text:
Friday, September 27, 2013
125 comments:
"Onebornfree", or "O.B.F. is the generic, 15+ year business name of my internet persona and various entrepreneurial activities].
I'm a Financial Safety Consultant, a Personal Freedom Consultant, a musician [singer/guitarist, mostly blues/jazz stylings] and founder member of "The Freedom Network".
Links to my various activities above are given at the end of this message.
Original 9/11 US TV network broadcasts archive: https://archive.org/details/911
Simon Shacks specific 911 research threads at www.Septemberclues.info:
September Clues victim research threads : http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=80fcdc4f1ee4c6f6c85425032e816fd0
September Clues "Vicsim report" [downloadable pdf file] :http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1393
obf's own 9/11 threads specifically mentioned in the interview:
Fake 911 victim [Flight 175] Louis Mariani: "Behold! Louis Mariani 9/11 Victim, Purple-Haired Punk-Rocker & King of Opera!:
Faked WTC2 "Top Tilt" photos: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-scams-faked-award-winning-amy.html
Faked live broadcast footage[CNN's footage of the WTC1 collapse] :
911 network broadcast imagery resolution/definition problems: Comparisons of the original 911 broadcast imagery with pre-911 photos and video:http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/08/some-examples-of-genuine-pre-911-video.html
[more links n next post]ONEBORNFREE INFO CONTINUED :
Previous Radio interviews:
Jim Fetzer "Real Deal" interview 09/05/12 [discussing the scientific investigation methodology in relation to 9/11 investigations]: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/09/onebornfree.html
Jim Fetzer "Real Deal" interview 12/28/12 [discussing Richard Halls holographic plane image theory plus the scientific investigation methodology in relation to 9/11 investigations]:
Other [non- J. Fetzer ] radio show appearances on 9/11 and related :
Faux Capitalist Radio Show w/ host Jason Erb[discussing Austrian economic theory] : https://fauxcapitalist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/exposingfauxcapitalism-2013-09-15-obf.mp3
Onebornfree's Financial Safety Consulting blog:
Onebornfree's "Problem Solver" [solving personal freedom issues]:
Onebornfree's Freedom Network [general network information blog] : http://freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com/
Onebornfree's Mythbusters and Freedom Network blog [ articles] : http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
Onebornfree's 9/11 blog : http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/
Onebornfree [Fake-Eye "D"] Music/Recordings:
Onebornfree's Youtube music video channel [ mostly live solo performances since I don't have a band ]:
Onebornfree's Music/recordings [original,pre-recorded/mixed music - blues/gospel/hip-hop hybrids] plus live solo recordings as also found on Youtube :
regards, obf.Thanks for the links, One Born Free. Jim, assuming you're reading this; note that you always give a link to The Real Deal within the program, so, assuming The Real Deal will survive on some medium somewhere, the interviewee's contact links will always be accessible to anyone hearing the interview. Logical?
ReplyDeleteIn a Google image search for Joan Mellen, there is a black and white photo of her In 1969 with Jim Garrison. Click on the picture and sure enough, initial suspicions as to her root nature are confirmed. Over and over and over again, in one's honest and unbiased quest for the truth, a certain sect of people come up as perps. The rabbit hole seems to be shaped like a 6-pointed star, and it's starting to glow neon for all to see, it would seem.
http://iamthewitness.com/Zion-helpers.htmlRegarding Brown and Baker, I do not know if Mellen or Fetzer is correct. I do know that the argument offered by Fetzer is absolutely vapid--insisting that one has interviewed somebody numerous times does in no way validate what the interviewee claims--but that does not mean that Brown and/or Baker is lying.
I informed Joan Mellen that she was viciously maligned in this podcast. Given that Fetzer demands Osanic play his interview with Judy Baker, then I think it would be fitting that Fetzer invite Mellen on and give her a chance to defend herself.
I've read two of Mellen's books [Garrison and Cuba books] and I have problems with both. I do not dismiss fetzer's accusation that she is a spook. I also don't dismiss the idea that Fetzer is as well, particularly given his rightward lurch of late. It would be of great benefit for those of us sitting on the fence if the two of you would discuss it on a podcast.
Regarding di Eugenio and Osanic: I long ago concluded that the former is a spook and the latter at the very least a genuine idiot.RepliesOBF's latest, ultimately frustrating Real Deal appearance wasn't much more productive than the previous one, I'm sad to say. Maybe if it had gone on for a second hour, OBF might have been able finally to confront Dr. Fetzer with a laundry list of GLARING, SPECIFIC INCONSISTENCIES in the 9/11 imagery. Unfortunately, Jim was so steamed about Joan Mellen's radio rant the night before -- so the OBF interview was truncated in favor of an angry, somewhat rambling response to Mellen's spookily suspicious castigations of the self-proclaimed LBJ and LHO mistresses.
I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of Jim's ringing endorsement of the ladies' amazing first-person accounts, but in the interest of serious historiography, it would behoove Dr. Fetzer to go well beyond his "defending their integrity" primarily on the basis of personal encounters. Indeed, a detailed, categorical rebuttal of each of Mellen's particular attack points is much needed here -- something that only barely got started (after much huffing and puffing) before the time ran out.
And sadly, it still seems that Jim hasn't really read the SeptemberClues Vicsim Report, nor does it appear that he has actually watched Simon Shack's prime videos or read his supplementary written commentaries. Instead, all we have is Jim's by now familiar, out-of-hand dismissal of Shack and Company's PREMISES (fake victims and fake imagery) without rebutting the massive evidenciary presentation upon which the premises are founded.
I'm afraid the situation is all too reminiscent of the worst of ol' Larry King's execrably shallow interviews with book authors, during which it was all too obvious that the host had NEVER READ the author's work at all.
Come on, Jim, you're much better that that!What's with David Fryett? I cited the interviews with Judyth so anyone who wants to can watch her explain these things herself. Then you not only have her voice but her image. I defended her during a massive thread on The Education Form, which ran over 2,000 posts--probably the longest in the history of the forum. Ed Haslam thoroughly vetted her story and you can read about it in DR. MARY'S MONKEY. Judyth even pointed out to him that he had used a photo of Mary Sherman's SISTER on the cover of his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKE VIRUS. Nigel Turner, the brilliant producer who brought us "The Men who Killed Kennedy", devoted Part 8, "The Love Affair", to Judyth. Check it out. There is overwhelming proof supporting her story, including her book, ME & LEE. I very strongly suspect that Fryett has not even read it, DR. MARY'S MONKEY or Part 8. If he had an argument, he would present it.
Too bad this interview took the same route as did the podcasts of 2012. I can't wait until next time, so I read Simon Shack's work which you so kindly gave links to. I hope Jim doesn't mind my posting Simon's four main points on 9/11.
It is fair to say the September Clues research has established these 4 main points:
1- The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'firefighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The '9/11 movie' was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as 'newscasts'. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images - all of which in stark conflict with each other, as now comprehensively demonstrated in every imaginable manner, angle and method.
2- No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for : their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics - and the absence of visible wake vortexes in the WTC impact imagery also defies the laws of aerodynamics.
3- The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives. No image-analyses of the tower collapses can help determine just what type of explosives were employed - since the videos are 3D animations and do not represent the real-life events. In reality, as they collapsed, the WTC complex was most likely enveloped by military-grade smoke obscurants. No real/private imagery exists of the morning's events - 'thanks' to electromagnetic countermeasures.
4- No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. Only one thing was more important to the perps than avoiding a mass murder of 3000 US citizens : to sell the notion that "bogeyman Bin Laden" killed 3000 US citizens. We have renamed the 'victims' of these psy-operations "VICSIMS" (SIMulated VICtims). In fact, our research has seen the same pattern emerge in all the so-called "Al-Quaeda Terror Attacks" around the world (LONDON 7/7, MADRID 11, BALI, MUMBAI, etc...). In all logic, the very last aggravation the plotters behind these false-flag operations wish to have, are scores of real families hounding them forever with real questions and real class actions. Hence: NO real terror victims = Logical PsyOp rationale.
http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=80fcdc4f1ee4c6f6c85425032e816fd0RepliesBut I ALREADY endorse most of those positions:
1- There were many Hollywood-style special effects, such as the smoke produced from the massive dumpsters in front of the Pentagon, the planting of a piece of fuselage from a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995, and so forth.
But the wholesale faking of the Twin Towers footage is a fantasy for at least three reasons:
(a) If they were going to fake the "collapse" of the Twin Towers, they would have filmed it as a collapse, not where both buildings are blowing apart in every direction from the top down and there is no pile of debris when it was over;
(b) all the films and photos take from 100s of positions by multiple independent sources--some on the ground, some in the air, many in New York, others in New Jersey, on and on--
hang together as images of a single unified process or event in each case;
(c) to the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward to report that what they saw in relation to the demolition sequences was not what we see in these videos. I asked OBF about this repeatedly. Which means that he is making a claim for which he has no evidence.
2- I agree all four of the crash sites were faked or fabricated, albeit in different ways. See "Planes/No Planes and 'video fakery'" for an early piece about this; see "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", Part 2, for a more recent presentation.
3- I also agree that the major structures of the WTC were destroyed using extremely powerful explosives, which appear to have been mini neutron bombs. I have multiple articles about this from "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II" to (most recently) the first parts of
"The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2", which is devoted to this question just as the rest is to the faking of the crash sites.
4- No doubt the number who died has been exaggerated. For example, no passengers dies on flights that did not crash. Two were no even in the air and the other two not deregistered until 28 September 2005. Planes that were not in the air on 9/11 did not crash on 9/11 and planes that were not taken out of service until 28 September 2005 did not crash on 9/11.
So I am baffled by some of the attacks on me that are appearing here, which appear to be as fake as the non-existent plane crashes. pshea just dumbfounds me. I have no idea what is going on with some of my critics. If anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate knowing.
The initially shocking discovery that the public imagery of the 9/11 "attacks" was wholly fradulent has, it seems, triggered in some creatively gifted individuals (such as the blogger Culto and his acolyte Pshea) a curious amalgam of the psychological processes known as "cognitive dissonance resolution" and "confirmation bias".
In other words, once the mind-numbing shock of fakery-discovery had sufficiently dissipated, the urgent desire for regaining rationality and order (in one's nascent understanding of world-changing events) became so strong that the sufferer then made Herculean, highly imaginative, and painstakingly detailed efforts to find TOTAL FAKERY in each and every one of them!
Complicating the situation is the fact that at least some of those suspicious events are, very likely, shrouded in false images and fake accounts, too (such as Gabby Giffords, Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, etc., maybe even the Apollo landings) -- but there are very obvious POLITICAL MOTIVES for each of these "magic tricks" performed by the occultist spooks lurking and laughing behind the curtains drawn so tightly by their bosses' controlled mass media.
