt in my mind that you're also a disinfo entity, hence your reaction. You support the woeful bullshit of Simon Shack then attack the work done by Veteran's Today, that is clearly the thinking of a shill.
    You're a truly disgusting creature Joan, I hope one day you have to pay the consequences for the lies and disinfo you have been spewing.

    ~~~Wonderful. I ask for proof and all you come up with is more name calling. Typical shill behavior.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too late Joan, you're burned now, exposed for the disinfo shill you really are.

      Delete
  37. ????????

    Christopher Bollyn - "How Disinformation is used to Suppress 9-11 Truth"
    The 9-11 Truth movement has been the target of disinformation from the very beginning. This, of course, should be expected because the highest-level Zionist culprits behind the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 also control our government and media. Their evil agenda of war and conquest can only succeed by suppressing public awareness of what really happened on 9-11. The perpetrators of 9-11 are behind the disinformation campaign, which is meant to undermine the 9-11 Truth movement. It is, therefore, essential that we understand how they use disinformation to confuse and weaken the integrity of the truth movement. . .

    . . . The fact that Donald Fox works for a Canadian financial company, which happens to be the largest partner in Tamir Fishman, an Israeli financial firm where Ehud Barak is a senior partner and adviser, suggests that his disinformation work against 9-11 Truth is connected to his employment at RBC Capital Markets. That would make sense.

    ?????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL

      Joan the shill is really grasping at straws now by turning to that other Israeli stooge Bollyn.

      Bollyn has been exposed as an Israeli disinfo agent, nothing he says can be trusted.

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/16/burning-the-911-trolls/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/28/deconstructing-christopher-bollyn-and-steve-jones/

      Crawl back under your rock Joan, no-one is ever going to take you seriously again, your shill colours have been plainly exposed for all to see.

      Delete
  38. Ian,

    Thank you for all your hard work... How long did it take you? 10 minutes?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/18/slam-dunk-most-classified-911-revealed/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That article contains the most important and significant technical information on 9/11 yet to be revealed, everyone should read it, it removes any doubt that 9/11 was a nuclear event. If anyone now continues to deny the use of nukes then they are either a disinfo agent or an utter moron.

      Delete
  39. Ian GreenhalghJuly 17, 2014 at 6:16 AM

    "LOL

    "An honest man repeats the same story over and over because the truth does not change."

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

    Ian: u're NOT NOT NOT "honest," u being obvious Jew, pretending "Zionists" are essentially diff. fm regular Talmudists, ho ho ho.

    And all u do is to repeating ASSERTIONS, not substantiating.

    Judy Wood at WhereDidTheTowersGo.com has the best expo for what happened at WTC.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm not a Jew, Judy Wood is pure disinfo and do you think I give two hoots what idiots on the internet think?

    Sadly, this place is now nothing but shills, with a handful of exceptions such as Don Fox and Gary King. The rest of you are clearly disinfo scum.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The fact that Donald Fox works for a Canadian financial company, which happens to be the largest partner in Tamir Fishman, an Israeli financial firm where Ehud Barak is a senior partner and adviser, suggests that his disinformation work against 9-11 Truth is connected to his employment at RBC Capital Markets. That would make sense."........Bollyn

    What? No denials?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jeff Hill said : "Now fuck off."

    Oh-oh. Looks like another of Fetzer/ Greenhorn's si-un-tiff-ick inta-leck-chew-alls has stuck his oar in with yet another astoundingly apropos put down :-) . Grate wurk Jeff, keep it up!

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  43. Onebornfree

    Check your spelling, moron!
    However, your dyslexic gibberish
    IS showing a
    marked improvement
    over your previous attempts
    at joined up writing and coherent thinking. Keep trying!

    You're getting there!

    You illiterate idiot!

    ReplyDelete