Jim Fetzer on media fakery

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on November 21st, 2012, 11:26 pm

*


DR. FETZER - challenged by his own listeners


I just bumped into this discussion thread at Jim Fetzer's place (radiofetzer.blogspot) :

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.it/2012/08/ ... ldwyn.html


I found it quite heartening to read the many comments in support of my/and our now common SC research. But Jim Fetzer appears to be thinking otherwise - and clearly doesn't like those comments at all - and sounds quite irritated by it all! ... Anyways, I invite you all to check out this comment page, including this revealing sentence by Dr Fetzer himself:

Jim Fetzer wrote: September 2. 2012

"I will consider inviting Simon onto the show, however, so we can discuss his research. I think the destruction of the Twin Towers was virtually impossible to fake, but I will be fascinating to learn why he thinks so."


So Dr Fetzer states that he will "be fascinating to learn why I think so". Fantastic. So is he actually saying that he has not the slightest notion of our longstanding collapse imagery research? Is he just playing dumb? Is he planning to ask me to illustrate for him our 28 pages of evidence of the fake collapse imagery DURING THE RADIO SHOW?

And to those insisting that I should accept Dr. Fetzer's repeated invitations to his "REAL DEAL" radio shows, I ask : what's the point of being interviewed by a clueless, petulant old man who pretends to be an expert on 9/11 ? I will now sweep away my natural inclination to uphold diplomatic discourse and firmly state my now consolidated belief that Dr Fetzer is not only a "useful idiot"(as some have it) but more precisely a completely compromised idiot. And yes, there's quite a substantial difference between these two definitions.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby Farcevalue on November 22nd, 2012, 6:56 am

I listened to the entire OneBornFree interview and got the distinct impression that Fetzer was lying, knows he is lying and is controlled opposition that lures media fakery researchers into his web of listeners to poison the well with disinfo. Perhaps his gate-keeping agenda is keeping the space beam and hologram aficionados from making a break for the fences, but I have a hard time believing that market saturation of September Clues could be lagging behind that of those promoting such fairy tales.

There is actual evidence here, FFS.

Is this the world presided over by the likes of Fetzer?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkcKQmr7kRc
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby repentantandy on November 24th, 2012, 8:49 am

Farcevalue wrote:I listened to the entire OneBornFree interview and got the distinct impression that Fetzer was lying, knows he is lying and is controlled opposition that lures media fakery researchers into his web of listeners to poison the well with disinfo. Perhaps his gate-keeping agenda is keeping the space beam and hologram aficionados from making a break for the fences,


First of all, Dr. Fetzer got a bum rap (as personally promoting "space beams") from the knee-jerk, shilly-ish plane-huggers, years ago, when he first became intrigued by the Judy Wood material, gave her lots of airtime, and even provided a live-conference spot, to expound on her "dustification" and "toasted cars" cutesy-ness, always followed by her coy refusal to flat-out state what her endgame theory really was. But when pressed on this matter by Fetzer, Wood eagerly pointed to the bizarre, seemingly-impossible-to-replicate-in-a-reputable-lab, levitations of the mysterious, Tesla-reminiscent "Hutchison Effect". Fetzer's curt dismissal of this "effect" as being scientifically unsubstantiated was then met with an ongoing, highly unprofessional (for a credentialed scholar) campaign of rage and villification from Wood, even though Fetzer continued to express appreciation for the still-unanswered-by-officialdom questions (albeit based on highly questionable media imagery) Wood had raised. So IMHO Fetzer was never actually a "promoter of space beams".

Of late he HAS, however, become something of a "promoter of holograms," at least to the extent that they could be a possible explanation for (what he finds as) "credible eyewitnesses seeing planes". Wild as this hypothesis sounds, Fetzer supports its plausibility by citing documented, government-funded research into just such mass-deceptive technology -- plus the existence of academic/scientific conferences and journals devoted to tactical, holographic-display science.