Nevertheless, the Kennedy and King assassinations are "black ops" of an earlier, more traditional covert stripe, and youngsters like Pshea and Culto, who haven't slogged through long and disheartening decades of digging for facts, sifting half-truths, and discarding tons of disinfo (like Dr. Fetzer so nobly has) are to be excused, I suppose, for naively conflating "old-fashioned" war-enabling political murders with the techno-enhanced psyops of a later era.http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1443
what is holding RFK's head up in the first photo from the first link?
you've got to 'hand' it to them. they still have someone (seemingly) as awake as you fooled.
these operations were designed to be busted open eventually. hence the obvious fakery.
now, on you waffle, if you wish.http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=241354
this single page is the key to understanding how all of these faked psy-ops really work.
here is the link again to culto's thread that proves the JFK assassination fakery.
and here is the thread index;
I bet you 50bucks that neither jim nor andy have gone through this most excellent work, and if they have, then they have another agenda, to continue with their denial. (still believe 3,000 died on 9/11 jim, and that all the footage was kosher?!?). I am going to go with another agenda. but that's just me!RepliesYeah, right. Andy and I are ops and you are a seeker of truth! Give us a break. If anyone here looks to me like an op, that would be you. I have exposed all kinds of fakery in JFK, from the backyard photos to the Zapruder film, so I think you have a lot of nerve suggesting that I am missing the boat on JFK. Have you seen "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today?" And you one of those who thinks that Greer shot JFK? or Jackie? or a Secret Service agent? Tell us what you take as you theory of the assassination of JFK and the kinds of fakery involved. You have not shown anything yet. So enlighten us. I can hardly wait.
Andy Tyne said: "..once the mind-numbing shock of fakery-discovery had sufficiently dissipated, the urgent desire for regaining rationality and order (in one's nascent understanding of world-changing events) became so strong that the sufferer then made Herculean, highly imaginative, and painstakingly detailed efforts to find TOTAL FAKERY in each and every one of them! ..."
The general, "post September Clues" condition, or mindset you describe so well, is perfectly normal as far as I can see, Andy.
Once that September Clues"red pill" has taken effect, an individual is more or less bound to at least seriously question the on- record accounts of most/all major historical events, such as JFK, RFK, MLK,OKC, the moon landings etc. etc.
How much effort an individual puts into re-writing that world history for themselves is, as always, a unique, individual choice. One person may suspect the JFK, RFK, MLK, events in totality, and claim they were all entirely fabricated events. Of course, even with the presence of forged imagery in the record of these alleged events, ultimately it is impossible to disprove the "total fakery" angle, just as it is impossible to prove to those "total fakery" individuals that they ever in fact occurred, in my opinion.
Regards, onebornfree.- AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM
We know this is Jim Fetzer's show, but what exactly is the point of having a guest on when you don't let them speak? We know Jim wrote this book, we know Jim wrote an article, we know Jim gave an interview, we know Jim gave a talk, we know Jim organized a conference....we know we know we know....we hear it every week...LET YOUR GUESTS SPEAK OR DONT HAVE THEM ON...just do what you did in the second half of the show. When was the last time you had a non OIC members on to talk about JFK? I can't remember....This is the 50th anniversary....how about you let JVB on to tell her story? How about you have an author on to discuss one of the 50 new books coming out this year? Or is it they won't come on with you? Before you bad mouth Black Op radio, look at your body of work on your radio show...it's like comparing a midget to a giant....put up or shut up Fetzer...like you tell everyone else!
ReplyDeleteRepliesThis is pretty bizarre, critic who will not even use his name! I ask, Who are you? It is to me that you have a dog in this fight and that you are as far from impartial as anyone could be. So drop your mask and tell us, WHO ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR NAME? That, I think, should be enough to reveal your motivation. I make no claims to perfection, but this kind of wholesale dismissal is completely ridiculous.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 3:29 AM
Bizarre? What's bizarre is that I am getting attacked by the host for doing what he asked...Listen...and post who you think won the debate and why. What's bizarre is this ad hominem attack, instead of addressing the points in my comment...And also for correctly pointing out that your guest never got to get his point out because of your bloating. You are incapable of detaching yourself when interviewing a guest when it comes to 9/11, JFK, Zionism because of your own work on the subject.
conspiracycritic said :
"We know this is Jim Fetzer's show, but what exactly is the point of having a guest on when you don't let them speak? We know Jim wrote this book, we know Jim wrote an article, we know Jim gave an interview, we know Jim gave a talk, we know Jim organized a conference....we know we know we know....we hear it every week...LET YOUR GUESTS SPEAK OR DONT HAVE THEM ON..."
Exactly! thanks for the comment, regards, Onebornfree.I admire your prodigious insight and efforts, OBF, but please don't be too quick to gulp down EITHER of those metaphorical, coloured pills ...
Just as the Assange/Manning/Snowden "dog-and-pony-show" merits some SERIOUS questioning as to its true motives and its wall-to-wall coverage-providing, mass-media popularisers -- so should the covert backers and promoters of the Wachowski Siblings' (no longer brothers!) paradigm-changing Matrix trilogy be ferreted out and examined in the cold light of a September (Clues) day.
Unless you've converted to Hinduism and now see the "real" world as essentially Maya (illusion), there's still the need to question the occultic spooks' MOTIVES for each of their long and continuing string of evil deeds.
And, OBF, I submit that it's never been primarily for the perverse pleasure of FOOLING us, as a disturbingly growing number of Shack-cultists now seem to believe.
Whenever the covert-op world's Masonic and Kabbalistic, numerology-obsessed demons-in-the-flesh decide it's the right date on the calendar to "flip their drills live," it's ALWAYS to achieve the dual goals of WAR (their ultimate blood sacrifice) and the accretion of still more obscene PROFIT, streaming torrentially into their gilt-edged counting houses -- as their Fed-stimulated defence plants boom and the corpses of the sacrificed goyim (mostly) pile ever higher.
Sure, the mavens-of-the-money-power will use state-of-the-art fakery whenever and wherever it seems useful to them, but history's ultimate malefactors nevertheless have no conscience-driven qualms at all about employing outright and brutal thuggery, too. And their (often sayanim) henchmen are always at the ready, on call to simply "Wellstone" or "JFK" anyone, high-profile or low, Righteous Jew or Principled Gentile, who dares stand in the way of still more war and profit.Andy Tyne said: "please don't be too quick to gulp down EITHER of those metaphorical, coloured pills ..."
I understand. I use the red pill analogy mostly because it is handy, after all, its from a popular movie that a lot of people are already familiar with. And I'm well aware of the problems with the movie that have come to light since its release.
As to the question of whether or not large numbers of people are really being offed in these grand affairs, I'd like to believe they were not,[as some do], but as a cynic and practicing misanthrope, like you I find it hard to believe that war casualties are all being faked.[Maybe just wildly exaggerated?] Its impossible to know for sure, of course, so I don't dwell too much on it .
Regards onebornfree.andy wrote...'I submit that it's never been primarily for the perverse pleasure of FOOLING us'....I agree. it has all being about our education and preparation, our awakening and the raising of our awareness and consciousness. the differing layers all clearly inserted into all these psyop are designed to be unravelled in turn (and in time - see where jim comes in!?), with us necessarily arriving at the total fakery conclusions in the end. hasn't it gotten a lot easier to spot the fakery with recent efforts? and this final stage all began with the jfk Faksassination in 1963 (11-22). 50 years ago. do you think 50 is a magic number andy? this year, all changes, changes for the infinitely better. don't you feel something in the air? if all is made to look bad, it is because black is white! or didn't you know?
culto has it almost right.
you can't teach an old dog new tricks. but I am sure he could learn them himself, if the circumstances were right (wrong?).After listening, I'm incredibly disappointed that in the entire interview with OBF, there was not one shred of evidence or one point or one argument presented by OBF. I blame Jim and OBF equally, as all the two of you did is wish-wash back and forth over how much you appreciate each other, and wasted an entire hour.
Jim, why did you not simply ask OBF to present 30 min of evidence and then spend 30 min discussing it? For someone who was not familiar with September Clues, or OBF's previous interview, this was an absolute waste of an hour.
Just get to the evidence.@ PM: sorry the interview was a disappointment to you. Perhaps you need to see some evidence, rather than hear it?
Here is one link I gave Jim during the show regarding the resolution of [or lack thereof] of all of the original "live" network imagery [albeit all apparently on a 17 sec delay- in other words ,even if the network videos were real, which they are not, a 17 sec delay means that there was still _no_ actual live imagery that day] :
And here is a link to Simon Shacks "September Clues" research [ other links to his research are given in my 1st post in this thread, above] : http://www.septemberclues.info/
If you have any questions regarding this research you can email me at : onebornfree at yahoo dot com
Regards, onebornfreeRepliesPM and OBF, I think the problem is that OBF has a gut intuition for which he simply has no proof. I am OK with gut intuitions as a starting point for investigation, but, as I explain above, all of the photographic evidence -- from airplanes, from on the ground, from in New York, from New Jersey -- hangs together as different aspects of singular events. We have no witnesses complaining that the images are not what they saw and the images contradict the official account. I would be glad to give OBF more time, but what else does he have to say? I like him as a person, but as an expert on 9/11, my opinion is he simply hasn't a clue.
DeleteThanks for the info OBF. I spent a good 6 hours going through SeptemberClues last night. Its always a frustrating experience when something gets put in front of me that, once again, destroys every illusion I have about what is real and what is not.
However, without ever having seen September clues before last night, I was already under the impression that a lot of video fakery was indeed used. Especially in regard to the planes. While Jim has concluded that a sophisticated hologram answers all existing concerns and problems....I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have introduced a slew of new ones.
Having looked at all the footage myself, I don't believe that everything is perfectly consistent. As such, I do believe that there are severe inconsistencies between all of the video footage. Not just some, but all. And it is my understand that the point of using Holograms in the first place would be to create a near perfect visual effect that is likewise seen by eyewitnesses and captured on any camera.
Which, thereby, would mean that video fakery wouldn't be necessary, unless the hologram itself went to shit before disappearing inside the building.
So if a Hologram was used, AND eyewitnesses saw it, AND all active cameras captured exactly what was truly visible at those moments in real time….then there shouldn't be such inconsistencies. Am I wrong? Granted these things aren't mutually exclusive as I said…video compositing in real-time live TV and advanced editing after the fact COULD HAVE occurred even it if was a hologram for a variety of reasons……I just don't think so. I really do believe It is one or the other. Am I am leaning away from holograms because A) the crazy bizarre video inconsistencies don't add up for me, and B) the hologram is so much more 'difficult' and 'unreliable' of scenario than simply slamming a cruise missile into the building and controlling what people saw on TV.
On the note of the eyewitnesses, I don't believe for one second that it is outside the realm of possibility that a cruise missile could be mistaken for a plane. They have wings. They have a tail. They have a body. To an unsuspecting eyewitness, who has no preconceived notions, it IS a plane flying into Manhattan. Cruise missile would not even enter their psyche.
