Jim Fetzer on media fakery

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
Post Reply
I, Gestalta
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by I, Gestalta » Sat May 11, 2013 2:17 pm

How sad. I don't think there's enough anti-depressants on the planet to aid me in enduring that horse manure---much less the reactions of those who choose to eat it.

Bashing my head against a wall would be less painful than having the knowledge that people actually listen to, internalize and parrot Fetzer's/Wood's ludicrous Star Trek fantasies.

Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by brianv » Sat May 11, 2013 2:23 pm

simonshack wrote:
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 answering to a yes/no question.

However, I may give it another try some time. Wish me luck! ^_^
When I confronted him in this manner some years ago on scholars or whatever, he lashed out at me! So yes, I know what you're talking about. He does not like being in a position where he has no room to slither and prevaricate. The real Jim Fatzer pops out!

edit: Yes Gestalt. When you see it laid out like that it's very obvious that both the Prof and his "DEW and Unknown Technologies" :blink: assholes are working on the same team.

I, Gestalta
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by I, Gestalta » Sat May 11, 2013 3:15 pm

When you see it laid out like that it's very obvious that both the Prof and his "DEW and Unknown Technologies" :blink: assholes are working on the same team.
Indeed, which causes me to wonder as to how much more unity there will be among the various paradigms out there.

"Architects & Engineers for DEW Transparency".

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat May 11, 2013 4:23 pm

lol @ I, Gestalta

Next up on the Jim Fetzer show! Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, George Noory and David Icke celebrate Popular Science's new presentation of James Randi's Families of Victims' Citizen Investigation Team of Pilots, Scholars, Architects, Engineers and Dentists for Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon-powered Holographic UAV Transparency ... and approximately 3 hours from the Beatles most popular psychedelic repertoire!

Yes, I'm sure he's another alt-media guru hypnotist. But I should have known that from the moment he had a "Clara Keun" or whomever fumbling through the Vicsim Report like an existential Sartre-like parody of humanity.

I, Gestalta
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by I, Gestalta » Sat May 11, 2013 5:33 pm

Clare is either very talented with obfuscation, or she is one very, very confused, scatter-brained woman.

She further minimized The Vicsim Report on Ab's show (January 13, 2013), whilst simultaneously defending Fetzer with subtle remarks. When Clare is confronted by the fact that Fetzer would discuss the fakery of the plane victims (due to the hologram silliness), but would not engage in an in-depth debate about the fakery of the WTC victims:

Clare: "Well, he has his interests".

Abirato: "The consensus at Clues Forum is that Jim is a gatekeeper".

Clare: "Yeah, I know what they think". (dismissive, almost snarky tone)

Abirato goes on to make the great point that, using very simple logic, it is absurd to think that someone of Fetzer's purported breadth and wealth of research could fail to see the very obvious, demonstrable fact that the entire event was fake.

Abirato: "I got to where I got to---as regards to 9/11---in a few short months. I don't think I'm any great researcher, I just think I'm a logical person".

Abirato: "How can you go for all of these years, into all of this depth, and never get to this fairly elementary point"?

If you have not listened to that episode, I cannot say that I would recommend doing so. Essentially, a lot of gibberish was spoken at breakneck speed, and nothing was learned by anyone. It should be common knowledge to anyone here that if you're listening to somebody speak for over an hour, and nothing they've said makes sense or has any discernible, internal connectivity, they're either missing a few screws, or they're intentionally inviting you to waste your time picking apart a massive amount of disinformation (a la Fetzer's "collapse equations").

edit: I should also mention that, during that very same episode of Wake up with Ab, she alluded to both a "secret" space program, and the idea that "neutron bombs" were used to bring down the towers.

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun May 12, 2013 11:11 am

I, Gestalta wrote:they're intentionally inviting you to waste your time picking apart a massive amount of disinformation
Bingo. There is no maybe about it. She practically signed her name "Professor Troll, esquire" while presenting the Vicsim Report. I understand disagreeing with my long-winded, meandering essay, even highlighting its flaws, and I'm really not trying to bring attention to myself, but when a PDF is signed by the author on literally every page, and you deliberately choose to not pick up on that, it's worse than stink. It's a putrid signature by the very perpetrators of the hoax that listeners are deliberately being led away from the research and off into la-la land.

And if you don't want to believe she's being supplied with freshly concocted information depth charges made by the 9/11 crew, you must at least admit she sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about. Stammering, ranting, failing to introduce difficult topics with any sort of guile. It's the same confuseratin' and mish-mashin' and poisoning-of-the-well tactics of Judy Wood/Hutchinson/Webfairy/Nico Haupt, Jeff Hill and Pump It Out Perp-it-out, the Christophera-Gamalon forum disruptor tag team (who frequently wrote things like: why can't you see that your logical sentences that set you up for an unsuccessful illogical conclusion which don't quite ever hit marks in due time known to commonalities prove the towers were hollow?!), and countless minor shills that we've had to ban.

In other words, they sprinkle impenetrable gibberish around good questions, and it poisons the well. That seems to be Fetzer's (and his associates') job. I am proud that Fetzer is distancing himself from us. Good fucking riddance.

Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by Maat » Sun May 12, 2013 8:46 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
I, Gestalta wrote:they're intentionally inviting you to waste your time picking apart a massive amount of disinformation
... being supplied with freshly concocted information depth charges made by the 9/11 crew ... they sprinkle impenetrable gibberish around good questions, and it poisons the well. ...I am proud that Fetzer is distancing himself from us. Good fucking riddance.
Brilliantly said! Ditto, Hoi Image

Posts: 7072
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by simonshack » Sun May 12, 2013 11:29 pm

Fetzer's last outburst - lashing out against Onebornfree and yours truly :
Jim Fetzer
May 11, 2013 - 6:16 pm

Neither of these guys have given us any good reason to take them seriously. They have offered no reason at all as to why there would have been fake footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers or of WTC-7. I am known not to suffer fools gladly–and it pains me to allow this post. But it illustrates well that neither OBF nor Simon Shack appears to have anything of value to contribute to 9/11 research: NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA! If they can prove me wrong, then for God’s sake do it! I am losing my sense of humor in dealing with coy frauds who pretend to know things the rest of us don’t. I’m calling their bluff!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01 ... ent-484377
"NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!" Do you understand, folks? That's all we have ! No more and no less!

As Fetzer says, he may be "losing his sense of humor" - but he keeps getting funnier! :P

Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by brianv » Sun May 12, 2013 11:52 pm

simonshack wrote:*
Fetzer's last outburst - lashing out against Onebornfree and yours truly :
Jim Fetzer
May 11, 2013 - 6:16 pm

Neither of these guys have given us any good reason to take them seriously. They have offered no reason at all as to why there would have been fake footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers or of WTC-7. I am known not to suffer fools gladly–and it pains me to allow this post. But it illustrates well that neither OBF nor Simon Shack appears to have anything of value to contribute to 9/11 research: NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA! If they can prove me wrong, then for God’s sake do it! I am losing my sense of humor in dealing with coy frauds who pretend to know things the rest of us don’t. I’m calling their bluff!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01 ... ent-484377
"NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!" Do you understand, folks? That's all we have ! No more and no less!

As Fetzer says, he may be "losing his sense of humor" - but he keeps getting funnier! :P
As predicted.

Because it had all been planned years in advance Jim. Professor of Logic my a...eye! Professor of Vacillation.

Has he offered a reason as to why there were nookular bombs planted in Manhattan to take down a couple of old rusty buildings?

Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by sunshine05 » Mon May 13, 2013 1:51 am

What a complete jerk! He seriously can't understand why "they" would show the world fake footage? Jim, it's to allow them to have complete control of the entire manufactured event. It's that simple and it works and they will continue doing it as long as people so readily believe what their own eyes can see is wrong yet they believe it anyhow because it's the media. If you take the time to examine Sandy Hook and Boston you will see that it's the same thing over and over. It is clearly all prepared in advance. There's so much analysis here proving that the 9/11 footage is fake and that negates all of the technical calculations as they are based on fake footage.

teriyaki taryaki
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:27 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by teriyaki taryaki » Mon May 13, 2013 9:54 am

edgewaters wrote:
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)
That's right, but no words have to be invented or crafted with those encodings in mind from the beginning of language evolution itself. That would be silly unless some alien influence or 'superior intelligence' from 'elsewhere' is factored in. Words can develop somewhat naturally and later be deliberately given codes by a few experts on language and encryption who recognize the mathematics in the older forms of the word and solidify it in the new to subconsciously direct people's minds into certain paths and not others, to subtly protect the integrity of the language or to just as subtly corrupt it. The different stages of the words with different spellings can also have their own mathematically based encryptions which also evolve but usually have to stay relatively close to each other over time since when the mathematics underneath changes too much, the words will then also have entirely different meanings. These 'tricks' as you call them are too numerous in the English language for someone or a group of 'some-one's' not to have planned them deliberately. The English language is a hyper-dimensional reality or hyper-dimensional creation or fabrication based on Pi. It's not linear, it is hyper-dimensional, therefore hyper-rational. Too complicated to explain in one post, it would require its own thread and Clues Forum is not really the place for it. No-vices that want to pursue research into this broader topic of the occult crafting of languages and ad-vice from someone with a bit more experience or vice in this field should listen to the following audios:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDpHlMaDh8

Delcroix interviews Dennis Fetcho - 10 / 19 / 2012

http://www.awakeradio.co.uk/podcasts/de ... 102012.mp3

English Gematria and freemasonry; Hermetic Qaballa (as opposed to Jewish Kabbalah) explained by the Fetch - kaballistic spells: the 9-11 Psy-Op; the Not-Sees vs. National Socialists Psy-Op, etc.

Book mentioned by Fetch on the audio:

by Manly P. Hall
can be read here:



Dennis Fetcho on the "Occult of Personality" Podcast # 97 - 01 / 09 / 2011

http://media.blubrry.com/occultofperson ... servor.mp3

Dennis Fetcho, aka “The Fetch,” joins us in podcast episode 97 to discuss the research and revelations from his work in English gematria documented in his blog, The Illuminatus Observor [sic], and podcast, Inside the Eye.

http://illuminatusobservor.blogspot.com ... z2T9qStN3T
Last edited by teriyaki taryaki on Mon May 20, 2013 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

teriyaki taryaki
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:27 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by teriyaki taryaki » Mon May 13, 2013 11:31 am

Jim Fetzer
May 11, 2013 - 6:16 pm

Neither of these guys have given us any good reason to take them seriously. They have offered no reason at all as to why there would have been fake footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers or of WTC-7.
For one thing, you arrogant fat bastard, :lol: if the shots of the towers were real, then the (fake) jumpers would have to be real

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2374833

and therefore the 'people trapped in the towers' would have to be real if the fake jumpers were 'real' and then the 2970 supposed dead (or the rounded off '3000' which Fetzer until very recently still subscribed to, not even bothering to make allowances for his No-Planer position and subtracting the people on the planes that he himself has stated did not die) would tend to follow after that into the realm of reality and the media would no longer be the perps' biggest weapon and part-&-parcel of the combined secret services of CIA-Mossad-MI6 (and probably many more) but would be 'doing its job' well protecting us from these nefarious entities, being fooled along with the rest of us suckers and worthy of our trust in all the PsyOps that would follow after, right ?