The intense and compelling research done here at CluesForum leading to the discrediting of such "eyewitness testimony" AND the media-disseminated, bogus imagery that such testimony supports has, I'm sad to say, been mostly rejected by Fetzer -- a position which (perhaps too conveniently) then "allows" him to maintain that since the "crashes" were aerodynamically impossible, advanced-tech holograms must have "cloaked" whatever unknown destruction-source inflicted the initial damage upon the towers (if such pre-demolition damage even took place.)

Although I'm virtually certain that Dr. Fetzer has wandered down the wrong path on this absoulutely crucial matter, I'm still not convinced that he's just a paid-disinfo agent -- as very likely was the case with such cyber-excrement piles of the past as Jeff Hill, Genghis, Broken Sticks, ad nauseum.

OTOH, I have found Fetzer's choice (and inexcusably credulous treatment) of certain, off-the-wall guests on his show, particularly in recent months, to raise troubling questions as to his consistency in the sincerity/integrity department. Is he, at least on occasion, succumbing to the temptation to devolve into an intellectually lazy, ethically reckless, Art Bell-style "entertainer of the airwaves"? Perhaps; I hope not.

I still admire Fetzer's prodigious talent for challenging consensus reality with solid, revisionist research and dispassionate, logical deduction. His pioneering work on the Iraq war-enabling Senator Wellstone murder is outstanding, as is Fetzer's exposure of the fakery-laden, Secret Service-absolving Zapruder film. But his bull-headed, out-of-hand rejection of the most important CluesForum findings regarding victim-and-video fraud (favoring instead, even if only by default, the extremely tenuous hologram hypothesis) now threatens to mortally wound his hard-earned status as a courageous and accurate truth-teller.

And the parade of ad hominem attacks herein upon his advanced age and girth certainly have not increased the likelihood of his embracing the Clues findings, either. He doesn't deserve such treatment.

Unless, of course, he really is a shill for the perps, after all. :P
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby teriyaki taryaki on December 1st, 2012, 3:52 pm

repentantandy wrote:

I still admire Fetzer's prodigious talent for challenging consensus reality with solid, revisionist research and dispassionate, logical deduction. His pioneering work on the Iraq war-enabling Senator Wellstone murder is outstanding, as is Fetzer's exposure of the fakery-laden, Secret Service-absolving Zapruder film. But his bull-headed, out-of-hand rejection of the most important CluesForum findings regarding victim-and-video fraud (favoring instead, even if only by default, the extremely tenuous hologram hypothesis) now threatens to mortally wound his hard-earned status as a courageous and accurate truth-teller


I'm somebody who once thought Fetzer was the smartest guy in the whole 9-11 troofster movement. I've listened to probably hundreds of Fetzer audios since 2007 and I just can't listen to the guy anymore. I fall asleep half-way through his broadcasts until that neverending Beatles music he keeps playing wakes me up, then go back to sleep as soon as he starts his robotic and usually pointless lectures again. He hasn't had anything really new to say about 9-11 for at least 2 years now. It's all either rehash of the same or the same old disinfo with a new face.

Did Fetzer and Ace Baker work together in putting on that 'suicide fakery' farce episode right after Baker had started bashing Judy Wood in order to accomplish the co-opting of Simon and September Clues and the derailing of it by associating No-Planers with crazy behavior ? Who knows ? It's possible. It's not that hard to act out a farce.

The only thing in Ace Baker's favor is that, although he obviously has the money, he has not really tried to heavily market the big expensive 9-11 Psy-Opera movie he took three years to make and which gatekeeps all media fakery beyond just the planes.

After a few months of charging people to watch the film chapter by chapter, he just put it out there on you tube and then pretty much disappeared. He then took parts 9 and 10 that dealt with his fights with other 9-11 troofers and his 'suicide fakery' episode with Fetzer out of the film. It's only 8 parts now. I never saw those last 2 parts before he pulled them but they probably made him look more devious and crazy and he needs to look sane at least until the disinfo has spread far and wide. Anyway, people will always bring up the 'suicide fakery episode' in order to discredit Ace Baker first and then by extension Simon Shack and all other No-Planer / Media Fakery researchers.
teriyaki taryaki
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 2:27 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby hoi.polloi on December 1st, 2012, 4:17 pm

To be fair, we haven't really had anything "new" to say about 9/11 either. We keep saying the same thing: examine the evidence (and lack thereof!)