In terms of the artificial cut outs on the buildings….Hologram and Cruise missile are irrelevant variables. Either one would NOT have created plane-shaped roadrunner cutouts. Obviously though, the cruise missile would accomplish the basic feat of penetrating the facade and exploding within. Not that this would have been undoable with a Hologram scenario, but the difference in preciseness and detailed work that would have had to come together perfectly to create this illusion is exponentially higher in the hologram scenario vs. cruise missile. Put simply, one is a real world object that can penetrate and explode in the building….and one is not. If I were the plotter, I'd be a lot more encouraged by the missile as a tool than the hologram at this stage.Jim...the claim that all photographic and video evidence "hangs together"...I have a very, very hard time seeing that. I have now also reviewed the seemingly very scientific analysis by Richard Hall...and it is indeed extremely compelling as far as it goes. But I don't think it even addresses all of the bizarre appearances of buildings/backdrops/objects in question. It does go to some length to show that certain angles and certain perspectives are in fact NOT as identical as you might think by simply, amateurishly, overlaying one video on another and saying, "See! They match!" No, not quite. But beyond that, I'm not sure Richard Hall covers as much of the bizarre detail that is inconsistent.
DeleteAnd one more question...LOL...as you say we have no eyewitnesses complaining that what they saw doesn't match the existent film evidence.
For the witnesses that reported anything other than seeing a jetliner.....such as the people that thought it was missile, or the people that thought it was a 'small plane'....is this not an example of exactly what you say we don't have? If they said they saw a missile, and on TV we see the vague resemblance of a 767....is that not perfectly inconsistent?
I know what you're saying...no one (that we're aware of) has come forward since 9/11 to repeat an eyewitness story of the like, "That's not what I saw." But on the day of, we have plenty of that. And when are eyewitness accounts ever more accurate and valuable than on the day, in the moment?PM,
Have in mind that missiles would have complicated and added (unnecessary) risk to the operation.
What if the missiles missed the target and landed in Central Park instead? What if the missile didn't turn up? What if the missile was late? What if both missiles hit the same tower? Should they still have pulled the wired explosives? Why are these missiles needed in the first place? Sounds very illegal too.
Much higher predictability and control on the operation with a pre recorded Hollywood horror movie. Just air what was needed a million times. Everyone would believe the live news reports anyway. Fake news is free speech and legal.
Of course they evacuated the buildings before they blew them up so that no one should be killed and get the operation management and the national news reporters and everyone else involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statute of limitations.
Ask any Hollywood producer how easy it is to fake victims. That is just some actors with a script or some REPORTS anyway.
But without medias complicity in this operation (including the controlled news reporters), they would never have been able to pull it off. This is the Weapons of Mass Deception.
@ Jim Fetzer: Jim , unlike yourself, I have _never_ claimed to be "an expert" on 9/11, and you know that.
Regarding "photographic evidence", and to return to the point I tried to make in my first two interviews on your show, [but not in this last one], in the realm of standard scientific methodology, in a scientific investigation of the events of 911, how do you [still, and with a straight face, no less] justify promoting photographs or videos [or even "eyewitness testimony" for that matter], to the level of real "evidence", without first having to thoroughly test them _all_ for authenticity ?
As a "expert"/spokesperson for the scientific community, are you claiming that the scientific profession should [to quote yourself] automatically believe that : "...Footage broadcast "LIVE" to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic." ? , and that therefor, there is absolutely no need for the investigating scientist to _ever_ pre-test this possible evidence, but instead for him/her to just go ahead and take the media and your word for it being genuine live imagery or photos, and then use that imagery as "real,genuine evidence" that "proves" their own 911 hypothesis, whatever that might be?
Enquiring minds want to know :-)
Regards, onebornfreepshea said :" jim is goading you obf. he knows the truth full well."
He may be "goading" me, as you say, maybe not, [he's done it before- I tend to ignore it as childish], but I'm not so sure he knows the "truth" i.e. wholesale faked imagery of the 911 "live" TV feeds], nor that he ever will, or is even capable of arriving there.
The "truth" for Jim appears to be based on the idea that investigating scientists should never double-check [or triple-check] the MSM, but that they should just go ahead and assume its many photos, "live" videos plus verbal narrations, plus text , are all real and authentic, purely because they all allegedly reinforce each other, and that therefor, those entirely unverified videos, photos etc. must also be true because they are coincidentally somehow "confirmed" by 100's of [again] completely unverified "eyewitness reports".
According to Jim, it is perfectly OK for the investigating "scientist" to employ any/all of this entirely unverified "evidence" [such as photos, videos, "eyewitness testimony"] as a "proof" of their own pet "scientific" 911 hypothesis, without ever going to the trouble of even making a pretense at verification/authentication _before_ using any/all of it as "proof" of.... whatever.
I think he actually believes that such wrong-headed reasoning is perfectly methodologically correct for an investigating scientist to engage in. After all, such thinking appears to be the general state of university credentialed "scientific research" in the US. [Which may explain why most scientific discoveries are actually made by persons with little or _no_ formal scientific "education".]
The question is, why?
My instinct tells me that its because he has already been brainwashed/indoctrinated by the University system into believing that scientists do not need to ever question the MSM, and that it is perfectly "reasonable" and procedurally correct for a 911 researcher to just trust the MSM's alleged facts without ever having to go through the [admittedly] laborious but necessary process of [for example] independent video and photographic imagery authentification .
Noam Chomsky [who I am _not_ generally a fan of , by the way], did a great essay on the pre-brainwashing of people who emerge from the university "education" system. [Although he is referring specifically to the routine, necessary [for the system], university brainwashing of the people within the MSM, _before_ they can ever get anywhere within it, it seems to me that the exact same principle applies to any/all university "trained" individuals, including any/ all emerging professors with " philosophy of science" credentials.]
Chomsky states that this brainwashing/indoctrination by the universities is so successful that most of the victim/students remain entirely unaware of it throughout the remainder of their entire adult lives! :-)
This is might well be the case with Jim, too.
The Chomsky essay, "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream" is here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
Regards, onebornfree.well written comment obf, and I have indeed considered this and posted about it before. but I don't believe it any more, not for a second. outside of other factors, that he hasn't made a detailed examination/ rebuttal of Culto's (and SC/CF) seminal works says much. there are three stages to our 9/11 learning...Fear (them Terrrists), Anger(the big bad gubbment) and Relief(Faked, All Faked!). no skipping now! we will emerge from this all the stronger. we will never give up our power again. jim is working the border of Anger and Relief and needs must he won't shift from there (into full Relief) until the time is right. and that time is fast approaching.
Jim is a good man.- AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM
I would not base any research on the strength of Simon Shack's work, especially "September Clues". I've proved he uses selective editing to prove his claims of video fakery. He has mislead viewers by doing this. The latest person promoting this is Markus Allen, and my analysis video disproved his claims, yet he still is promoting video fakery.
ReplyDelete - AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anyone who like to read why I think Simon Shack is selective with his editing, can read it here at my blog - demonstrating an example of his "selective editing".
Could Claims of Video Fakery Regarding 9/11 News Media Coverage be a Distraction and Disinformation? PM said: "the claim that all photographic and video evidence "hangs together"...I have a very, very hard time seeing that. I have now also reviewed the seemingly very scientific analysis by Richard Hall...and it is indeed extremely compelling as far as it goes. "
PM here is a link to my own, 4 part review of the Hall research:
I believe I demonstrate that Hall is wrong, and the plane videos do not in fact match up, in any way, shape or form.
However, one point I made in my review -[in part 3] which in retrospect I did not emphasize enough was that, even if we assumed for the sake of argument that Hall is correct, and that all of the plane videos _did_ in fact match up, that would not/could not conclusively prove that those videos were not all nothing more than fabrications.
No more proof of this is really necessary other than the fact that to "prove" his own thesis, Hall himself used a software program replicating NYC that allows him to toggle up /down and around in any direction [i.e360 degs.] around the WTC complex; and yet the fact that he is able to do this within his own software program, also means that , if he could do that with the NYC scenery inside his computer, then anyone else could also make _endlessly_ variable "plane into building sequences", that match each other, from any angle, entirely from one original template on a computer. This fact entirely escapes the man. [ and Jim too :-) ].
As the plane into building videos in actual fact do _not_match up, the only reasonable conclusion is that more than 1 original template was used, at least two, possibly 3 or 4, ' seems to me.
Regards, onebornfree.RepliesGood point. In fact, irrefutable point....I mean, for crying out loud if they are faking the entire series of live broadcast footage, wouldn't it have been half way decent? Even for 2001? I think the answer is actually.......No. If they had done a "better job" of creating non-fake looking video for the Live broadcast, they ran the risk of not being able to replicate that for the "amateur series". Since we're alleging that there was no authentic amateur footage, and that all the subsequent footage that pretends to be amateur is actually anything but....it was inevitable that this footage be clearer, higher quality...but not grossly contradict what was seen "Live".
To this day it blows my mind to realize that almost all of the footage I've studied and become familiar with was NOT seen by ANYONE on 9/11/2001. All that was seen by anyone was the "Live" footage....which adds up to a small pile of low quality blurred out silhouetted crap. That's all anyone saw of the events until the next day. Fascinating.
So it stands to reason. The Live footage barely showed anything, except for horrifically fake looking images. I mean, the Nose-out shot from Fox and the International shot are so embarrassingly bad, It actually turns my stomach that this is what they made in advance and broadcast?
Here I am going back and forth on some of my own impressions because I can't for the life of me understand a few things. 1) Why is the Live footage so terrible if it was prepared in advance? 2) Is it even possible to imagine a scenario where this was NOT done in advance? Meaning, the entire idea of adding fake imagery to legitimate live broadcast in real-time leaves so many risks on the table I can't imagine the plotters even considering it....Been going through your analysis of Halls work. Wow, to say the least.
But small problem I have which is actually not a small problem: The image comparison that shows different impact points. The middle image which is supposed to be from the CNN/Hezerkhani footage...doesn't even remotely resemble that footage. A quick review of Hezerkhani's video shows that the plane strike is no where near that close to the top of the building. 5 more minutes of grabbing a new screen shot, putting both into Photoshop and overlay the towers to match in perfect physical dimension....the impact points are no where near close. The actual Hezerkhani footage has the impact point much, much lower than this image. Furthermore, this image you use looks to be badly distorted height-wise (just look at the CNN logo) which is throwing off your height measurement dramatically.
unsolved mystery... although there are a few errors regarding SC which haven't been updated, to prove your claims you would have to debunk all the evidence amassed at www.cluesforum.info..which you have no chance of. you seem, just like jim to be well behind the times. and Marcus allen is a bluffer and a clown imo, who even simonshack has little time for. this is not about a man. this is about the evidence.
ReplyDeleteReplies- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 3:54 AM
Hi pshea,
Can you explain to me, how September Clues can be taken as evidence? It is NOT are NOT evidence? When you talk about evidence, yet there are those few in this forum who don't even believe eye witnesses are relevant to all this, yet it's them who are being attacked by the likes of Shack, Baker and OBF and others. I've disproven Shack's and Baker's claims of video fakery in the NY Good Day Chopper footage. They are the ones making such claims, which is for them to prove, and up to now they have NOT.
You do not have to debunk all the evidence, all I have to produce is evidence that debunks their whole theory, which they have never proved themselves. It is not evidence, it's a THEORY. Like me saying all rabbits are white? If I produce one black rabbit, it totally disproves their theory, that all rabbits are white? Or am I wrong?
My challenge to you is, prove your "NO Plane" and "video fakery" theories as Evidence?
I've proved there was indeed a plane the "NY Good Day" footage and in the comparison "live footage".
Let me quote Jim Fetzer below:
All the films and photos take from 100s of positions by multiple independent sources--some on the ground, some in the air, many in New York, others in New Jersey, on and on--
hang together as images of a single unified process or event in each case;
To the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward to report that what they saw in relation to the demolition sequences was not what we see in these videos. I asked OBF about this repeatedly. Which means that he is making a claim for which he has no evidence.
I completely agree with this quote to OBF by Jim Fetzer!
Respect USMUK.
PM said : "To this day it blows my mind to realize that almost all of the footage I've studied and become familiar with was NOT seen by ANYONE on 9/11/2001. All that was seen by anyone was the "Live" footage....which adds up to a small pile of low quality blurred out silhouetted crap. That's all anyone saw of the events until the next day. Fascinating."
Exactly. And this is what Jim refuses to acknowledge. He is too busy dreaming up reasons to _not_ take a close look at this stuff, complete with fancy sounding [but ultimately meaningless] latin phrases such as "prima facie" . :-)
There are only two classes of 911 imagery out there :
1] the original alleged "live"MSM network broadcasts [what I call "primary imagery"].
2] Everything else. [What I call "secondary 911 imagery"]
It seems logical [ to myself at least ] that if the original "live" footage [1] is all fraudulent, then all subsequent videos and photos [2] that "flesh out" the events dimly viewed in that original [but faked] "live" footage, regardless of source, must also most likely be fraudulent, including , but not limited to, for example, all of the Bill Biggart photos Jim brought up in my interview.
PM said" 1) Why is the Live footage so terrible if it was prepared in advance? 2) Is it even possible to imagine a scenario where this was NOT done in advance?"
My own take is that the murkiness/low resolution of all of that alleged live imagery [what I call "primary, class 1 , 911 imagery"], adds to the overall ominous, doomy, terror-inducing aspect. That the colorization and low resolution actually adds to the intended overall psychological effect on the average viewer. [It worked well]. It is only in hindsight and with emotional detachment that the terrible defects are readily apparent. Also possibly software issues contributed.
As to [2] I'd say no.
Regards,onebornfreePM said " the comparison that shows different impact points. The middle image which is supposed to be from the CNN/Hezerkhani footage...doesn't even remotely resemble that footage. "
There are at least 5 different versions of the Herzakhani footage, all with different features and soundtracks. It might be interesting to do a comparison of them all to see if they have different impact points. It may well be that I mislabeled the shot, assuming it was from the Herzakhani footage. It could also be from another alleged 911 photographer shown by CNN, I'm not sure. [Although given the CNN logo it seems more likely that it originated with Herzakhani] . Even if you discount that middle photo , there seems to be a 160 ft. vertical difference in the impact points shown in the left and right photos,[Fox vs. "Park Foreman"], yes, no?
Regards, onebornfreeRepliesYes, as I continue to plug through it, there is so much inconsistency between different cuts of Hezarkhani, that they themselves aren't really consistent. I have yet to separately analyze the other two examples as you mention, but those don't jump out as me as being anything but legitimately different.
Either way....you had me at pixel clouds. Its what I would expect to see in 'shopped footage, and it cannot be clearer.
I'm just stunned at how bad it is. Obviously, it served its purpose, and has only been contested by the smallest minority of even 9/11 researchers (let alone the public)....but still....You'd think if they were going to hang the entire forgery on imagery...they'd have done a better job. Maybe they couldn't? I guess for reasons unknown, they couldn't.
And lastly, I through Richard Hall's analysis out the window completely based solely on Part 4. Fig 5. That gif pulls it all together. Funnily enough, I saw both of these shots years ago, and concluded then that they couldn't both be legitimate. But it took me until now to really put it together and see the bigger picture.
PM said: "You'd think if they were going to hang the entire forgery on imagery...they'd have done a better job."
Well, hindsight is 20/20, as they say :-). And remember people like you and I are in a very small minority, even within the so-called "911 truth movement" where we are mostly conveniently ignored or effectively ostracized at every turn. [such is life :-) ]
And anyway the original, primary MSM imagery imagery is now mostly overlooked , even by alleged "serious" 911 researchers, who cannot even tell the difference, say, between primary and secondary imagery, let alone between say, original CNN imagery vs. original CBS imagery.
As I mentioned in my interview, this overlooking of the original imagery has been accomplished via the constant release, especially since 2010, of new improved higher def. photos and videos that are nothing more than re-renderings of earlier stills or footage, "re-toggled" on a computer to give the impression of a new angle.
We have all been bombarded with this newer higher res. imagery, which is an attempt to reinforce the 911 myth, in my opinion. [Of course, this point went entirely over Jim's head in my interview.]
A good example of this is the "award winning" Amy Sancetta photo, which now has at least 10 imitators, all presumably taken by individuals standing in more or less the exact same location, and all miraculously managing to snap their shutters at almost the exact same moment in time! :
Regards, onebornfree.Someone send this link to Judy Wood and let her know that NO, not ALL mainstream media ignored Hurricane Erin. This dude on CBS mentions it as, "that Hurricane that is going away."
Man, watching this one was creepy as all hell. The way they talk about how beautiful the day is and how quiet....almost too quiet. Bizarre.obf, 9/11 was designed to be unravelled completely. it is not just a case of the inferior software technology available at the time accounting for the low production video quality, including flaws. if it was, you would have to account for the dreadful and comic efforts that are most of the victims photo's in this same breath, while also explaining away a whole host of other strange choices the 'perpetrators' opted for when directing the overall form the movie (narrative) would take. it is all about our awakening, and the journey through the fear, then the anger, to rest finally at the relief (realisation). the lesson takes time to learn, and lots of sweat. and everything has to have come in it's own time. some are ahead of the game (in spite of jim's valiant efforts), but we will all reach there in the end.
pshea.If Dr. Fetzer is still coming back, every few days, to re-visit this VERY LONG comment thread, then I earnestly BEG him to at least tell us if he has, by now, actually READ the VicSim Report and WATCHED SeptemberClues. And if not -- then why not?
I've been a listener to Dr. Fetzer's radio programs and I've read and recommended his conspiracy-research books and articles for quite a few years now. I've defended him over at the two fractious "9/11 Fakery" forums on numerous occasions, sometimes in response to vicious and stupid attacks and at the risk of being instantly banned, and I really don't believe there's anything (other than a direct confession from Jim) that could ever convince me that he is an "op," a disinformation agent, or a "gatekeeper".
Jim IS "The Real Deal".
But he sure can be bull-headed at times. ;)
And his painfully obvious procrastination (or is it abject REFUSAL) to seriously study SeptemberClues and the VicSim Report (and scientifically/logically rebut them, point-by-point, if he disagrees with their conclusions) appear to be prima facie examples of this very BULL-HEADEDNESS!!!
Jim, if you're reading this... just remember how long it took for Morgan Reynolds to convince you there were NO PLANES.
You once were bull-headed about THAT paradigm-change too, weren't you?
But then, you also had the intellectual honesty and ethical humility to finally admit that you were wrong.
Don't fail us this time.Andy Tyne said : I earnestly BEG him to at least tell us if he has, by now, actually READ the VicSim Report and WATCHED SeptemberClues. And if not -- then why not?"
Andy I would not waste too much time wondering if/when Jim might " see the light" if I were you. The truth will come out regardless, and Jim might well get "left behind in the dust", ultimately. There are strong psychological factors at play here.
The important thing is that _you_ "got there", and without J. Fetzer.
So I would suggest you ask yourself a question: what if no-one else [including Jim] _ever_ wakes up to what Mr Shack has shown us? How would you live your life, if that were the case?
The fact is you don't need anyone else to wake up to what you, or I have come to realize. Others may come to the same conclusions eventually, or they may not- it really does not matter, as far as I can see. The important thing is for you to now move ahead and live your life as best you can , in light of this new knowledge.
If you would like to discuss this more, [not here] you can email me at : onebornfree at yahoo dot com
Regards, onebornfreeOBF & Andy - I think it is more us WANTING Jim to be more open minded to the possibility of the outright video fakery taking place on 9/11. Jim is the best, and anything but an Op. Having followed his work for years, I have tremendous respect for him, and I don't fault him one bit for being resistant to this.
After all, when one puts intense time and energy into researching scientific detail of a case, only to find out later that the 'evidence' it was based on was mostly fraudulent...it certainly pisses you off. And rightfully so.
That said, its not all or nothing. I'm completely convinced that the plane crashes were indeed nothing more than video fakes, and I'm not 100% convinced that the tower's destruction also were. Probably not more than 30% convinced on that. And thats OK! Not everyone has to believe everything.
But as someone who (with no exaggeration) has listened to every single archived radio interview on this website related to 9/11, I firmly believe Jim (more than most people) is capable of accepting anything truly convincing.
I like Jim. Won't ever stop listening. Hope he never quits. And I don't really care if he comes around to this or not, because he's still the man. My only hope is that he gives it more due attention on the radio and in his private research.
Thanks OBF for some great info, commentary, and evidence to review.PM said :"Someone send this link to Judy Wood and let her know that NO, not ALL mainstream media ignored Hurricane Erin. This dude on CBS mentions it as, "that Hurricane that is going away."
FYI, I have written a 4 part review/critique of Prof. Wood's hypothesis which clearly shows that she has deliberately misrepresented NOAA data regarding Erin's movements and position on 911 in order to support her hypothesis of its direct involvement in the events of 911, at the same time entirely ignoring an obvious natural phenomena that accounts for the hurricanes movements that day:
"9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood" : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html
Regards, onebornfreePM said :" I'm completely convinced that the plane crashes were indeed nothing more than video fakes, and I'm not 100% convinced that the tower's destruction also were. Probably not more than 30% convinced on that. "
Something for you to consider [maybe]:
If the live broadcasts showing planes into buildings were faked, why would you believe it would stop there?
Isn't it more "logical" to assume, _before_ investigating further, that most likely the demos we were shown were faked too?
Regarding those questions, please see: "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage":
Regards, onebornfree.RepliesMaybe, maybe not. What is logical to me is that an appropriate methodology be used where and when required. If the only safe and convincing way to fake the planes involvement was to slam plane-like cruise missiles into both towers and instead show plane images on TV...then that was the most logical choice.
The destruction of the buildings themselves are all together different events from the 'plane' crashes and therefore shouldn't automatically follow, even logically, that there even need be video fakery involved. What follows logically is what did the plotters think they needed to do for this portion.
You might conclude that Video Fakery is so effective and simple to accomplish that they'd be crazy to do anything else....But. They did destroy those buildings, completely. They didn't show us collapse video, and meanwhile pick them up a spaceship and whisk them away. ;-)
What we witness on camera is so unimaginably stupid (in other words, not much of a convincing fake collapse) that, IMHO, it doesn't make any sense for them to have fabricated video of what appears to be anything but a collapse. It does make sense to fabricate planes, and even though THAT video is indeed poor IMO as well...they easily and completely got away with that.
Conversely, why would they destroy the buildings using advanced demolition tools, and broadcast it live for everyone to see? If they were going to do exactly that, why wouldn't they employ a video cover of that event to hide the destruction method? Some might argue, "that's precisely what they DID do." I would argue, no they didn't. They grotesquely showed the world what they were capable of....turning 110 stories of building/material into dust in about 10 seconds. And yet, in the face of a completely impossible collapse video....few have questioned it. Far more than have questioned the planes, but still....very few. There even appear to be disinformation agents that have "questioned" it, backing ludicrous explanations that can only serve to embarrass those who subscribe to it.
Just my thoughts at the present time. Could change.
PM said: "After all, when one puts intense time and energy into researching scientific detail of a case, only to find out later that the 'evidence' it was based on was mostly fraudulent...it certainly pisses you off. "
Yes, but Jim is supposed to be an impartial, non-emotional investigative scientist, or at least, he has credentials in the philosophy of science.
And yet, as such, both himself and all of the so-called "scientific" 911 researchers that he endorses [or does not], have to a man, entirely ignored standard scientific methodology in their research; i.e the need for the investigating scientist to _first_ firmly establish, via thorough investigation, whether something [e.g. photos, videos, "eyewitness testimony" etc.] which might be real evidence, actually is or is _not_ real evidence, _before_ it can _ever_ be used to bolster any particular 911 hypothesis.
This procedural non-methodology [ the habitual non-verification of purported "evidence" prior to it being used to "verify", "prove" whatever] , has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific methodology as far as I can see, and yet Jim, with all his credential, apparently fully endorses it.
This was the point I tried to raise with Jim in my first 2 interviews on his show, to no avail :-) .
Regards, onebornfree.RepliesThis is where I'm a little disappointed in Jim, and why I mentioned the "pissed off" part. He is indeed quick to dismiss the suggestion that video evidence of 9/11 is mostly or completely fabricated. Odd really, considering he is a leading proponent of the idea that the only video evidence of JFK's assassination is indeed a complete fabrication. Not that this should predispose him to anything...but I would think it to be something he seriously considers instead of rejects quickly.
I don't have any knowledge of precisely how much consideration Jim has given this matter, so I'm out of line to suggest he hasn't just because he hasn't arrived at similar conclusions. That just happens to be the impression I get from listening.
PM said: "Maybe, maybe not. What is logical to me is that an appropriate methodology be used where and when required."
Are you saying that there is more than one scientific methodology, in your opinion?
Another question for you to chew over, maybe:
what would it mean to you personally if you eventually concluded that all of the primary footage of the events of 911 [ie the original, on-line archived MSM "live" footage] , had been pre-manufactured on computer and then fraudulently broadcast as being "live"? What might you then conclude about the US MSM?
Regards, onebornfree.RepliesNo no, by methodology I was referring to the plotters, and the method or strategy they employed. Not research of it.
And, it would not mean anything to me personally if all footage were fake or none of it were fake, regarding the MSM. They are already, in my mind, completely complicit and 100% responsible for selling the big LIE. Whether they were selling commentary while watching fake video or real video, they sold it. I don't believe they could be any more complicit then they already are.
Surely, there are some trifle differences in whether it was fake or not from their perspective (obviously someone in the MSM network of operators had a clue as to what was going on)....but there isn't much reason to think that the voices behind the lies were even aware that the video was fake...they were just aware of their normal everyday chicken hawk approach to sensationalism and repeating government-approved statements. Having watched much of the Live footage from all the networks, I'm disgusted with most of the anchors (which is nothing new) with the grandiose and inflammatory way they interviewed witness, begging for some news gold to be said on the air. Meanwhile, reading off a script that told them to mention terrorism (not war) and Osama bin Laden.
It seems only Peter Jennings was not buying the BS about the buildings turning to dust because of a single airplane impact....until someone got in his ear and told him to knock it off.
And where in the FUCK did CNN get that grissley adams looking asshole that stood there making vomit-worthy comments while the towers were dissolving in the background. Praising the Mayor? Truly nauseating. Hope they didn't pay him much.
Consider this: Bottom-up demolition of tall buildings has long been the gold standard of the take-down industry, and that's precisely the method (regardless of the type of explosives, nuke or not) that the perps had to use to drop the towers and limit peripheral damage.
However, to allow the TV-viewing public to see those buildings come down in a conventional-demolition manner would have created a HUGE contradiction negating the planned, war-propaganda story that the towers' destruction was brought about by plane-crash induced fires starting at the TOP floors.
For any real-time, live witnesses on the ground the actual bottom-up demolitions were effectively concealed behind a massive curtain of strategically generated, pre-collapse smoke, but for the vast viewing public it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to FOOL them with some state-of-the art, CGI animation SIMULATING massive "structral collapses" beginning near the TOP of each tower.
It's well known in the movie industry that much of the landscape of Manhattan had already been 3-D computer mapped several years before 2001, and the fruit of that highly detailed (building-by-building) project had already been displayed in both Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" software AND in some of the big superhero and sci-fi movies of the previous decade.
Yet it turns out that the mapping wasn't letter-perfect, with occasional buildings and intersections either missing entirely or positioned with obvious glitches in their alignment -- and it's these tell-tale "digital errors" that ultimately provided essential (September) clues for the discoveries of Simon Shack and his associates.
And something else was less than perfect in the perps' plotting, too, resulting in the also-planned, bottom-up demolition of the Solomon Brothers' (WTC 7) building being inconveniently delayed until AFTER the strategically generated "smoke curtain" had already dissipated.
Of course, the plotters had laid out some contingency plans for such possible foul-ups, and the one they eventually chose to deploy (probably amidst frenzied, back-channel communications that extended into the late afternoon) was to "brazen it out" and "pull" Building Seven anyway, albeit even later than they instructed their media "assets" (such as CNN and BBC) to begin reporting its "fire damage-caused" collapse.The problem with all three of the podcasts with OBF, IMHO, is the subject of holograms and eye witnesses which Jim argues for every time, taking up most of the program. (Why are the WTC "witnesses" so much more important than those at the Pentagon or Shanksville? Yes, I know--because we KNOW those witnesses had to have been mistaken.)
Couldn't we, for once, get over the idea of witnesses given Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon, et.al.? Weren't there something like 13 drills going on on 911? Surely, there were people, both volunteers and hired actors on the ground who posed as witnesses to the cameras.
In the Ace Baker videos above, Morgan Reynolds tells us that once these witnesses are interviewed and their testimony sorted out, there is maybe one person who might have been so located as to have witnessed a plane hitting the south tower. New Jersey had the best view, but they were too far away.
The second hurdle has been Jim's comment on UA175 being "over Champaign-Urbana" at the time it was alleged to have hit the south tower, and UA 93 being over Pittsburgh. Now, this is very confusing. Does he mean they were actually in the sky? Jim should elaborate on this as I, for one, don't know what he means and I don't think OBF got it either though he tried to get clarification.
Is it really necessary to bring this information up at all?
I find the new Ace Baker videos easier to view and understand than September Clues. There are only three and they are to the point and very well done:
? 06 - What Planes? - YouTube#t=1790
? 07 - The Key - YouTube
? 08 - The Psy-Opera - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8p16YE2YYAnd another thing, do you really think the idiots who planned 911 gave a hoot about "witnesses" to the "plane crashes"? They had the buildings wired with nukes and God knows what else. To imagine they would be concerned that an honest person would question what went on that day is ridiculous. Do you think these cheapskates would be projecting holograms onto the south tower, which, BTW, isn't even seen in Manhattan, in the final minutes of blowing the WTC to kingdom come so that they would have an alibi? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteRepliesThe people who planned and execute this are far from idiots - they used all the deception techniques in the book. Promoting "nukes", which I doubt exist at all, also further promulgates the fear meme which is in fact the point of all psyOps. So disagree or agree with the official story of 9/11, making fear the end goal is achieved either way.
Take away the vicsims and the magical ways of destruction and you have a building that came down like any other and an insurance swindle. Both happen every single day yet we don't hear about each one every day of the year, do we?
The Boston Marathon bombings proved that you can show amputees holding their own prosthetic legs being wheeled away in front of the cameras and claim later that their legs had just been blown off requiring amputation. Then, you can show these same people rehabilitated in a few days quipping with the press and the public believes it. No, with television and anchors like Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer and Dan Rather, the public will believe anything if it's on TV. And how about the woman who lost her leg and was on "Dancing With the Stars"? Incredible!
ReplyDeleteeverything is either very good or very bad, joan.
I believe the former is the case, In spite of all appearances. we have suspended disbelief for this 'reality' quite enough, thank you very much! we were being educated, awoken if you will, and all will make complete sense very soon, imho. all the clues for fakery were left to be discovered (quite easily, it now seems) and this last and latest stage kicked off almost 50 years ago with the jfk fassassination! 23/11/13 or 11/23/13 is a great day for us.Joan Edwards said: "The problem with all three of the podcasts with OBF, IMHO, is the subject of holograms and eye witnesses which Jim argues for every time, taking up most of the program. "
As I see it Jim's "problem" is mainly psychological.
As Andy points out elsewhere, is his own bullheadedness. It's a character trait. That quality is, in my opinion at the root of his "out of whack" 911 conclusions to date.
That trait allows him to, with regards to all things 911, make erroneous conclusions based on his own habitual, daily, almost complete denial of the scientific methodology to which he is supposedly dedicated.
It allows him to , for example, cherry pick totally unverified verbal "eyewitness testimony" [e.g Scott Forbes], in order to bolster a hypothesis he wants to be true.
Exactly where does it say, in the scientific methodology that completely unverified "eyewitness testimony" can be used as "evidence" of anything? Beats me.
Not only that, that trait [bullheadedness] allows him to unwittingly compound that methodological mistake with a variant:
believing the camera "testimony" of individuals about whom he has absolutely no idea about.
He does not even know whether or not these persons ever really existed, and has obviously never even bothered to research their story of how they came to take their alleged 911 photos!
For just one example, Bill Biggart, who he brought up, out of the blue, during my interview.
If he had done any actual research into both Biggarts personal history, the Bill Biggart 911 story/myth,and his alleged 911 photographic record, he would know that most likely the Biggart persona is a pure fabrication, probably concocted by his main alleged associate [I forget his name right now], and that his alleged photos are 100% digital fabrications concocted by the same person .
But to Jim, scientific methodology is, as far as 911 research goes, an inconvenience, something to be entirely avoided at every turn, in order to re-enforce his own personal convictions, nothing more.
Regards, onebornfree.- AnonymousOctober 19, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Could Claims of Video Fakery Regarding 9/11 News Media Coverage be a Distraction and Disinformation?
I've done a short study about one of Simon Shack's claims regarding Chopper 5 news coverage.
People may find it interesting! Unsolved Mysteries: "Could Claims of Video Fakery Regarding 9/11 News Media Coverage be a Distraction and Disinformation?"
Nice try, but no cigar. A perfect example of someone who has not done their research homework thoroughly.
If they had, they'd be aware of the fact that there was _no_ plane image seen in the wide shot of the original Fox 5 footage.
And even that ignores the magic , perfectly timed 3 step zoom in to capture the alleged impact... plus the fact that the plane image briefly overlaps the tower profile [right side] on entry....plus the fact that during a supposed live chopper broadcast, with no power connection to the ground, the video manages to black out for 17[?] frames.....plus the fact that upon exit, the plane nose [or dust cloud if you prefer] manages to completely flatten out vertically, so that the nose, [or whatever] is magically cut, in a perfectly straight line top to bottom. See fig.1, here : http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html#!http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-versus-richard.html
Regards,onebornfreeReplies- AnonymousOctober 20, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Hi OBF, I'm not posting to discredit you, or cause conflict with you. I think what your doing is valid research. Could you explain to me how all the videos were faked? Have you spoken to any of the people who recorded the plane(175), like Jennifer Spell or Park Foreman? Are you saying all these people are involved or at best lying? Be good if we could chat sometime via Skype, as I'm genuinely interested in this area of research. Thanks for your earlier reply, and if possible reply to this one. All the best USMUK.
Delete - AnonymousOctober 20, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Hi OBF,
The "NY Good Day Fox5 Chopper footage wide view zoom shot "seconds before" Simon Shacks wide zoom shot - does have "Flight 175" in the zoom shot travelling through the air, and the timings are also consistent and correct with other videos. I know one person personally very well, who observed "Flight 175" in real time with their own eyes. I also studied Andrew Johnson's 500 witness study of witnesses who did or didn't observe "Flight 175". Yes there were many who didn't out right see a plane. Ask Jim Fetzer, as he interviewed Andrew Johnson about the 500 witness plane sighting study, which he should have that show somewhere.
Respect USMUK.
Jim, if you're still reading this thread, then summon the intellectual/scientific/ethical curiosity and honesty to ACTUALLY and CAREFULLY examine the EVIDENCE for massive WTC image and victim fakery on 9/11, just as you've already done (and accepted it) regarding the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Your "Road to Damascus" has been long and bumpy, I know, but you're almost there.Joan Edwards said :" I find the new Ace Baker videos easier to view and understand than September Clues"
What was it that you did not understand in "September Clues"?
I have not talked with Ace Baker for a number of years, nor kept up with any new developments [if any] in his thesis. Does he still believe that a plane image was inserted into otherwise live feeds?
If you think about it, the Richard Hall holographic plane hypothesis is really little more than an update/slight expansion of the Ace Baker thesis. See:
Regards, onebornfree.Andy Tyme said :"Jim, if you're still reading this thread, then summon the intellectual/scientific/ethical curiosity and honesty to ACTUALLY and CAREFULLY examine the EVIDENCE for massive WTC image and victim fakery on 9/11,.."
Hah! Don't hold your breath Andy! Jim is too busy inventing excuses to _not_ look closely at any of this.
Such as : the "prima facie" excuse to trust the MSM broadcasts, when: "In common parlance the term prima facie is only used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation": http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie ,
which basically means that Jim _refuses_ to go beyond that "initial observation" as if his use of a fancy latin phrase exonerates him from so doing [as a supposed scientific investigator] .
Another excuse he used in my interview was Bill Biggarts fake photos, when he has done _zero_ investigation into Biggarts supposed history, or of his alleged 911 photos.
Like I said don't hold your breath Andy.
Regards, onebornfree.
P.S. Just to be clear, I never accepted Jim's interview invitation with the goal of "converting" him to what I/you believe. As a "alternative psychologist": http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/ ,I was more interested in trying to find out why he believes what he believes, and seeing if there were any inconsistencies there.
As far as I am concerned, my interview was a great success, although I understand why it would not be viewed as such by the average Simon Shack fan.Unsolved Mysteries said: "Could you explain to me how all the videos were faked?"
Its called "CGI" [Computer generated imagery]. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery.
As an example of what you can do today with CGI software, see: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/911-video-fakery-latest-2012-in.html
Unsolved Mysteries said : "Have you spoken to any of the people who recorded the plane(175), like Jennifer Spell or Park Foreman?"
No, but even if I had spoken to someone claiming to be them, how would that in any way prove that their videos were genuine, in your opinion?
Unsolved Mysteries said :" Are you saying all these people are involved or at best lying? " Yes to both [assuming these are even real persons].
Unsolved Mysteries said :"Be good if we could chat sometime via Skype" .
Why Skype, do you have a regular podcast or show?
regards, onebornfree.Unsolved Mysteries said :"The "NY Good Day Fox5 Chopper footage wide view zoom shot "seconds before" Simon Shacks wide zoom shot - does have "Flight 175" in the zoom shot travelling through the air,"
You seem maybe to have not been around long enough researching this stuff to be aware that the original Fox 5 sequence, as analyzed probably most famously by Ace Baker and Simon Shack, [who both downloaded in the original MPEG format from the online archives in 2006-7] , contained no such plane image.
It was only _after_ Shack's and Baker's analysis started to attract attention that versions showing the plane image in the wide shot were somehow magically discovered and "brought to light" .
That being said, the issue is entirely irrelevant to the other, purely technical issues I listed in a previous post , all of which point to fakery of the Fox5 sequence.
See Simon Shacks "Nosed Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
regards, onebornfree.- AnonymousOctober 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Hi OBF,
I would like to keep this respectful. I have been around a long time regarding 9/11. I've met various researchers and including Dr Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, the list goes on. So as you have confirmed that all the videographers are liars, and are part of a conspiracy, that still doesn't explain how my personal friend seen the plane (Flight 175) in real time, who confirmed that what he witnessed, was indeed the same as what was the TV media showed. What exactly did this person witness? I don't trust Simon Shacks research, or Ace Baker's. Mr Baker has a habbit of faking suicides and videos. Mr shack's did not use any such footage before the wide zoom I'm taking about. If he had he would have disproven his own claims of video fakery. So just to get this clear, you believe all pictures and videos are fakery? Can you explain how you would get all these people to collude in this conspiracy, and cover it up to this day? Or is that fact, and simpler explanation can explain why all these pictures and videos are correct, is they are genuine.
I thought Skype may be easier to discuss the evidence, instead of posting links here there and everywhere on here.
One last question, as you haven't spoken to any of the videographers, or even Kai Simonsen? How can you be sure they are liars?
Respect USMUK.
PS: The nose in nose are NOT the same before as after! They are different. - AnonymousOctober 20, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Hi OBF,
Unsolved Mysteries said : "Have you spoken to any of the people who recorded the plane(175), like Jennifer Spell or Park Foreman?"
OBF's answer: No, but even if I had spoken to someone claiming to be them, how would that in any way prove that their videos were genuine, in your opinion?
So you are disregarding the videographers testimony to suit your theory. This isn't a good or ethical way of gathering evidence to which you are making some very big assumptions. At the very least it would confirm these people videoed the footage which you are claiming to be fake. You can't just accuse them all of being liars and then move on like there isn't anything else to deal with. I think this is where your lack of research skills let you down. It's down to you to prove your case that all those videos are fake, you cannot just say CGI and leave it there. Yes CGI is possible, but how do you explain all the videographers and photographers? Are they all part of it? Do you have a database of names who actually videoed and photographed the 2nd plane? I'm not convinced by your answers. Is Kai Simonsen a liar as well?
Respect USMUK. - AnonymousOctober 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Hi OBF,
So all the videos and pictures are fake. To make this claim you have viewed every picture and video of the 2nd plane? Your claims are not well founded at all. How about the witnesses like Scott Forbes, who seen the plane175? Is he a disinf-agent too? So what did he see? Surely if the video was different he would have noticed?
I think your position isn't well founded unfortunately for you. At some point, maybe we could catch up on Skype, as I'm interested in your research, and can see you are a genuine truth-seeker. I'm not out to argue or be disrespectful to you. Hope you understand that. Are you returning on Jim's show in the near future? I look forward to hearing you on there, hope a full show this time round.
Best wishes,
USMUK. I don't believe it to be out of the realm of possibility for anyone and everyone to mistake a fast moving cruise missile for any variety of aircraft.
I think that needs to be realized, as it explains away all eyewitness testimony. All of it. Undoubtedly there would be some mouth pieces who perform the job of delivering "plane" or "jetliner" as a perspective to cling to.
But again a cruise missile could easily be mistaken for a plane, and in my mind that's all that's needed to ignore all eyewitness testimony of the planes.Onebornfree said:
Joan Edwards said :" I find the new Ace Baker videos easier to view and understand than September Clues"
"What was it that you did not understand in "September Clues"?
Well, they are both good videos. I just finished watching "September Clues" and it is excellent. I used the wrong word (understand) when I meant Baker's video was "easier to follow." I have a background in architectural and mechanical drafting, graphics, photography and have worked in every art medium as an art major in college. I feel illustrations are the best way to get across complex issues that we are dealing with here.
Baker is the first one to show a graphic of what would really happen if a plane hit a building like the WTC. He takes it slow and spreads the material out over three videos. He illustrates how the image of the plane was inserted in the last frames only as he zooms out. I think some of us, like me, are more fluent at thinking in terms of images rather than words. Jim Fetzer is the verbal type and is so proficient at it that it is indimidating to types like me. I do feel I have an advantage because I "think outside of the box," as they like to say these days.
I have no idea what Baker has said in the past about 9/11 or what others have said. I just follow the evidence. The problem now is we find the evidence we have been working with was not real. This is why Judy Wood is in such a predicament. She has assumed all the photographic images were accurate. (Compare the aerial view of WTC 6--a collage, we now see it is, with the view of GZ immediately following the demise of the towers.
Where is WTC 5 and 6--not to be seen anywhere yet WTC 7 has not yet come down.)
In view of the many artificial stories the press has sold to us as real events, we must treat 9/11 as a hoax and throw out all suspicious evidence especially that of the so-called eyewitnesses now that we know most of them were producers, family member of producers and others with connections to the networks.
Rather than consider everything as fakery as some are doing with JFK, etc., we must remember the media lies in many ways--by omission and by control of the content of
the news. No way is 2001 comparable in technology to 1963. Sandy Hook, Boston, etc. could not have been done ten years ago either. So we should be careful with the term "fakery."RepliesAn senior structural engineer has another take on the WTC collapses than what JF et al have ever told us about. Suggest you study his ideas, and try to bear with the not so neutral style – Google: anders bjorkmann wtc
In short, a high rise tower construction cannot collapse from top by gravity alone - that is cartoonish.
For the advanced student of 9/11
? SEPTEMBER CLUES : Definitive Edition | 2008 (FULL VERSION) - YouTube
For the novice:
? 06 - What Planes? - YouTube#t=1790
? 07 - The Key - YouTube
? 08 - The Psy-Opera - YouTube
When you think of fakery, think in terms of manufactured events. Think Orson Welles "War of the Worlds." .:
ReplyDeleteReplies- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Hi Joan,
War Of The Worlds wasn't faker for the witnesses was it??? But according to OBF and others on this forum, all the witnesses are Liars and part of the conspiracy. You need the few to control the many - like the war of the worlds. I'm afraid video fakery just doesn't workout like that. The people witnesses what they witnessed, and videoed what they videoed. Perhaps what they captured is where you should focus your attention, and not let Shack, Baker and Allen lead to the never never land.
Respect to USMUK.
- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Hi All,
You guys just totally neglect all the witnesses to suit your theories of video fakery. I think it was far easier to have a real event (NOT OFFICIAL VERSION BTW) involving some type of missile or Hologram, rather than your video fakery claims involving thousands of people. I've watched all "Septembers Clues" and Ace Baker's videos back in the day when all this started. Have you got all his appearances on the "Dynamic Duo" with Jim Fetzer? WHY won't Shack come on Jim's show? Shack has been dishonest regarding his research. He's there to mislead you away from the real evidence of some type of missile or technology that was really captured by the witnesses and videographers. Is that easier to do, and even fool the people witnessing the event and video and photograph. That's more "WAR OF THE WORLDS" very few people involved to convince the many. Including the people who videoed and photographed the event. Too much selective editing by Shack and Baker are misleading you all away from the simplest explanation.
Respect USMUK. what is the simplest explanation then, Solved? how many people do you believe died on 9/11? do you believe willy rodriguez' story? do you believe the buildings were pre-emptied (for the most part) in preparation for demolition?
ReplyDeleteReplies- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I've met William Rodriguez, and frankly I don't believe his story. I done believe the official story either. I certainly don't believe that all the videos, photographs fake or the eye witnesses are part of a conspiracy or liars. OBF cannot produce any evidence to prove otherwise, he doesn't even want to confront this stumbling block to his theory. Now he wants money to chat on Skype. the videos are not fakery, they are genuine, what is captured on the videos is real to the event. Now why the plane's crash physics and Newton's laws went missing is another story. Take it from me, Ace Baker, Simon Shack are merely leading you down a dead end, so you don't look at the real evidence. Believe me, I'm seasoned in the video fakery subject and have a good data base of videographers who I have studied, something that OBF is choosing to ignore. That like the police conducting an investigation and NOT asking "Are there any witnesses". Completely floored way of conducting an investigation by OBF. Jennifer Spell is NOT a liar or Op. She's a genuine person who captured what she captured on her video. SIMPLE AS THAT. Try analysing what she captured, and be lead to the dead end by the likes of Shack, Baker and people like Markus Allen. WHY isn't Shack appearing on Jim Fetzer's Show??? Simple! Work it out! BTW, checkout his family background..... You may have a surprise.
"Respect To You" USMUK. You don't make your claims sound any more credible then OBF. You have no way of knowing the video is genuine, even if you disagree with all of Simon Shack and others' research. It cannot be take for granted, which seems to be your default position...that the burden of proof doesn't lie with you, and that if you choose to accept the video as real, then it is real.
I don't completely agree with anyone on any of these issues, but I find it troublesome to see someone flat-out reject anything that they can't prove to the contrary.
Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt the video is legitimate, you can't refute claims that they are not, let alone the evidence that they not. Your belief or disbelief does not factor in.
I don't care how anyone handles themselves, or their interviews, or their responses. The evidence is the evidence, and I've seen a lot. And I would need to see some rock hard compelling evidence to convince me that certain video sequences are not fake. There a few instances that just cannot be explained away even if one were to try (and they have), and therefor I have no choice but to conclude that some fakery is taking place when certain sequences do not match.- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Hi PM,
Have you ever spoken to any of the eye witnesses, videographers, or photographers ????
Kathy Cacicedo - 9/11 Photographer, Ronald S. Pordy - 9/11 Video / Photographer, John J. Seagriff - 9/11 Photographer, Clifton Cloud - 9/11 videographer, Robert Clark - 9/11 Photographer, Roberto Rabbane - 9/11 Photographer, Roberto Rabbane - 9/11 Photographer, Devin Clark - 9/11 Videographer, Tony Arrigo eye witness, Scot Forbes eye witness? These are are important to an investigation about the video and pictorial record that day, yet according to you OBF they are NOT.
OBF has made assumptions that they are part of a conspiracy to video fakery. The simplest explanation is the truth.
USMUK. - AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM
PM said: Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt the video is legitimate, you can't refute claims that they are not, let alone the evidence that they not. Your belief or disbelief does not factor in.
USMUK said: It's not about my belief, It's about evidence. You cannot accuse people of a conspiracy when you haven't even got one bit of evidence that the videos are fake.
NOT one of you have spoken to any of these people below. They are just a few who Shack, Baker and OBF accuse of a conspiracy. It's SHAMEFUL.!!! And you called yourselves researchers of truth?
Who speaks for these people who witnessed the event? Who are accused of being part of it.
Kathy Cacicedo - 9/11 Photographer, Ronald S. Pordy - 9/11 Video / Photographer, John J. Seagriff - 9/11 Photographer, Clifton Cloud - 9/11 videographer, Robert Clark - 9/11 Photographer, Roberto Rabbane - 9/11
Devin Clark - 9/11 Videographer, Tony Arrigo eye witness, Scot Forbes eye witness?
- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sometimes the most simple explanation is the the truth!
USMUK. - AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Zapruder Film is a good example of proving film fakery. The evidence is there to demonstrate how the chain of event's do not tally up with eye witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Slowing of the limo, head shot and the list goes on. John Costella proves the claims with doubt, unfortunately, on the other hand, it isn't so with 9/11 video fakery.
Delete I don't understand the obsession with creating a theory that fits with limited eye witness testimony. You are handicapping yourself.
My speaking with one or all of them would do absolutely nothing to determine their authenticity or not. You cannot merely take 'your impression' of them to mean they are legitimate. I can't even take YOUR word that you ever have.
All we have is evidence, and eye witnesses are small piece of the puzzle. When you break it down, practically irrelevant.- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 3:24 AM
I can't believe what you have just said? I'm not the one with a theory. Limited eye witness testimony? Where are you getting this garbage from? Eye witnesses are vital to any crime, and can't believe you think otherwise. Absolute ludicrous! Who said I've spoken to all of the eye witnesses? Already your making False claims about me! The eye witnesses are very relevant as claims are being made about them, so you can't get more relevant can you? Basically calling them liars and part of a conspiracy makes them by the likes of Shack, Baker and OBF extremely RELEVANT. Wouldn't you agree?
When you elude to LIMITED eye witnesses, have you actually checked that have you? because I know by what your saying, you have NOT!
The story so far :
to sum up, in my 3 appearances to date on "The Real Deal" I have tried to explain to Jim that his wholesale swallowing of entirely unverified "eyewitness testimony", with no deep background check of the individuals concerned, combined with his wholesale swallowing of completely unverified imagery [i.e videos and photos] from other individuals who he has at the same time made zero attempt to ever authenticate/background check, is , despite his establishment credentials [and his ongoing denial], A COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
Anyone else here ["scientist" or non-scientist] who believes that the exact same complete lack of procedural discipline has _any_ connection to real, bona fide scientific research, has, for whatever reason, pretty much the exact same problems as does Jim, and must inevitably reach similar [erroneous] conclusions.
However, "each to his own", as they say.
What Jim and assorted others here might choose to believe about correct scientific methodology, and therefor about 911, is NONE OF MY BUSINESS [unless they want to make it my business!].
So if an individual chooses to entirely ignore the standard scientific investigative methodology protocols, and chooses to believe the photo-testimony etc. of a Bill Biggart, a Luc Courchesne, or a Jennifer Spell etc. etc., or god knows who else; again, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
The individuals choice of what/who to believe is their choice, and their responsibility, not mine, and I have no intention of [for free], trying to persuade them that their belief choices [and therefor their entire 911 theory] is most likely wrong.
Their choice, their responsibility. Not mine.
I therefor have no intention of discussing these types of subjects with complete strangers either here, via email, or on Skype [or whatever], for free. To be blunt, my Skype time is reserved for paying clients, persons with radio shows, and close friends.
I have given my time for free both during the interview, in the comment section here , and in my various blog posts on 911: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/
If any of the readers here disagree with any of my assertions here, or at my free to read blog, you are likewise free to disregard it or even to make entirely negative comments at my blog site. Outside of that, and places like this, that is the extent of my free work right now.
"I'm sorry I'm not allowed to argue unless you pay" :
Regards, onebornfree.RepliesI think you have a done a great job summarizing your position. For anyone who wants to listen further to OBF expound, check the archives at http:radioarchives.fakeologist.com. OBF is right to stop arguing with people who refuse to see the deception logically.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Refuse? I haven' refused, OBF hasn't produced any real evidence. Theories are great, but the evidence isn't there. His methods are wrong. He has already started his investigation with the assumption that the eye witnesses aren't irrelevant? When your accusing the videographers of video fakery? SHAMEFUL.
- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Unverified witness testimony? I would say that is the case. Of any crime, witnesses are an important aspect of the evidence gathering. The fact you choose to ignore this is quite astonishing. the fact you take a position about the witnesses when you haven't spoken to any is quite as astonishing. The mere fact you conduct your investigation about video and photographic evidence with a predetermined assumption and judgement about the very people who recorded the events of 9/11 is more astonishing. Have you spoken to Kathy Cacicedo - 9/11 Photographer, Ronald S. Pordy - 9/11 Video / Photographer, John J. Seagriff - 9/11 Photographer, Clifton Cloud - 9/11 videographer, Robert Clark - 9/11 Photographer, Roberto Rabbane - 9/11 Photographer, Roberto Rabbane - 9/11 Photographer, Devin Clark - 9/11 Videographer, Tony Arrigo eye witness, Scot Forbes eye witness? These are are important to an investigation about the video and pictorial record that day, yet according to you OBF they are NOT. You have stereotype case all these people before you have even started. Unethical practice to say the least. By the way, how much an hour to Skype you for a chat, you didn't say?