For another thing, they always like to scare the living shit out of people about the 'enormous power' that they have over us and with fake 'top-down' collapses they can get Judy Wood to give pseudo-scientific credence to 'beam-weapon' and 'directed energy weapons' nightmare scenarios of helplessness and apathy, counterbalanced and buttressed, of course, by wild fantasies of what would be possible if we could only harness all this 'free energy' ourselves.

For yet another thing, if the tower collapses were real and the shots of the towers during the supposed plane-hits were real and really 'live' (as Ace Baker claims) then the fake-plane overlays for the non-amateur footage would have to be pulled off in an almost 'Mission Impossible' type scenario with everything timed exactly right and with split second accuracy during a seven-second delay. This is absolutely unnecessary when you can just lie and say it was live just like they lie and say all the amateur footage is really and authentically amateur and all the vic-sims were really and authentically alive and most got killed in the collapsing towers that were full of people, the same people your boy Willie Rodriguez so courageously risked his own life to try to save :P

Googling Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood together I immediately stumbled onto this very old satire from an MSM gatekeeper, written in 2007 which either intentionally or unintentionally also shows how the 9-11 truth movement is deliberately being filled with confusion, buffoonery and uncertainty through multiple channels of disinformation ( making everything believable and nothing knowable as Monsieur Fetzer himself described the objective of his specialty):


Fetzer retaliates - calls Gold "a fat and jealous 9/11 conspiracy jingoist."

(BNN - April 27, 2007 - Philadelphia, PA) The 9/11 Truther wars took another turn for the worse today as open warfare developed between 9/11 Truth Movement leader Jim Fetzer and 9/11Blogger.com leader Jon Gold. An unsightly fight occurred as each attacked the other below their unseen belts. :lol:


Fetzer had innocently posted links to his recent debates with seasoned rationalist and undefeated anti-conspiracist, Mark Roberts, on Hardfire. Roberts easily trounced Fetzer on the facts but Fetzer was undaunted because, he says, "I made dozens and dozens of points."

Jon Gold immediately attacked Fetzer. "Did you accept money from our enemies to show the world how fat, undisciplined, and snotty the 9/11 Truth Movement looks? If you weren't such a porker more people would accept us for what we are."

Tension within the 9/11 Truth Movement has been developing for months as its 9/11 conspiracy theories have not resonated with an intelligent public. Fetzer has been on the outs with a great majority of 9/11 Truthers, all of whom are much thinner than Fetzer. 9/11Blogger.com has seen a steady decline in traffic reach over the last three months possibly because of Gold's weight according to 911Blogger.com insiders who wish to remain anonymous.

Fetzer accused Gold, "You are like most of those who post here: willing to take cheap shots from the comfort of your homes but unwilling to put away the beer and cheeseburgers."

Jon Gold and 9/11Blogger.com recently came under harsh criticism for trying to talk 9/11 victims' families into joining the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement.

Nico Haupt, a trim and swank leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement who has long led the "NO EATER" faction, was circumspect.

"I've long pleaded that being fat will not get us to 9/11 Truth. Fetzer and Gold continue to be under that incredibly silly illusion that cheeseburgers and fries are thinning. There's no hope for them."

http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/04/f ... calls.html

teriyaki taryaki
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:27 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by teriyaki taryaki » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:13 am

At the 1 hours 48 minute mark of the following audio Dennis Cimino , who correctly identifies television as talmud-vision repeatedly and refuses to let Fetzer dominate any part of the conversation, makes this spot-on analogy :

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20 ... ay2013.mp3

"I don't know if you've ever seen a movie that came out a number of years ago with Peter Sellers called 'Being There' ? The guy was a recluse, he was in the house and he spent his whole life in the house. All he ever did was sit in front of the TV set with the clicker. So he took the clicker with him out on the street and a couple of guys tried to hold him up. Now, he's got the clicker and he's not liking this reality so he's fervently pushing the button trying to change it, to get the channel off, because he doesn't like it, but it's not working. That's America in a nutshell. That's where Americans' heads are at. They're in the movie 'Being There,' they're Peter Sellers, they're standing there with the clicker. When their end comes, they'll be fervently tyring to click their demise away as it's happening to them, because they have no clue what reality is."

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpvvvcGtY0

The goal of modern mass media brainwashing is to make millions of average people, recluses from reality, within their own minds, as they go on having 'normal' social relations with their families and friends and all the others confined to the same mental prison. They relate to each other quite well, as long as the channel they have all clicked away from is reality or the level of truth which makes reality 'knowable' and worth living in. Even the unreal fairy land they like to populate would be impossible without the firm ground built by the truth of previous generations being steadily eroded year-after-year until the bottom falls out and we have to start from scratch or the application of uncompromised principles once again.

These few paragraphs written by Steve Tesich many years ago have always been in the back of mind as having identified a process which is a main section of the PsyOp puzzle but without factoring in the levels of control in the media and instead giving a little too much credit to superficial 'freedom' or will-power:

The problems confronting us now are no longer seen as problems. Truth is perceived as the problem, as the real enemy, and more and more we look to our government to protect us from it."

They are no longer afraid of truth because they know that the truth will have little impact on us. Their message to us is this: we've given you a glorious victory and we've given you back your self-esteem...now here's the truth. Which do you prefer?

We are being told that we can't have both anymore, truth and self-esteem. We have to choose. One excludes the other.

The implications are even more terrifying than this. Our government now perceives that we are entering a new phase where we, in return for self-esteem, are willing to lie to ourselves.

All the dictators up to now have had to work and work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism which can denude the truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world.

In the post-truth world we are left without standards by which to value things so we choose to perceive virtue in banality. It's so bad it's good. We now apply this philosophy to almost all aspects of our lives."

Tesich was certainly on to some things. However, we have not simply 'acquired a spiritual mechanism which can denude the truth of any significance.' We have had this mechanism systematically programmed into us since birth through almost all channels of communication around us and the through the programming of our own parents.

We have not 'freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world.' We have been given the dialectical prison within which to make this 'free' choice.

For those who try to escape this prison, there are disinformation agents put out to neutralize them. Their job is to "make everything believable and nothing knowable."

When the result of pursuing truth is endless confusion and derailings into dead-ends and swamps, rather than the firm footing on high elevation to see far that any honest investigation should provide in relatively short order of logic diligently applied without compromise, then even truth-seekers are programmed to find their 'self-esteem' by clicking onto channel 'Zzzz.' After all, a constant state of imbalance, doubt and paranoia is hardly conducive to self-esteem.

As Voltaire said:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

However, the discovery of truth is not 100% 'certainty' but the knowable minimal requirement, that which is close-enough-to-truth to be counted on as firm ground for civilization to develop and maintain itself upon.

So the people trying to click away reality are the ones for whom the apprehension of reality has been made a cost too high to pay, with rewards few and far-between of a spiritual nature not applicable to their daily lives. The few that see the value of the pursuit and have the endurance are then run into a maze to expend all their energies and finally give up in frustrated burn-out, even if not necessarily joining the 'clickers.'

Posts: 7072
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:05 am



Wooohaaa - it's all-out "war" now, folks ! :P

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18 ... stractors/

Just in case my reply to this "hit-piece" gets deleted...here's a copy of it:
simonshack wrote:I wish to thank Dr Fetzer wholeheartedly for a number of things:

Thanks for investing so much time of yours, Dr Fetzer – in attempting to demean my longstanding 9/11 research, September Clues. It sure looks like I’m bothering you. I am glad that I do.

Thanks for investing so much time of yours, Dr Fetzer – in attempting to defame my persona with blatant ad hominem attacks. It sure looks like I’m a pain in your butt. I am glad to be such a thing.

Thanks for NOT opting to ignore my research – which would have been a far smarter thing to do. Instead, you are giving me a platform – YOUR platform, in fact – of readers interested in the 9/11 hoax issue.

Thanks for confirming what I had always suspected, i.e. that you are the Grand Gatekeeper of the News Media’s direct complicity in the 9/11 scam. You rolled out Ace Baker only two weeks after I published September Clues – and you keep rolling out clowns such as Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh and Clare Kuehn.

Thanks for also showing your close connection with the now old-and-worn-out rats who have kept chasing me for several years now, lashing out lame and vapid ad hominem attacks on yours truly (and my long gone father!) – the small army made up of rodents such as Anthony Lawson, Phil Jayhan, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Richard Hall, “Dallas Goldbug”, “Mandomohan”, “YougeneDebs”, “Markus Allen”, “Ozzybinoswald”, “Kentrailer”(aka “Paulstalservice”-aka “SanLuisSkywatch”- aka “NorwayResearch”) – etc, etc…

Thanks for making a complete fool of yourself by trying to associate me with the “Flat Earth Society” – which has never been promoted on my website – as my own tentative forays into understanding our solar system have been limited to re-assessing the well-founded theories of Tycho Brahe – one of the greatest astronomers of all times. No, I do not believe the world is flat. And no, I am not a jew. And no, I am not paid to do what I do. And no, I have no connection to anyone / or any organization WHATSOEVER. I am a totally independent person – with no other ‘agenda’ than expressing and diffusing (over the internet) my own, personal views on what I believe is going on in this world.

Lastly, thanks for letting me respond to this crass, all-out attack on myself and my work – AND the collective work of the good members/contributors at my Cluesforum which, to this day, has not been challenged (or much less debunked) in any serious / scientific way to this day.

Once again, thank you, Dr Fetzer. This vile and quite frankly emetic “hit-piece” of yours on Veterans Today really makes me feel important!

Simon Shack

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:14 pm

Ugh, I was just drifting to sleep, then I had to see this. It's persuasively written in parts, but it's reaching so hard for its flimsy conclusion and spending so much time writing about you that it's like they don't actually believe in their own conclusions and they are just trying to bat you away. I have to agree, Simon, they are drawing an awful lot of attention to you, perhaps in hopes of people's skepticism of everything turning into skepticism of you? Rather than the evidence?

But it's such a distraction, because anybody can look at the officially modified "original" footage, the fake "amateur" videos, the bizarre and surreal "victim" memorials and research it for themselves.

The fact that they also keep trumpeting mainstream popular senses of science rather than examining actual scientific claims shows that they are quite lazy. Even lazier than us, and all we have done is bring up a few interesting problems and unsettled questions about mainstream science without digging very deeply at all. They don't seem comfortable with that. I wonder why.

Are they unaware that once an experiment is done, it doesn't make the experiment's individual conclusions into scientific gospel? Are they unaware of bias, bad data, or plain outright lies? They seem confused by simple things. I guess they probably believe NASA went to the moon and the transparent astronauts are solid (opaque?) proof. Failing to see obvious holes there, wouldn't you say?

Because if we are to agree with what Fetzer says, we have a prima facie motive for believing everything the news presents as fact! Never mind proven bad journalism, those must be rare exceptions! Why should the government lie to its own people?

Apparently, they are unaware of how rapidly science changes or how important it is to question the gaps or logical fallacies in scientific models, and in cultural understandings of them. In fact, that's very much a part of how science operates. Any high school or college science teacher will agree that science must continually be renewed. But we can't fight people's desire for solid maps of the unknown. Oh, man.

So, without further ado, let us delve into the language of:

Fetzer's World
Of all the positions that have been taken about 9/11, which range from the “official” collapse theory to the use of nanothermite to conventional explosives to DEWs, nukes mini or large, from a purely philosophical point of view, perhaps the most extreme is that adopted by Simon Shack (SS) and his followers, including onebornfree (obf), who claim that all the footage of the destruction sequence in New York City is fake and unreliable.
"Extreme" here is meant to imply scary, unbelievable, and unsound (maybe even terroristic!?) Heaven forbid we are called extremists in an age where holding an opinion in general is considered "extreme" by the media.
This is striking because that footage has virtually universally been regarded as some of the most important evidence about what actually happened there on 9/11.
Interesting wordsmithery. The passive "virtually universally been regarded" here is meant to mean "everyone thinks so and you should too!" though it's not made clear who is doing the regarding. I guess it is that recursive everyone regarding itself as an authority? But the second part is almost a non-statement. The footage is considered some of the most important? Why stop at "some of the most important"? Their non-commitment here is funny. They start with a powerful wind up - "everyone thinks" - and end up in the can-kicking "sort of important" territory.

So everyone thinks the footage is somewhat important evidence of what happened. It sounds like everyone is actually a bit unsure of how to value the evidence.

Don't worry about researching it for yourself or confirming all the numerous problems. Why don't you just sit back and let Fetzer and friends explain which is the most important evidence and which isn't! (Don't ask for scientific quotes, citations, proofs or expect any image forensics. Naww. Just relax and soak it up.) Ready?

Since the Twin Towers are shown blowing apart in every direction from the top down
Twin Towers is in capitals here. Love it. Just so we know we are talking about THE Twin Towers. Not a simulation of them.

Operative word: shown.

Twin Towers are shown. How vague. So if I draw a picture of the World Trade Center Tower 1, am I showing you Tower 1? How about if I do it in photo-realistic detail? Have I shown you the tower? How about if there is a simulation of Tower 1 in a movie, such as Armageddon? Are the Twin Towers "shown" then?
while being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust
So we start with something vague like Twin Towers being "shown" and go into specific numbers of what has been simulated in the footage. "Very fine dust" doesn't behave like it was "shown" on 9/11, yet we are being told that "in every direction", "millions of cubic yards" of "very fine dust" is "shown".

It is not distinguished in the article whether this has been "depicted" or "reported". It is, to Fetzer's group, prima facie self evident that seeing is believing. Not only that the news should be taken at face value, but that Fetzer's (and the virtually universal) assumptions from the news must also be taken at face value.

it serves as the foundation for one line of argument that demonstrated the “official” account cannot possibly be true
Once again, strange wording here. "The Foundation" for ... one line of argument.

They couldn't just say, "We want to make an argument that the official story is untrue, and we need the video evidence to show it" but even if they did, they wouldn't be disagreeing, one bit, with Simon's findings that the official story must be untrue because of the contradictions in the videos.

But wait, they go on to say,
since the Twin Towers are not undergoing any kind of collapse.
Which seems to be a completely bizarre and nonsensical point to finish on. They say it is because the Twin Towers are not being shown to undergo a collapse (even though one very acceptable definition of a physical "collapse" would include the depiction of towers turning into "millions of cubic yards of fine dust" much like a sand castle or, say, a simulated video game structure) that the official story cannot be true.

So they are saying we don't know what destroyed the towers, but the truly unlikely depiction shown in the video, which can be described as a kind of collapse, does not fit their definition of what a collapse should be, and therefore the official story of a collapse is impossible.

And they are saying people who doubt the videos want to rob them of this terrible point? That the government's story of collapse disagrees with their definition of collapse? Au contraire. They can have it. It's not scientific at all.

Let's review so far.

They've started saying Simon is an extremist. They've then said everyone thinks the video is somewhat important evidence. They've then given the example of a video "showing" (though the evidence for what kind of "showing" is going on, be it real or virtual or anything else is not given) a form of collapse which they imply is not a collapse (stamping foot) and should not be called a collapse (waving fists).

So while failing to legitimize the video, their main argument so far is that Simon is an extremist for disagreeing with their terminology about what a "collapse" is. Huh?

But wait, there's more. So much more.
If all of the videos had been faked, one might have expected they would show the towers collapsing, not blowing apart in every direction.
The next argument they want to make is that a passive "one" might have expected fake videos to make more sense and fit with their pre-defined parameters. In other words, someone looking at these videos might assume that it's a really stupid way to show a building coming down.

No argument there.

Still, while not actually legitimizing the video, they seem to imply that this "one" doing the "expecting" of a particular form of destruction is a prima facie investigation into what took place. In other words, investigation to Fetzer means making a prima facie assumption about what a fake video must look like, then dismissing any video which does not match the passive one's imagined fake video.

So because the video does not depict a more convincing collapse, it must be convincing! Duh ...
And this is not the most bizarre of their positions.
Do go on about our position that you haven't yet described.


Here is a sample of the kinds of visual studies that support the conversion of the towers into dust:
Wait, I thought we were going to hear about Simon's bizarre position that fake videos can depict unreal situations. This is more of your position, Fetzer. Yawn.
Simon Shack and onebornfree, alas
Alas, indeed. Alas for your use of "alas" before you've even made a point. It's like you're whining about something that hasn't happened yet. Playing victim so soon?

have never offered the least indication of what they think we should have seen
This is getting hilarious. So, not just because we haven't imagined a fake video that should have been, but because we haven't imagined what would actually take place behind the imaginary fake video, we are not offering enough "indication" to Fetzer about how to feel about us. Man, this guy really craves imaginary worlds.

Fetzer, you should have seen a couple of anthropomorphized towers being eaten alive by a giant composite of Alex Jones eating two club sandwiches in 5 minutes, which have been erased by editing software and replaced with the Twin Towers. And behind that, what was really going on was Judy Wood and Alex Jones were actually eating two hamburgers. Israeli hamburgers.

had we had access to authentic video footage.
Which is ... where, again?
But there are many other kinds of evidence which goes far beyond the visual evidence:
(1) They were standing, then they were gone.
Right. Check. We mention this a lot.

(2) It happened in a very brief period of time.
Extremely vague. What does "it" mean? The entire day of 9/11? The 2 hours of news broadcasts? The actual collapses? If what's meant here is the time between the towers standing and the towers gone, "brief" could be terribly wrong. If it was a conventional demolition that takes some minutes to perform, then any amount of time beyond that and undocumented or unaired would be lengthy. Not brief. And if it were anything else, how can we say it was brief because we don't know what it was?
(3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.
Again, the millions of cubic yards. Almost like hypnotism. We know that dust was probably present in New York. We know that some kind of smoke or dust like substance appeared around the towers. It is not clear whether this happened entirely during collapse or before or after. Fetzer's prima facie presumption is that the news shows what happened. Dumb.
(4) They were destroyed below ground level.
Again, an obvious point. Or vague. Their underground structure was damaged as any visit to "Ground Zero" could tell an observer. If Fetzer is claiming they were destroyed exclusively from below ground level, he would need proof. Presently, he is using his assumption that the news showed what happened, and using that to support his belief. A total error.
(5) We have the so-called “toasted cars”
First of all, what cars are we talking about? The ones photoshopped by the scam artist George Marengo, whom shill Judy Wood does not credit on her site for the same images? If not those, then which images? Where did they come from? Did Fetzer lose a vehicle on 9/11? Or is he just losing a virtual vehicle for his propaganda in the sadly misplaced trust his audience has placed in him, and which is now fading because of his terrible reasoning and anti-science antics?
(6) And massive parts blown great distances
Massive parts means what? The airplane pieces dumped in unlikely places? Chunks of the tower revealed in what photos, by whom? And what could he mean by "blown"? Does he know how the massive parts he implies that he's traced were moved? What does he mean by "great" - like, totally excellent distances? Why can't he be specific about the distances, with pictures with proper citation that have been vetted for being counterfeit-proof?
(7) There were videos and there were photos.
Correction. There are videos. There are photos. Where did they come from, who made them, and are their techniques honest or examples of modern propaganda fabrication, as it has been shown to be the case over and over?
(8) There were many witnesses observing.
Again, an official conspiracy theory argument from Fetzer, with no specifics, citations or specific non-media-employee witnesses to choose from or investigate. It's almost as if he doesn't want to investigate the so-called witnesses.
(9) We have cancer rates among responders.
We have reports of such.

(10) We have USGS dust samples.
This is the same USGS which is part of the United States government, right? We are talking about the same government, yes? Perhaps Fetzer would only mistrust an Israeli Geological Survey?

(11) We have seismic readings.
Citation. Proofs. Bring the evidence to the people, with full cited tracing of its origin for them to see. Don't just refer to it as reviewed and confirmed, nothing to see here, move along now.

(12) We have acoustical recordings.
Citation. Proofs. Why "acoustical"? What audio are we talking about, and from what feed? Was it possibly from the news? The "amateur videos"? The Howard Stern show? Be specific and bring the evidence to the table for the people to examine.

The evidence derived from these sources can be used to sort out various alternative possibilities:
Source unnamed. So indeed, the possibilities are truly endless, eh "Jim"?

(h1) natural causes (earthquake, tornado,…)
Fine, it's possible.
(h2) collapse due to plane crashes and fires.
No, seriously? How many planes are we talking about here? Like more than one per building, striking the bases of the towers? Doing something that might actually cause some serious damage rather than any cartoon parody of reality shown as "news" on 9/11?
(h3) classic controlled demolitions (a pair).
Yes, possible.
(h4) non-conventional mode of destruction;

(h4a) lasers, masers or plasmoids;
(h4b) directed energy weaponry;
(h4c) nukes (large/small/micro/mini/)
Very well; first, we must go over the evidence that any of the above three are possible and real weapons. Since nuclear weapons in particular are shrouded in mystery and have a strong history of being promoted almost exclusively through propaganda and computer-assisted and phony imagery, you'd have to first prove nuclear weapons are viable before you claim that's what occurred to produce any particular evidence you claim to have. And Fetzer, you still haven't put up evidence.

Playing by your rules, you forgot to add these other methods of destruction with no evidence:

(h4d) aliens
(h4e) Vishnu
(h4f) collective delusion causing reality to melt

(h5) giant monsters
(h5a) Godzilla
(h5b) that crap Godzilla from the 90's remake
(h5c) Stay Puft Marshmallow Man
(h5d) an enormous Ace Baker

I like my imaginative world better than yours. Now let's get back to actual evidence, shall we?

So far the evidence most strongly supports (h4c), which we have explained repeatedly in a series of articles beginning with “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”.
Right. Sigh. Getting the picture. Are you the media because you have a radio show? Does that mean we have a prima facie necessity to take you for face value?

Where is this evidence that you haven't really even mentioned until now, in this sentence, with the term "the evidence"? What "the evidence"? The non-evidence you've begun the article with so far? Can you be specific?
Clare Kuehn has offered a list of oddities that would almost certainly not have been present had all of the videos been faked or under control:
Yes, let us now take a little side journey from FetzerWorld to ClareWorld! What's going on there?

1. The 60-storey spire "turning to dust" which is a video "Clare" finds odd, according to "Clare", is odd! Hm. It is associated with hours of very dubious news broadcasts and amateur videos released after 9/11, but "Clare" claims that her version of a fake video would not have that bit in it. Therefore, it's not fake. This is very much a Fetzer-esque argument. And if Fetzer is a paid shill or media apologist (which seems more and more to be the case) then it would make tons of sense to include "conspiracy" tidbits in fake video. Shiny balls, shadows, discrepancies, on and on. The weirder, the more the Fetzer crowd is serving to prove that such bits do cause distraction and endless speculation and prevent people from concluding the videos are fabrications, if Fetzer has anything to say about it. And if they are evidence of something, then what could it be? Since we hear this kind of question asked all the time, we are sure it will eventually be answered ... if "Clare" has anything to say about it!

2. Co-ordinated beeps, according to how "Clare" would fake 9/11, would not be necessary. Therefore, what? The coordinated beeps are ... not there? I don't understand this point.

3. "The ball" was not necessarily "caught on film" so much as — to use a FetzerWorld term — shown on videos. "Clare" says if she faked 9/11, she wouldn't have included that simply captivating and amazing ball. Let's talk more about the ball shall we? And how much it's fascinating?

4. According to "Clare", the nose-out problem simply wouldn't have happened if she faked 9/11. Wow. Problem solved. Guess they should have hired Clare to pull off fake collisions. Maybe they will, next time.

5. "Clare" says that Chopper 5 would be reported on the air if she faked 9/11. What this really means, and Chopper 5's significance to her, such that it would require a certain report she finds lacking in the official broadcasts, we can only guess.

6. Crowd scenes only have glitches on the crowds, which means the backgrounds must be real! This is just a lapse in reasoning, I am sure, since so much of what "Clare" demands of her fake 9/11 has made a great deal of sense so far. We will forgive her this idiotic notion.

7. If the smoke were generated using any 3D technology, there would be no need to mask the smoke off. Since the smoke is so clearly cut off in unrealistic ways in the fake footage, I guess we are to conclude their software only had 2 dimensions. Pity, because 3D technology has come a long way since the 1970's.

8. Lastly, some of the problems Simon points out could actually be indications of computer generated towers. How this is an argument against Simon's research takes a special kind of imagination. One that we don't have time for any longer as we float like an optimistic fairy back to FetzerWorld ...
obf and SS have really not given us any good reasons to doubt that the voluminous record of destruction videos and photos are fake.
"Voluminous" here means really big. Like Fetzer's imagination.

"Not given us any good reasons" here means you are actually physically inside Fetzer's imagination and you don't have a will of your own, nor is it necessary for you to conduct your own research since you are, by virtue of being an extension of Fetzer's imagination, prima facie obligated to go along with his version of events.

To show blatant signs of various anomalies and problems with the videos and photos just isn't a good reason to doubt them. It's reason, from Fetzer's perspective, to use them as evidence of whatever you want to believe in despite lack of evidence! Just so long as you are imagining what he is and circling the pixels you find the most interesting.

There are too many from too many directions of enormous variation in quality, including of high definition, to take their claims seriously.
Back up. There are too many variations in video quality — including high definition — to doubt them all? Fetzer, you didn't say there was BluRay HD footage before. Shit, it must be real. I take it all back. It's just like, if someone has an HD camera, everybody's gotta have it. Same with counterfeiters. If one gets to simulate HD, everyone wants to simulate HD. The government isn't going to stop them with flimsy excuses like "HD wasn't that common in 2001" or "Not many people even had cell phone cameras" or "Actually, guys, not that many people were able to put themselves in a good position to film the towers" or yeah, you get the idea.

Nah. It's HD for everyone. Gotta get with the program, gov. Your employees are clammering for Hi Frickin Def.
At one point I looked at the wavy clouds of smoke with their repetition and changes in the background and color and tint variations, all of which appear to be post-production in messing with those photos and films–not necessarily for disinformational purposes, but because of multiple cases of copying and other sources of minor distortions.
Is he telling us he actually looked at the evidence? Bravo! Oh.

Oh, dear. Because of these copies and so forth, errors can and will be made. You know, changing formats can cause a building's top to wave, divergent impossibly reconcilable angles of collapse, different lights and shadows and just all sorts of things.
They made valuable contributions exposing fakery in the airplane footage, but overgeneralized to conclude that all of the video footage had to be fake.
This is fallacious. It isn't overgeneralizing to say that all the videos we have looked at appear to have at least one quality of being doctored, counterfeited, falsified, layered, composited, 3D-rendered or animated. It is a choice of terminology to say that such videos that cannot be trusted have been "faked" or "are fake".
So instead of contributing to SOLVING THE PROBLEM of what actually happened in New York City on 9/11, THEY DECLARE THE PROBLEM TO BE UNSOLVABLE.
It may be solvable or it may not. It is a contribution to human kind to present the awareness that it may be insoluble, and it does solve a different sort of larger problem in the process — which is that not enough people are aware of how much our history has been crafted and molded, possibly whole cloth. And if history can be written as it happens from completely fake events, then it makes a very valuable philosophical argument to re-examine what we actually perceive as evidence of the truth.

It does not serve human kind to, if we are compelled to do this, stop doing it. To only allow your view point. To actively deny the possibility, to demand that people simply accept expertise or authority despite evidence against it — even yours, Doctor Fetzer.

That is completely unscientific, where ofb’s complete lack of understanding of scientific method is no where more manifest than in his disregard for the rest of the evidence, which we enumerated as (1) through (12) above. Indeed, it is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that it be based upon all the evidence available. Failing to do so entails the commission of the fallacy of special pleading, which is common with politicians, editorial writers and used-car salesmen. That is where he stands.
If the evidence is not, in fact, evidence, then it is scientific to throw away trash evidence. In which case, obf is justified in his assumption. If the evidence is evidence, then it is scientific to use it.

But obf has made a case for it not being evidence.

And if the argument is whether or not there is adequate evidence, let the debate march on! But not to sweepingly dismiss either camp. Nor cast totally wild aspersions, such as ...

That SS and obf even deny the existence of nuclear weapons tells me we are not dealing simply with persons of diminished capacity for serious research but demonstrable fakes and frauds.
Totally wrong. Simon Shack and obf demand evidence of nuclear weapons and hold to the position that there is not presently enough evidence to support their existence. This is fine. It is reasonable to say unicorns do not and have never existed, even if it is not a scientific certainty.

And while Clare will continue to treat them with kindness, it has become all too clear that they are shilling for Israel by doing their best to conceal that the towers were nukes and they must have been Israeli.
Woah, what?!?!

Completely left field argument there. So while Clare plays "Clare's 9/11" in Fetzer's FetzerWorld, this is seen as being kind to Simon for actually doing the slightest amount of confirming forensic findings of fraud in the 9/11 footage. And meanwhile, Fetzer harbors doubts about Simon and says he and obf are shilling for Israel and deliberately concealing the so far unproven, uncited and seemingly imagined in this article from Fetzer's World "nukes" because evidence for said "nukes" is wanting.

And that's just in this article they are wanting. The article that is supposedly trying to prove they are real and that they are Israeli.

There may very well have been "Israeli nukes" responsible, but why is Simon or obf suspected of covering them up? Are we going to find evidence of them in the videos? If so, why hasn't this evidence been shown? And particularly why not in the article?

If there are other reasons, such as political or inside information reasons, to believe prima facie (sorry, but I just love that argument by Fetzer, it's hilarious!) that Israel planted nukes and nuked the towers with them, then we could at least have those. But instead we are offered this.
The US nuclear arsenal is under very tight but not perfect control, while Israeli nukes are not.

Israel is not under tight control, or not under imperfect control? What a strange phrase. It's like saying that guy over there has a knife which is retractable and comes in a carrying case, whereas this guy's knife isn't. It's just about the most round-about way you could claim, "The US and Israel both have nuclear weapons."

I hope the next sentence explains what Simon is covering up. Here is what he/they wrote:
Israel has not even admitted that it has a vast stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons–though it is common knowledge in the Middle East and among experts.

This is written like a very rapidly put together late book report from elementary school. Israel hasn't even admitted what is common knowledge. If it's common knowledge, what need is there to admit it? If the Middle East is convinced, along with experts, that anything is the case, does this mean, prima facie, we must believe it as well?

Come to think of it, are we expected to believe that Fetzer and company know anything about what they are talking about when they speak for huge quantities of people, likely just as duped and deluded as the United States population is?
SS and obf are using the pretense of science to attack those who are exposing the truth about 9/11, as Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh explain in the study that follows.
I am sorry, but there hasn't actually been an argument so far made in this entire article. Except, perhaps, the admission by "Clare" that Simon may have a point about completely CGI buildings, that Fetzer believes whole-heartedly there is evidence of something that is virtually universally known and common knowledge already (ahem) hiding behind and/or through the fake footage or a point about nuclear weapons being real and Israel being the lead boogeyman behind them.

Alright. I can't continue this for now. I am tired. Sorry for the casual style of this retort but it doesn't really deserve much more concentration than the authors themselves neglected to put in it. Let's look at the rest next time.

For now, let's all meditate on the possibility of Israeli Nukes and MOSSAD hijacking the news being the answer to what really happened on 9/11. Perhaps if we play in FetzerWorld long enough, we can get to actually finding evidence of this. (By the way, readers may want to catch up on the Nuke Lies and Holocaust questions during this time.)

Post Reply