But I see the point of your post: he never reaches the obvious media fakery cases, and has a miscellany bag of excuses for avoiding them.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby AmongTheThugs on December 1st, 2012, 9:26 pm

Fetzer seems to be another joke. The perps clearly have a sense of humor.
AmongTheThugs
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: March 9th, 2011, 10:07 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on December 1st, 2012, 11:32 pm

AmongTheThugs wrote:Fetzer seems to be another joke. The perps clearly have a sense of humor.


The crispest, most concise description of the Dr. Fetzer character I've read in a long while. Thanks, ATT !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby teriyaki taryaki on December 2nd, 2012, 2:16 pm

If you go by Alexa ratings Fetzer is at 3.8 million, a pathetic showing after all these years of being on the scene.

His main outlet is Veterans Today at number 24,000 but his linkage from there doesn't seem to be working much to improve his 3.8 million rating

Clues Forum is at 180,000 in the entire world.

So it's not surprising that he should be asking Simon for air time on his show. Clues Forums gains nothing by appearing with Fetzer except maybe the possiblity of a stamp of approval by a so-called Professor of philosophy and the 'founder' of Scholars for 9-11 troof, rather than the usual roll-call of internet conspiracy sites which get laughed at in the academic circles Fetzer hails from and flaunts as a badge of honor :P

Clues Forums should just do its own weekly radio broadcasts on every subject under the sun, just for promotion and not necessarily to advance the research since the research is advanced just fine on the forum itself.

Look on the bright side. Jeff Rense at 8178 and Alex Jones at 1700 in the world gatekeep No-Planers but millionaire Mr.Lizard David Icke at number 6150 does not and there are TONS of Simon's and other Clues Forums stuff posted on Icke Forums with direct links over here.

So you guys are really one of the big stars on the 6150th biggest website on the entire planet.

Judy Wood (#454,000) is being bashed over there very hard (not that there was ever a time when she wasn't being bashed) and even Andrew Johnson has almost given up coming around to maneuver a defence but not you guys. Hardly anyone bashes Clues and No-Planers anymore. Clues and Simon still have star-pull over there.

I'm sure you don't mind being lumped in with Reptilian-Huggers with that kind of exposure ? :P


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8OBbQ1_XA

ImageImage
Image
Last edited by teriyaki taryaki on May 20th, 2013, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
teriyaki taryaki
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 2:27 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on February 24th, 2013, 11:44 pm

*

Jim Fetzer on Noam Chomsky :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/27 ... -rob-kall/

"Chomsky has always been an establishment crony and cover-up man who specializes in limited hangouts and then delivers a bad payload. He is an expert at this, the art of deflection, and the king of sly obfuscation and the sophistry and casuistry of confusion."


I'd say that Fetzer is far too humble and generous in his appraisal of Chomsky's expertise in the art of deflection, obfuscation and casuistry of confusion. Fetzo himself stands head, cheeks and shoulders above Chomsky's skills in that particular field. His apparent 'openness' to listen to every single "very special guest" he invites on his "Real Deal" radio show, inciting them with constant, prodding exclamations ("that's stunning! /how fascinating !"/etc) are all part of Fetzo's repertoire to uphold the illusion that he is genuinely interested in other people's research.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby edgewaters on February 26th, 2013, 5:17 am

teriyaki taryaki wrote:
Ever heard of the hermetic qabalah with a 'Q' as opposed to Jewish kabbalah with the 'K' ?