All the best
USMUK. Several years ago, a disinformation agent (IMHO) claiming to be a "Canadian dance-club DJ" haunted a precursor of the SeptemberClues forum, initially proffering enthusiastic support for the emerging total-video fakery thesis.
Then... this curious guy initiated his own forum and quickly proceeded to post what were alleged to be surreptitiously recorded mp3 files of his long-distance telephone conversations with lots of the "independent" photographers whose 9/11 imagery had been picked up and distributed by the commercial news media. He never did explain how he was able to track them all down and obtain their personal phone numbers so seemingly effortlessly -- nor did he address the potential evesdropping/wiretapping/privacy-invasion issues in such behaviour. (Perhaps it was because he was supposedly calling from a foreign country!) But the results sure made for several hours of interesting listening, particularly for serious students of 9/11 who could spot obvious impossibilities and contradictions in the various "personal narratives" that were presented.
Subsequent to this process, the "DJ" (who reportedly would later work as a forum moderator for Alex Jones) announced that he had been converted to being a true-believer in the authenticity of all the "amateur" photography of 9/11. Considering Dr. Fetzer's current state of denial/avoidance (regarding SeptemberClues and the VicSim Report) I'm thinking the "DJ" would be an ideal, comfort-providing guest for the beseiged host of "The Real Deal". ;)- AnonymousOctober 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Hi Andy,
I have just about every phone call he ever made, including a very interesting one. Yes what is in the videos are strange, but I don't believe the fakery is the videos, I think the fakery is the real time event they filmed.
Where do you stand?
Best wishes,
USMUK. Unsolved Mysteries said: "By the way, how much an hour to Skype you for a chat, you didn't say? "
I don't do "chats". My rates will vary depending on what problem the client wishes to discuss with me.
If accepted as a client [ and, if all you want to do is argue with me, you most likely would not be accepted as a client unless you were prepared to pay "through the nose"], full payment is always due in advance [cash, or Paypal]
More details and contact info is here:
http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/ , also my email is given in various other posts here.
Regards, onebornfree.- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 3:15 AM
Hi OBF,
Are you making profit off 9/11?
Are you paying Jim Fetzer to go on his show? Or are you getting paid from Jim Fetzer?
Who's arguing? In the term argue, = to argue your point. Philosophy uses that term I believe.
So we are meant to shut up when you make incorrect claims? Why on earth are you posting in a forum if you don't want people to be debate you?
9/11, it kind of shameful OBF.
Your agenda seems questionable in its self.
Respect USMUK. USMUK, I think you are basically a man of good will, even if a bit trigger-happy to hurl invective at someone with whom you disagree.
Therefore I duly appreciate your intense, sometimes rude resistance to even considering the possibility that the mass media-promoted digital imagery, on which you have heavily based your years of hard study and thoughtful interpretation, is itself of suspect provenance, authenticity and probity.
But it is... as Simon Shack and his associates have repeatedly demonstrated via a myriad of both internal and external contradictions and impossibilities.
And OBF, I salute you for your gentlemanly reticince and stewardship of your time.Replies- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Hi Andy,
If I've come across a bit rude, I whole heartedly apologise to you, and all the forum members. I apologise if I've offended anyone. Sorry! It's not my intention. I've left OBF a message accepting there are strange things regarding the pictures and videos. But with regards flight 175, I do believe the videos actually captured some type of technology rather than video fakery to explain the crash physics. I used to be a NO Planer and video fakery supporter. I've changed my position from that these days. I wish you all well though. I will tone it down.
Jim Fetzer: "I have no idea what is going on with some of my critics. If anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate knowing."
OK, let me have a shot at it.
What they are trying to say is that based on their analysis of the situation and in light of recent events in which total fakery (including simulated victims) is the norm, you should try to consider:
1. Regarding 9/11: That all the victims were simulated, as shown in this video:
2. Regarding JFK: That Jack faked his own assassination by using a squib-like device, and thus was part of the conspiracy, as shown in this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7--fLExwY1I- AnonymousOctober 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Hi OBF,
Great stuff, I'm studying counselling at the moment. Been studying transactional analysis and other models of self-understanding. Got a long journey yet though.
OBF, I respect your views. I've had a look through your stuff, and can see how much work you have put in to this research. I have changed my position from a NO Planer and video fakery to some type of technology regarding the plane175. Although, yes I can see your point regarding certain pictures and videos. So I shall leave that with you as I have respect for you, like you have for others. Hopefully Jim will give you a good stretch next time you are on his show. All the best OBF.
USMUK. do you mind me asking where do you stand on the whole JFK staged assassination theory obf? I know you have been on the fakeologist show on a few occasions so you probably have come across Culto's interviews and comprehensive research. I hope it won't be a case of 'you just stick to 9/11 research/fakery exposure and leave the rest up to others. that type of answer never sits straight with me.
jim, can you give a straight answer for once, please? have you looked into Culto's research to the level it needs looking into? yes or no.
if not, why not?pshea said: "do you mind me asking where do you stand on the whole JFK staged assassination theory obf?"
I don't really stand anywhere on it- more like sit - on the fence, :-) , assuming you are talking about the question of whether or not the assassination itself was faked.
Of course it was staged, regardless of whether or not a real time assassination actually occurred.
But having not studied the record in any real depth, I have no firm opinion one way or another right now. Yes, total fakery is possible, so I cannot exclude that possibility.
I know Cultos name from a couple of years ago, but I do not recall what research of theirs I looked at [probably 911].
Frankly I am not interested enough in the idea right now to set aside valuable time to research the question further.
regards, onebornfree.PM aid :"For the witnesses that reported anything other than seeing a jetliner.....such as the people that thought it was missile, or the people that thought it was a 'small plane'....is this not an example of exactly what you say we don't have? "
Jim is committing at least two " crimes" with regards to alleged eyewitness testimony:
1] He cherry picks testimony to back up what he believes to be true about the supposed events of 9/11 as depicted in the [faked] videos/photos the authenticity of which he [of course] also refuses point blank to even question [even as a supposed scientist].
2] He's in complete denial of his cherry picking of alleged eyewitness testimony.
And that still completely ignores the MAJOR no-no of never having done ANY deep background checks for ANY of the alleged eyewitnesses he does believe![e.g. Scott Forbes]
All in all, Jim Fetzer's 9/11 "research" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific investigative methodology- it is in fact, plain, simple, 100% total B.S. :-)
Regards, onebornfreeOBF, or anyone else still reading this unusually long comment thread: What is there (other than his suspicious "eyewitness" testimony of a plane heading right at the tower) in the background/connections/verifiable-existence of "Scott Forbes" that gives reason to question his accuracy or honesty? If Dr. Fetzer had actually followed OBF's advice to dig into Forbe's "bona fides," just what perp-like, incriminating info would have turned up -- if there is any?
Mr. Forbes certainly talked a good game when he appeared on The Real Deal, but there was that troubling central detail of his calmly describing a seeming (to us, anyway) IMPOSSIBILITY. In other words, who has "the goods" on Forbes? And what are they?Dear Andy,
You could start by asking Scott Forbes where we can find the Official 9/11 memorial for his alleged 87 dead colleagues at FIDUCIARY TRUST. I've been looking for it - with no luck. Perhaps Uncle Fetzer can help us find it? Surely, a company who lost 87 employees on 9/11 MUST have an Official 9/11 Memorial page?Andy Tyme said: "What is there (other than his suspicious "eyewitness" testimony of a plane heading right at the tower) in the background/connections/verifiable-existence of "Scott Forbes" that gives reason to question his accuracy or honesty? If Dr. Fetzer had actually followed OBF's advice to dig into Forbe's "bona fides," just what perp-like, incriminating info would have turned up -- if there is any? "
It's really irrelevant to my point [what "incriminating info" may or may not turn up if Forbes were thoroughly checked out- although believe me, its out there, as poster "Norwegian" {Simon perchance?} implies ], Andy.
The fact of the matter is that Jim is supposed to be a person using a scientific methodology to uncover truth.
However there is _nothing_ within standard scientific methodology that allows for the repeated employment of alleged " eyewitness testimony", to solidify a hypothesis.
If a scientist does choose to use alleged eyewitness testimony, don't you think it is perfectly reasonable for them to first insist on doing a thorough background check, _before_ blithely_ assuming that that alleged eyewitness must be telling the truth, merely because they sound believable?
Forbes is not the only person Jim conveniently chooses to believe based on zero background check. He mentions in the show Bill Biggarts photos as being believable, and yet, as with Forbes, he has done ZERO investigation into the Biggart story and his alleged associates and his background /history.
The bottom line is that , with regards to 911, Jim Fetzer is, for whatever reason, consistently, and entirely, avoiding the employment of the scientific methodology, both via his complete avoidance of deep video and photo analysis, and his complete avoidance of deep background checks for alleged eyewitnesses.
Regards, onebornfree"The bottom line is that , with regards to 911, Jim Fetzer is, for whatever reason, consistently, and entirely, avoiding the employment of the scientific methodology, both via his complete avoidance of deep video and photo analysis, and his complete avoidance of deep background checks for alleged eyewitnesses."
Which, to my own mind, raises serious questions as to the validity of any/all of his non- 911 research to date.
Regards, onebornfreeYes, onebornfree - this is me, Simon Shack. Now, regarding FIDUCIARY TRUST: it would indeed appear that they do NOT have any memorial page/ or website with tributes to their alleged 87 lost employees. Shocking, is it not? All I've been able to find is this old / outdated "Memorial Fund" page: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/13-7291354/ft-fiduciary-trust-memorial-fund.aspx - which declares (for the fiscal year 2003) a total revenue of only$93,134 ...against expenses of $1,511,525 ! I'm no accountant or much less a taxman - but it smells to me like a potential IRS-defrauding scam right there.
Lastly, and since I'm here now (was only able to log in to this blogspot with my old 'norwegian' account ) - and hopefully Professor Fetzer will read this - may I kindly ask why I still cannot post over at the 9/11 Scholars Forum? I registered there about two weeks ago, but when I log in it keeps saying : "Your membership is pending approval". Have I now become 'persona non grata', Jim? Thanks for letting me know.Hey Simon! I can personally attest that the 9/11 Scholars Forum runs on top of a rather "funky" blog engine. When I first tried to sign up it gave me the same "pending approval" cold shoulder for quite a while. Several weeks later, as I recall, it changed its rejection message to a notice that I was trying to sign in with an e-mail address already in use by another member. MONTHS later I was finally told that I could actually sign in and post. I suggest that you don't take the rejection personally. Perhaps the blog engine is hassling lots of other would-be posters too. The traffic over there seems (thanks to a feature that displays "reads" of one's postings) pretty light these days.