Languages themselves are crafted as code:

For example:

a mile is 5280 feet

how can you remember how many feet is in a mile ?

well, the word 'mile' itself actually tells you what it means:

'm' is a roman numeral, it is one thousand

'i' is a roman numeral, it is one

'l' is a roman numberal, it is fifty

'e' is not a roman numeral but it has an ordinal value of 5 (A, B, C, D, E, fifth letter)

now when you add up 1000 + 1 + 50 + 5, it equals 1056

and why is that important ?

because if you now multiply 1056 times 5 you will get exactly 5280 feet.

so there is no reason for you to ever forget how many feet is in a mile, if you understand that THE WORD IS A CODE for its actual distance.

from:

The Esoteric Hour with Dennis Fetcho of the Illuminatus Observer - 11 / 18 / 2012 -
http://www.awakeradio.co.uk/podcasts/th ... 0awake.mp3

http://illuminatusobservor.blogspot.com ... balah.html


It's a good mnemonic trick but it isn't like the word "mile" was invented with the number 5280 in mind. First of all - the mile hasn't always been 5280 feet. The earliest mile was 5000 feet on the nose. Secondly it has been spelled many different ways over the years - from the original Latin milliarum spatiatum to Old English mil and with many variations in other countries (milhe, mille, meile, mijl, etc etc etc)
edgewaters
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 4:49 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on May 3rd, 2013, 10:06 pm

*

FETZER drops The Bomb

"Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01 ... ed-on-911/


Image

Allright, ladies and gentlemen - the mystery is solved! Bring out the champagne! ^_^

See, mini-nukes were used to bring down the towers. Yup. At least, that's what Dr Fetzer and a trio of 'nuke-experts' have now determined, apparently with utmost certainty and "beyond all reasonable doubt". No kidding. A few exerpts:

"We believe that the evidence derived from the dust samples collected by the USGS–which, after all, is a government agency–provides overwhelming proof that contradicts the government’s own “official account” and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of the WTC was a nuclear event."

"It appears to be beyond reasonable doubt that this building was nuked, because no alternative explanation is reasonable."

"The USGS dust samples prove beyond all doubt that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero."

"...surely the evidence we have presented makes is beyond reasonable doubt that the destruction of the towers and WTC-6 were nuclear events." (Jim Fetzer - in the comment section of the article)


But best of all, we now 'know' the exact time it took for the two 110-story towers to collapse! Ready for this, folks?

WTC2 > 9 SECONDS
WTC1 > 11 SECONDS


Do you think I'm kidding you? Not at all. I'm serious! In Professor Fetzer's own words (in the article's comment section):

Jim Fetzer wrote: - May 2, 2013
"We are talking about dust samples collected by the USGS. Thanks for sharing, onebornfree. The time calculations of 11 seconds for the North Tower and 9 for the South of course are not only those of NIST but appear to be accurate and correspond to what we would expect if the 110 North Tower had been destroyed by taking out one block of 10 floors per second in sequence and likewise for the South, with the difference that the top three floors had tilted over and were being blown as one."


Impeccable logic, isn't it? WTC2 fell two seconds faster because its three top floors tilted over! :lol:

Of course, this "nuke-did-it" theory is yet another attempt to make some sense out of the "abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11" - as the article states. Once again, NO mention is made of the computer imagery aired on 9/11 by all the TV networks - as comprehensively analyzed and exposed for many years on this forum.

Now, you may ask, how did these lads making up Fetzer's trio of "nuke-experts"(Don Fox, Ed Ward and Jeff Prager) reach their rock solid, "beyond-reasonable-doubt" conclusions? Well, they apparently analyzed data (water & dust samples) issued by two governmental agencies, the DOE (Department of Energy) and the USGS (United States Geological Survey). The problem is: just how has this data emerged? What sort of chain of custody and how verifiable are the sources of the same? Can we trust that this data is accurate, trustworthy and legitimate? Jeff Prager has this to offer, in response to these pertinent questions (first raised and submitted by 9/11 researcher Onebornfree):

Jeff Prager wrote:"As for the chain of custody, the chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429. I spoke to 3 of the several chemists that issued this report, by phone. They’re low level government chemists that have no reason to produce data that’s not accurate. The USGS puts out 1000s of detailed reports each year and I have yet to find errors in any of them."


Wow. So we are asked to believe that, for all these years, any inquisitive chemist/physicist was just one phone-call away from some low-level government chemists who could certify a set of damning, publicly available data issued by the USGS - which "CLEARLY AND BEYOND DOUBT reveals that nuclear explosives were used on 9/11"? Amazing.

Quite frankly, this 'thermonuclear' development (in the light of the ongoing exposure of the entire nuke hoax), should come as no surprise. What better way of covering up one governement hoax (from 2001) with an older, far more 'established' hoax (from the 1940's)? To be sure, the myth of the nuclear bomb isn't going to 'explode in the open' anytime soon - as the psyence-quackery behind it is tightly guarded by this planet's scientific AND military community; alas, the nuke bomb scarecrow is here to stay for the foreseeable future - and is arguably the most untouchable hoax of our times.


****

As far as I'm concerned, the F-mystery is now solved - beyond reasonable doubt :

The curious case of Prof. Fetzer's seemingly tireless efforts at steering 9/11 researchers into innumerable paths of 'investigative logic' may have finally come to a merciful end. Now that Fetzer has reached - to his own satisfaction - definitive conclusions regarding the 'weapons' used on 9/11 ("holograms and nukes"), we may hopefully expect this most exhaustingly garrulous figure to be heading for "early" retirement. May we humble '9/11 students' all be spared from any further lectures by the wordy professor F and his gatekeeping likes. The 'suave and likeable' uncle Fetzer has fooled enough free-thinking minds already, what with his apparently 'open-minded' and debonairly approach - a gimmick ultimately finalized to lead his trusty readers and listeners deep down into la-la-land.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby Maat on May 4th, 2013, 12:54 am

So the old Fatzo buffoon has finally "nuked" himself, eh? :rolleyes: That bunch of kooks make the Addams Family look like real life.

Image

Who knew?
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on May 11th, 2013, 1:41 am

Allright, folks - it is now official. I am completely discredited!

Dr Fetzer has issued his final, cruel verdict - with regards to yours truly:

Jim Fetzer wrote:“You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say.”


Thank Heavens, I can find some solace from the fact that he's sorry about it! :P

If you have some spare time to waste - you may grab your popcorn and read the intellectual "exchanges" which have intercurred lately between Fetzer, Onebornfree and myself - on this comment section of Fetzer's new NUKE theory...

"Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01 ... ent-484060
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby brianv on May 11th, 2013, 2:36 am

simonshack wrote:Allright, folks - it is now official. I am completely discredited!

Dr Fetzer has issued his final, cruel verdict - with regards to yours truly:

Jim Fetzer wrote:“You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say.”


Thank Heavens, I can find some solace from the fact that he's sorry about it! :P

If you have some spare time to waste - you may grab your popcorn and read the intellectual "exchanges" which have intercurred lately between Fetzer, Onebornfree and myself - on this comment section of Fetzer's new NUKE theory...

"Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01 ... ent-484060


So that's it. Jim's swansong, his out.

Simon I'd be interested to hear his response to a simple question, although I'm not creating an account there simply to ask it, you might!

"Could the TV broadcasts have been pre-made, ie fake? Yes/No"
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on May 11th, 2013, 1:42 pm

brianv wrote:Simon I'd be interested to hear his response to a simple question, although I'm not creating an account there simply to ask it, you might!

"Could the TV broadcasts have been pre-made, ie fake? Yes/No"

Well, Brian

I do believe this question has been submitted in one form or another to Fetzer multiple times by Onebornfree, Stewart Ogilby, yours truly and others. Fetzer keeps wiggling around our simple questions in what amounts to - pardon my French - a pretty damn cheap "dialogue de sourds". One may find it more productive to bang one's head against the wall - rather than trying to get Professor Fetzer answer to a yes/no question.

However, I may give it another try some time. Wish me luck! ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests