Jim Fetzer on media fakery

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by sunshine05 » Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:16 pm

What a terrible article. Fetzer is all over the place - personal attacks, referencing posts on this forum, discussing the views of other researchers. Why? If your work is solid, if it is credible, it will be respected. There is no need to attack other researchers.

ALL of the footage from that day is fake. Same for Sandy Hook and the same for the Boston "bombing". The same things keep reoccurring in all of these "events". Multiple identical shots of the same image credited to multiple fauxtographers. What more proof does one need that the whole thing is fake? They have a pattern in all of these events - fake video, fake photos from said video and fake victims. There is nothing "scientific" to analyze from a Hollywood movie set. We are being scammed with every single one of these events. Few can see what is happening.

Fetzer concedes that the plane imagery is fake ... but wants to believe the rest of it is real?! That makes much less sense than believing that everything we were shown is fake. Common sense. There is a large group of partial fakery researchers and I just don't buy it. They're going to show fake plane footage and then "Oh! Cut to live now." In Boston, they're going to show fake footage of a guy missing his legs being rushed down the street in a wheel chair BUT "over there on the sidewalk, people were actually injured from the "bomb." Seriously?!

Clues forum research about 9/11 is the only thing that makes sense. I believe there are many convincing examples to demonstrate that. It is fine to speculate about what actually happened to the buildings but that is all it is - speculation. We really have no way to know because there is no trusted footage or photos. They want us to argue about what really happened to keep the attention away from the truth - that everything we were shown from that day is fake.

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 11:51 pm

Exactly, sunshine. The 9/11 footage is fake. But nobody should take our word for it. Just look at how poorly Fetzer argues for the faulty evidence being real footage. Sorry about the last post, when I was using cartoonish argumentation to reply to this smear piece, but I was tired and it seemed to deserve it. Let's look at the next section, by Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh (names one presumes are real because they use capital letters, I guess?)

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – Vladimir Lenin
Okay, I guess I shouldn't be sorry. They are "hinting" rather overtly that Simon is not only protecting Israel, but he is also a communist and deliberate disinformation.
Simon Shack, hoi.polloi, Ab Irato, El Buggo and Onebornfree are the latest disinfo crew
Calling us the latest disinfo is not only pejorative. It is misleading about each of our individual motivations by lumping us together as a single crew. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect this was an attempt to paint us as equals who all trust each other well enough to work as a disinfo crew toward any particular goal. Instead, each of us has come independently to examining the footage and dismissing it due to its fraudulent nature. The footage cannot be admitted as evidence of what happened unless even a fraction of it corroborates what happened outside of a government controlled area. Psychological Operations are meant to mislead, and particularly discredit those who form large enough questions that it leads people to ask: can we look at this scenario in a new way? A way that hasn't been presented to us in a product-based, media-sponsored, suspiciously "informed" way?

Simon Shack and myself are different from Ab Irato. I disagree with some of Ab's web site practices. OneBornFree is someone else entirely and someone who has eschewed membership most places because of his contentment to comment without "association". I have never met Ab, OneBornFree or El Buggo. I do not know if they are real people. I can only confirm that Simon Shack is real. I of course vouch for myself. However, we do not ask people to trust our reality. We only ask that people research for themselves, something Fetzer and crew apparently do not want. And even then, none of that detracts from the fact that no matter who is looking at the fake evidence, the evidence is still fake. And therefore our personalities should not matter. One simply can look up the CNN Victim Memorial site, and browse it themselves to discern the falseness of the names and pictures. One can simply examine the footage and see that it does not resemble real photography.

But according to Fetzer, we collectively comprise a unified "disinfo" group to ...
attempt to conceal the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by any and all means necessary.
So because we believe the fake footage conceals the real destruction method, we are using "any and all means necessary" to help that concealment? No. Very wrong. It is because we see and know the footage is demonstrably falsified and doctored that we are calling for grassroots investigations into something that no government (or other) body has expressed interest in researching the forensics of. In fact, it seems as though there is a huge cover up and Jim Fetzer wants us to just ignore this fact and decide that — without adequate evidence — he and his researchers have determined for everyone else what has happened.

Also, concealing nuclear demolition could only be "our" nefarious goal if we indeed believed in nuclear weapons. Since we do not, and since we actively expose and examine the supposed evidence for nuclear weapons and find it laughable and implausible, it is only Fetzer and crew who seem to be cagey on withholding this damning evidence they keep claiming to have. It's more like they don't just want to believe in their nuke theory. They want to want to believe.
Preceding them have been such luminaries of the “Truth Movement” as Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Christopher Bollyn, Mark Bilk, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Thomas Potter, Emmanuel Goldstein, S. Tiller and Pete Santilli, among others.
So lumping us in with all the people we have explicitly expressed doubt in and disagreement with and crediting us with goals we don't have makes sense in what way, Fetzer? That makes as much sense as saying "Jim Fetzer is just part of the latest Yankee451 crew trying to say that napalm depth charges were dropped from UFOs to destroy the towers."
A lot of effort has gone into constructing various ruses to fool the public.
Ha! At least that much must be admitted by them. But thus continues their trend of attempting to use our own arguments against us. We have always stated that it seems as if there is a concerted effort to undermine the research. Fetzer wants to turn it into a game of finger pointing. Forgive me for "playing along" with these posts, but it's just too ridiculous and so much of the article is packed with misleading argumentation, false leads and even the classic slander and lies. Some of it it is outright ridiculous. Apparently we are also communists? Leading the truth movement by being vilified by it?

The Official Conspiracy Theory posits that 19 Islamic hijackers wielding box cutters were responsible for all of the destruction. The woefulness of that theory became readily apparent soon after 9/11 and it gave rise to a number of alternative theories.
Okay, they are giving us the history lesson of the false "truth movement". Something we could write volumes on. Pass.
While Dr. Wood claims not to have a theory, it states plainly on the cover of her book Where Did the Towers Go?, “Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11″.
Pretty similar to Fetzer's argument so far, actually. Fetzer claims to have evidence but presents none and clearly implicates Simon Shack over and over of being disinfo trying to prevent Fetzer from presenting evidence he himself simply fails to present.

This theory could fail and flounder just like the "Judy Wood" cartoon character as well, but Fetzer is hoping not to.
Dr. Wood’s non-theory runs out of steam once you realize that the WTC buildings exploded, high temperatures persisted at the WTC site for six months after 9/11, and that evidence for fission and fusion abound at Ground Zero.
"Once you realize" things that haven't been presented as pieces of evidence in the article, you have completely joined with Fetzer's imagination.
However, the indefensibility of the Judy Wood Cult’s non-theory pales in comparison to the utterly ludicrous rantings of the September Clues forum.
We have utterly ludicrous rantings because we continue to persist in the need for real evidence. Interesting.
Simon Shack and others have constructed an utterly bizarre 9/11 mythology which would have you believe that the Twin Towers were completely vacant after the 1993 bombing, that nobody died on 9/11 and that the entire event was a Hollywood-style production, where the actual destruction of the WTC buildings was obscured by military smoke-machines.
This so-called "mythology" is just a speculation by Simon Shack and doesn't represent the views expressed by most people on the forum. To smear an entire way of thinking by attacking Simon's best guess at what happened smacks of a desire to undermine the credibility of Simon's guess without actually looking at the evidence for such a supposedly "bizarre" theory.

By alleging that Simon is a bizarre, weird, woo-woo, fringe, terroristic, Israeli-supporting communist, leading a concerted crew of disinfo artists is, to me, an even more bizarre theory. Especially since the argument Simon has made is not actually examined! It is just slandered without logical argument, and cut down before it is even presented with any integrity.

Posts: 2247
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by fbenario » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:21 am

Hoi, thanks for the time you took eviscerating Fatzo's meaningless spew. He's got constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

Your two posts provide a great model of how to respond to gibberish about us and our efforts.

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

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:00 am

Thanks, fbenario. I hope that people will forgive my own verbal syndrome. It's embarrassment for Fetzer and his clown friends apparently trying to serve Fetzer's goals and only making complete asses of themselves. Let's continue.
Nobody died? The real destruction of the WTC buildings was somehow hidden from view? So what gives? Either September Clues knows something that the rest of us do not or they are completely out to lunch.
"Completely out to lunch" here means "crazy". Insane.

Apparently, logic is lost on Fetzer's hit team. Not believing in something that many people do believe in does not imply knowledge, nor does it imply insanity. It simply means something is not believed in. It means more evidence is called for.

When a judge asks the court to dismiss planted and false evidence in order to re-balance the trial in favor of true evidence, the most important point isn't that the judge knows or doesn't know something, it is that (s)he suspects the evidence is invalid. And that suspicion is enough to remove it from the trial altogether. Such should be the case with the 9/11 evidence that proves to be so tampered with, altered, edited, composited and in most cases apparently constructed out of thin air and plausibly so that it is unworthy of being called "video" anymore without the accompanying adjective "Animated" — as in meticulously crafted with the help of a technological means of individually or mass-editing frames in a sequence to depict something other than reality.

Fetzer fails to see that multiple methods of editing does not imply an original truth. Just as individual letters in a word do not become less abstract when examined individually, so the 9/11 evidence does not become less abstract when examined closely. In fact, there appears to be very strange crypto software used to morph faces, distort images and hide digital construction methods for the footage — which is often more rightly called at this point animated videos simulating news broadcasts.

But we must either be crazy, Israeli or communist (or a combination thereof) because:
there is an entire thread devoted to proving that satellites are fake.
Nowhere on this forum is there a thread dedicated to proving satellites are fake. Instead, the forum seeks to examine the postulation that satellites may be fake, due to the simplicity with which it has been shown people are fooled by lies about them. We only aim to ask the question: how ridiculous or serious do lies about satellites have to be before people begin to ask scientific questions which challenge those lies about satellites? There is no need to seek to disprove satellites. There is a public interest, however, in asking questions and seeking answers about them which satisfy a rigorous scientific challenge to the lightweight pseudo-factoids used to promote their existence in the media.
They appear to be denying the existence of satellites as satellites can be used to prove the Earth is round.
More wordsmithery. The use of the word "as" here is meant to imply without stating that there is a hidden reason that (in FetzerWorld) we are adamantly denying any profound evidence of satellites — evidence that doesn't actually exist so far. And that hidden agenda is to seek to prove the Earth is not round.

Once more, this is a complete distortion of the purpose of the forum. Our purpose is to continually ask hard, modern, scientific questions about unsettled debates the mainstream media and academia would like brushed under the rug. To seek the cause and reason for such motivations to so clearly be biasing the media and academia. And to boldly go where ... actually, many people have been before. Sometimes oppressed or killed for going there. Tycho Brahe is one of those people whose death is still controversial to this day, and who the media and bad science-apologists/propagandists like Disney-NASA would have us stop questioning. Not to mention, they'd have us worshiping Kepler, who used Tycho's information without actually continuing the scientific observations that are the lifeblood of Enlightenment ideals.

Fetzer and team spend some time in the article — quite bizarrely — trying to defend a Flat Earth forum poster. Which is hilarious because it means they consider that the debate about the shape of the Earth actually belongs on such a forum, where the premise is that the Earth is flat from the outset, and where clearly photoshopped images of the Earth as a sphere are hailed as photographic proof of such. Particularly this neon gobstopper blue ... Earth-ish thing.
A "photograph from space"?

I cannot understand why Fetzer would go to the Flat Earth forum to argue against Flat Earth theory with the poor argumentation of posters there, but it seems they want us to ally with Flat Earthers? Or perhaps to get in the mood of their bad style of argumentation? Hoping to kill two birds with one stone?

Rather than asking questions about facts of science, physics, life and existence, Fetzer would prefer to allege, hint and besmirch anyone who is asking these questions. Note, not people coming up with wildly out to lunch, communistic, Israeli-backing theories that Fetzer imagines we are doing.

But simply asking any questions about science Fetzer doesn't want to ask puts us in the camp of wild raving lunatics.

In fact, is Fetzer's whole bad tyrade against us an attempt to lump certain bad thinking with CluesForum and hope we will ally ourselves with poor thinkers? That will not happen because CluesForum does its best to ban illogical or poorly written argumentation. Fetzer and his team, for example, needless to say would not be allowed to post here with the present way they are writing this smear article against CluesForum and anything even touching Simon Shack. I'm surprised they didn't spend part of a section saying Simon's music is terrible and hiring a music theorist to explain why. It's really that callous and unrelated to science.

If you don't believe me, read the icky thing: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18 ... stractors/

Speaking of not having the motivation or not knowing how to ask questions, the following sections of the FetzerWorld document cites official media documentation of events as unquestionable evidence! He says, according to the media,
60 truckloads of debris
were found where perhaps two bodies might be located. Can't question this because the media said it. According to the media,
Just eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress created the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
which also cannot be questioned, nor its motivations asked about, because Congress did it.

Is there anything published that Fetzer will not believe? There is also a case of strangely euphoric accusations of a single Jew behind a conspiracy to cover up facts about a case.
With a resume like that, it would appear that Kenneth Feinberg is the man the Zionists turn to whenever they need to cover something up and distribute hush money in the form of compensation.
Fetzer acknowledges there are hush campaigns, but does not admit they could be more or less effective. Because even though people may have been paid off to hide facts about multiple PsyOps, Fetzer is on the case and ready to present ... well, hugely notable mainstream articles widely published and distributed about the official side of the events of 9/11. So obviously that hush money went to waste.

There is no argument to make against the Jewish players involved. In fact, Fetzer and team have probably identified a number of high profile suspicious people that should see their day(s) in court.

But once presenting the reader with the only decent reasoning about a Zionist-Jewish motivation in the whole lot (which, let's face it, everybody pretty much cites from time to time, including users on our forum) Fetzer continues to roll immediately into an attack on Simon Shack. Attempting to use the momentum of his suspicion against actually suspicious characters to lump Simon (or anyone "associated") within is just a crude, intellectually manipulative and wrong way of dealing with the facts. It would make sense if Simon actually were a communist or a Jew or an intellectually dishonest person like Fetzer.

But Simon is none of those things! And only by taking Simon's name and rolling it around in the dirt can Fetzer and his hit team hope something but anything negative will stick. But Simon, once again, comes out squeaky clean because he is clean. He has continually offered his own most suspicious connections freely to the public in order to be examined. He did this because he is innocent and he doesn't want people to associate him with things he publicly distances himself from.

Fetzer misses the point of why Simon did this, grabs at anything Simon offered and tries to tackle his character using Simon's own admissions. Which doesn't make sense, except if Fetzer and team are deliberately trying to add false labels to Simon's own self-deprecating labels and force Simon to try to take them on. This will never work, because Simon is an honest fellow. And he will not "admit" to being things he is not. He is not Jewish. He is not the UN. He is not communist. (Communitarian, maybe? Neighborly, perhaps?) He is not insane. And from what I know about him, he is definitely not associated with anyone or influenced by anyone except himself. I know. I have been in arguments with Simon and he is steadfast in his own opinions, as I am in mine. It would be laughable to try to find someone who could manipulate him into taking a bribe or pay him to fake opinions. It just is not him. He just refuses to hold opinions that are not his own. I doubt it could ever happen unless he were seriously drugged or coerced beyond measure. He is a laid back and honest person. In my personal experience, and I could be wrong. But I like to believe I am the same way.

Oh boy, dare we address the last part of this smear campaign? Maybe Simon had better do it. But I will give it a try. It's truly embarrassing and disgusting what Fetzer has allowed himself to be associated with, in this attempt to character-assassinate a good man.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Posts: 650
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by antipodean » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:47 am

Simon Shack and onebornfree, alas, have never offered the least indication of what they think we should have seen, had we had access to authentic video footage.
What we should have seen was the collapse footage actually live on TV in real time, not some distance footage of smoke coming out of the Towers.
Don't these experts bother to read the forum on the subject matter, that the forum is being taken to task over.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=450

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

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:52 am

Everyone should meet everyone else. That is my philosophy about this movement, and broadly the Internet now that I've seen sims like Equinox, OzzyBinOswald and others come and go from the 'truth movement'.

Personalities don't matter, really, when you are talking about science. Even if the guy is a fucking asshole whom you'd never want to meet, they can present facts to the public or they can present rumor, hearsay and cast aspersions.

Simon has mostly only ever done the former. And he has only hesitantly resorted to namecalling when he finds out someone has genuinely betrayed his trust or shown utter disrespect to him. It just so happens not only does Simon stick to the facts as he sees them, not only does he attempt to back them up and constantly make room for people to update his idea with new information, under the controlled forum format here, he also happens to not be an asshole. He is one of the nicer people I've met.

So while I think nobody should take my word for it, and I think everyone should confirm for themselves what is or is not a person's persona versus that person's "act" in life, as it seems most people without a mental malfunction tend to un- sub- or semi-consciously put on an act for some self-protection and to interact with the world in a polite rather than rude way ... I would hope that people will not take Fetzer's word. The primary reason is Fetzer has never met Simon Shack. Whereas I have, and I have talked on the phone with him for something like 6 years now.

So here is how the FetzerWorld team examines Simon carefully, clearly looking for something to grasp and wrangle without ever having met him.
Who precisely is Simon Shack?
Simon Shack, precisely, is Simon Shack!
As it turns out, Simon Shack is actually a Pseudonym. Simon Shack’s real name is Simon Hytten, which he disclosed on his forum in March 2011.
As it "turns out", Simon Shack told everybody that his real name is Simon Hytten. And this was not some secretive "disclosure" (though the ridiculous word here makes it sound like it took a secret agent spy to unearth his hidden secret identity) but a way to clear the air about his identity. He did this, to my understanding, after finding out that a number of people approaching him about his work would not use their real names or seemed overly cagey. So he decided to be the opposite of that and just tell everyone what he was doing with his name. In fact, the Fetzer piece acknowledges this and merely goes on to repeat one iteration of that story:
Simon gave this explanation for his adoption of the Shack pseudonym:
“My surname Shack was coined back in 1993 or so by a black, Colorado-born jazz musician named Fontaine Burnette. Try and contact him and ask him about it (I haven’t heard from him in many years). He asked me what Hytten meant – so I told him it means a little house/or hut. So he just quipped… “Like a shack?” – and I said yeah, a bit like a shack. That’s all there is to it. I liked it. So then, as I registered at the STIM (the Swedish Musician’s Union) I was told that my artist name would be accepted – even at legal/bureaucratic levels. So that’s how I signed in at STIM. Ever since, I have used this surname – and all music reviews/articles written about me/my band (The Social Service) as a musician, have had me as Simon Shack. It simply stuck on me – and most people now know me by that name. I certainly had no motive to change my surname back in 1993 – in order to hide from something! At the time, I had no clue whatsoever of how this crazy world is rolling![”]
... and?

Fetzer has nothing to say about this because there is nothing to say about this except that it is Simon's story about how he decided to use this name. Fetzer probably has his own story about why he chooses to be known for a PhD, but that too is just a different kind of name change. Nobody accuses Fetzer of being a fraud for that, even though he clearly has not earned the doctorate with any sort of logical thinking.

Fetzer then goes on to tell a story about Simon's father, which Simon would not deny, because — again — it happens to be pretty close to his version of events. The only thing Fetzer could apparently find to smear not just Simon but Simon's father (whom Simon respects very much, and Fetzer knows this about Simon and seems to be trying to "get" to him with an emotional attack piece here) was apparently a disagreement his employers had with him. Fetzer's emotionally manipulative attack says,
The Swedish group also announced it was fully washing [its] hands of Hytten and sharply criticized the newspapers who had given the false impression that Hytten had become Dolci’s legitimate successor in Sicily. Sadly, Hytten’s nefarious work had its desired effect, as noted on Dolci’s Wikipedia page:
Now, how could the Fetzer team claim to know not only Simon but Simon's father? While you let that strangeness set in, how could they claim the work Simon's father had done was "nefarious!" and that Simon's father desired to cause a "sad" outcome?

It sounds as if they are trying to insult, depress and demoralize Simon in the worst way, by painting his father as some kind of nefarious villain who secretly worked to undo his own life work. So not only are they getting Simon's father's information incorrect, they are apparently deliberately setting up the scenario that the aspect for which Simon is quite proud of his father is in Opposite World and Simon's father actually loved and protected the Mafia he otherwise apparently tried to rid the world of.

Fetzer quotes mainstream wikipedia, by the way, for his jab:
“The smears certainly succeeded in pushing Dolci out of the limelight in Italy – for the last 20 years of his life he disappeared from public view.”

So it appears that Eyvind Hytten was controlled opposition sent in to disrupt and destroy Dolci’s anti-mafia organization, [and] sadly he succeeded.
How can a drama that Fetzer and team constructed from Simon's stories and mainstream news articles possibly be acceptable to people as the official story of what happened? When Simon himself provides this story from his own perspective, actually in Italy and knowing his own father better than Fetzer ever possibly could, why does Fetzer cast it in the following way?
Simon Hytten tried to shift the blame onto American writer Jerre Mangione, author of the book ‘The World around Danilo Dolci’
But the story would never be known had Simon not willingly chosen to share his real name with the world, share stories about his father from his own perspective, and basically try to give answers to some of why Simon does what he does and believes what he believes about his father. So "shifting the blame" is precisely what Fetzer is doing from some place in America (one presumes America, though I guess we ought to wonder) and he is apparently not about to go to Italy, research what actually happened and find out whether what he wants to say about Simon and his father is true. Fetzer will not do this because he and his team apparently abhor the scientific methodology, honest journalism and the fact that people are calling him out on it.

So instead of addressing those questions in the least, he simply attacks the character of his perceived opponent!

In fact, even though Simon explicitly and deliberately shares his own strange tales about the Bin Laden family and his peculiar family connection, while Fetzer offers no such reciprocation to prove he is completely above suspicion himself, Fetzer decides — once more — to attempt to stick dirt to Simon and his family through aspersions about which he could have no additional knowledge, except that which was alluded to by Simon himself!
During his career, [Simon's brother] Mario was sponsored by the “Bin Ladin Group.” Apparently, Mario befriended Yeslam Bin Ladin, an entrepreneur and half-brother of Osama Bin Laden. Yeslam is a fully Westernized man, possesses a degree in Economics, speaks four languages fluently, owns several successful businesses and became a naturalized Swiss citizen in 2001.

Yeslam became interested in helping Mario in early 1986. As he was quite influential in Arab elite, the brother of Osama managed to recruit a number of sponsors of the Middle East to support Mario in Formula 3000. The main sponsor was Yeslam’s family company, the Bin Ladin Group and this can be seen from photos of Mario’s F3000 car where the Bin Ladin Group is advertised on the rear wing.
This is all something Simon knows too well and finds suspicious himself. So why would Fetzer try to spin the tale as something unearthed by Fetzer as some kind of investigation? Is this how Fetzer conducts all his research? Taking anecdotes, gluing to them speculation and particular dramas of his own imagining, and presenting it to the public as the real story?

That's not the job of a scientist, but the habits of a politician or a tabloid rent-a-journalist. This is unfortunately very familiar, however, because it is also what he has done with 9/11. Let's compare what he has done to try to hurt Simon's feelings and/or demoralize research to what he considers "research" into 9/11.

1. Fetzer cherry-picks mainstream news articles, and reads them with a prima facie acceptance of their veracity
2. Fetzer verifies his own acceptance of what he sees or imagines with little more than other articles; but anecdotes and comments from apparently random fans — and he considers this the most valid and relevant "research" without actually seeking to validate any of the claims of the news articles
3. Fetzer then speculates deeply about what he believes is really going on. Unlike Simon who will say, "I choose to believe [blah blah]", Fetzer says, "It is a fact that [blah blah] and what's more, if you question me you are disinformation."

Now, Fetzer has adopted a new strategy because people are not accepting his methodology as being either scientific, nor morally honest. That is:

4. Vilify and paint unproven dramas about anyone who he considers to be "disinformation" (i.e.; questioning Fetzer on any of his beliefs)

So how does the Fetzer team of love conclude this disgusting and completely unscientific attack on Simon (with no actual refutation of Simon's work or those of anyone who has built up to or onto Simon's work?) Here is how:
Regardless of the truth of the actual relationship,
which, let's face it, doesn't really matter to you that much, does it, Fetzer? You may as well start all of your inquiries with something like the phrase, "regardless of the truth ..." because that is your attitude about the truth.
it is clear that Simon Shack aka Simon Hytten, was, for at least a few years in the 1980s, one person removed from the Bin Ladin family.
Though the fact that famous political families like the bin Ladins, Bushes, Clintons, Arafats, Obamas, etc. etc. et al literally draw ambitious people to them (because that is how people like Mario — who are rather unlike Simon — suck up to the wealthy and privileged) goes unnoticed by Fetzer. Fetzer also chooses to ignore the meaning of anything Simon has said about his own story (which even by Fetzer's "science" of pasting anecdotes to mainstream news to back up his speculative imaginings and calling it research) is not very gracious of Fetzer to Simon for providing him the basis of the Fetzer team's allegations in the first place.

Now, I agree that going ahead and admitting to something does not make one innocent, that one could easily take any particular personal story and paint one's self in the best possible light.

But it isn't science. It's merely storytelling, and it's neither here nor there in the facts. It is emotional manipulation whether it's coming from Simon or Fetzer. Yet, Fetzer's segment against Simon concludes dramatically, as if he has uncovered something:
Apparently, there is little love lost today between Simon and his two elder brothers, as Simon wrote in an internet post:

“[A] few lines about my estranged brothers, Nicolai and Mario. They have inexplicably grown into two abject human beings – and I have almost no words to qualify their current behavior.”

Simon describes Nicolai and Mario as ‘two despicable creatures’ and states that “my disdain for them is immense.”
Simon does say this. It is the same kind of emotional drama that Simon tells of himself. How does that fit with Fetzer's allegations and hints that Simon is either deliberately misleading people, is a communist, is Jewish, is a Zionist, is in bed with the Mafia or any number of the other perfect villainies that could possibly be imagined about anyone and which Fetzer tries to stick to Simon? Simon does not get along with his power-seeking, money-grubbing brothers. He must be lying, conclude Fetzer and team.

But has Simon "lied" about ... pretty much anything? Has he been exposed as a liar? Even as a campaigner against truth?

Or has Fetzer merely flushed out the things that show Simon's personal struggle and highlighted them in order to specifically demoralize someone he considers an enemy just for demanding Fetzer produce some sort of evidence — any sort of evidence for his own wildly speculative theory of "Israeli nukes"?

“September Clues” has constructed its own bizarre mythology surrounding the events of 9/11. The Clues Forum guys would have you believe that the Twin Towers were vacant after the 1993 bombing, nobody died on 9/11 and all of the footage was produced ahead of time and shown to the television audience while the actual destruction of the World Trade Center buildings was hidden from the view of New Yorkers by military smoke machines.
Remember, in Fetzer World, calling a postulation bizarre without actually examining any of its tenants is meant to be a kind of proof that the tenants, or their evidence, are not worth looking at.

The "Fetzer Attack" as Simon accurately dubbed this article, is winding up to make its points. Remember the 1-2-3 of the Fetzer methodology. First, take news articles at face value. Second, add to those articles' value and inflate the meaning of the details by calling any and all emotional responses to the details "research"; and third, construct an elaborate hypothesis — with no proof — based on these anecdotal fantasies.

Fetzer team's article finishes:
If I were Larry Silverstein or another of the 9/11 perps
Oh, but you haven't proven you aren't.
I would certainly want the 9/11 research community to believe these absurd notions.
You would want people to believe that you are responsible for a hoax that fooled millions, wound up with America in three illegal wars if not more, and that you should face trial for war crimes? Okay, that seems like a strange request as a 9/11 perp, but you're the one doing the imagining.
They also weave in ludicrous statements such as nuclear weapons don’t exist
"Ludicrous" to Fetzer's group, again, because it is a question Fetzer refuses to address but not because of any of the signs of forgery and manipulation of the scientific community.
, that rockets cannot travel into outer space
Another one he refuses to examine.
and that satellites don’t exist.
That makes at least three questions Fetzer will apparently never find the time to properly research. This is not because he refuses to look at these things but because he has no knowledge or demonstrated awareness of virtually any scientific methods.

Fetzer, your emotional response to the imagined world you fabricate from mainstream news articles is not useful science. And never will be.
The only good reason to doubt the existence of satellites might be that you believe the Earth is flat.
A hilarious statement, considering the Fetzer team chose to address questions about satellites by visiting a Flat Earth forum and saying this was the epitome of science research into the subject. He accuses everyone he disagrees with as presenting "straw man" arguments — that is, false effigies representing questions or statements his opponents never made — but he is the best exemplar of such an insane style of conducting arguments.
The “September Clues” 9/11 myth does not withstand even modest scrutiny.
Modest scrutiny is exactly what was lacking at all, so the point cannot be true. If September Clues does not withstand modest scrutiny, why wasn't any point of September Clues actually scrutinized — at all — in the entire article? Because it is a hit piece against Simon. Not science, and not a good argument against September Clues' fairly unassailable points at this stage.

Fetzer has a grudge. And he has chosen to attack like a beaten and weak foe who has inflicted all of his own damage through shooting himself in the foot a number of times. He has taken aim at Simon and fired at his entire family with a smear campaign that has nothing to do with addressing any points of the September Clues documentary. Not even the ones that others have attacked!
Human remains have been found all over the WTC complex and continue to be unearthed to this very day.
Refer to Fetzer methodology Number 1.
Numerous people died there.
Okay, despite lack of proof or anything, I guess we must just take Fetzer's word. Because he believes in some of the phony victim stories plastered all over the TV, newspapers, magazines and Internet. And that means if we don't believe it, he will hunt down information about you and try to character-assassinate you! What a fucking pathetic way to try to argue with science.
Billions of dollars have been paid out by Zionists to keep the families quiet.
Correction: Zionists are telling you this is what has been going on through the largely Zionist-dominated news and "alternative" news. And you are taking their word for it, Doctor Fetzer.
The survivors of Stairwell B of the North Tower attest to the fact that the Towers were not empty on 9/11.
Mmhm, and you've met and interviewed these so-called "survivors", have you?

Simon Shack, Onebornfree, El Buggo and Ab Irato have spent countless hours posting comments on “The Real Deal” archive forum and attacking the authors of this article.
Perhaps they can be considered "fighting back" and/or "defending themselves" against a smear campaign now? Good show. You really took the high road there, idiots.
They protest the most vehemently when Israeli nuclear bombs are mentioned as having caused the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
My guess is that they are trying to wake you up to the fact that you are insisting: firstly, on a weapon technology that may not exist; secondly, on the premise that you saw its "proof" in the pixels of fabricated news; and thirdly, you are persisting in identifying Israel as the culprit which is an apologist position for the technocracy technology, the United States government, the disinformation campaigns working against September Clues (which is the definition of disinformation, by the way — actually fighting to squash existing information — a word you misuse so much it defies your apparent doctorate degree. Might yours be an example such a disinfo campaign?) and the worldwide network of conspirators that must be involved, including but not limited to Israel, London, DC and the elite "ruling" families of the world.
“September Clues” has all of the earmarks of being a 9/11 gatekeeping operation.
Eh, um. No. Demanding evidence is not gatekeeping. It is gate opening.

Buying into their bizarre 9/11 mythology may be appealing if you believe the Earth is flat.
A final non sequitur to complete the essay. Buying into getting off your butt and doing some fucking research into the fraud by actually examining evidence and performing crucial forensics on the evidence may not be appealing to you if you prefer to live in FetzerWorld.

But I live on Earth, whatever the shape of it ultimately proves to be.

Posts: 7042
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:16 am

:lol: Mirrored from Jahilliya's blog:

http://jahilliya.wordpress.com/simple-j ... rap-movie/

The Simon Shack vs. Jim Fetzer Rap Movie Scene:

Cool it Jim Fetzer
I hope you’re not tryin’ to be like Jim’ll Fix It
That paedo dim wit
So you think you’re legit’
Or are ya just mad ‘cause you’re sucking on Barrett’s tit

Don’t get me wrong it’s good to be in a Dynamic Duo
And pretend to be in the know
But why have you taken things too far
Like you’re some kinda movie star
So you say I’m whack
‘Cause my name is Simon Shack
You best take that back
And cut me some slack
Or I’s be sendin’ ya to Iraq
‘Cause wisdom is what you lack!

Sayin’ ’em towers were hit with a nuke
Your theory makes me puke!
Like a nuke is tiny and small
To be hidden behind a wall
And nobody would see it coming -
No-one but you Jim, who thinks he’s stunning
But are you sure you’re not just a troll
‘cause 9/11 truth has taken its toll
So let’s roll

But I ain’t got no time to be savin’ ya soul
Now let’s see if you can beat me in a rap fight
Instead of bitchin’ an’ always thinkin’ you’re right
Like things are always in black and white
Don’t you know that there are shades of grey?
But i’ll let ya have ya say on Veterans Today
‘Cause everyone knows ya already lost your way
About Jahilliya's blog: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389211#p2389211

Posts: 7042
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:49 pm


Just received today - over personal e-mail - Jim Fetzer's latest "friendly invitation" to a radio debate :
Jim Fetzer wrote:Since John Friend would like to host a debate between you and obf
with me and Don, I hope you have the courage of your convictions
and will do it on Wednesday 12 March, at 11 AM/ET. Will you do it?

Many thanks. I think it would be worthwhile for the 9/11 community.


Evidently, Fetzer sees himself as a prominent and 'un-snubbable' stalwart of the "9/11 community" (whatever that is supposed to be).

The lame and snotty "I hope you have the courage of your convictions" line seems to imply that - if I dare decline the invite - I must be a coward and a sissy. Well, if anyone thinks this is the case, so be it. Admittedly, I certainly do shiver in awe and agony at the mere thought of 'debating' 9/11 on radio with the garrulous Fetzer-bulldozer, the self-professed "professor of logic and critical thinking". If I have learned one thing in my life about debating (live on air) important / sensitive issues with people, it is to keep well clear of debaters armed with the dubious talent of rambling away at high speed, raising an impenetrable wall of words - while at the same time systematically dodging / ignoring their interlocutors' points and questions (pretending aloofness). To be sure, Fetzer is a champion of this "art" - and has been honing it for about half a century now. As it is, I can think of dozens, hundreds - or maybe thousands of other individuals with which I'd rather debate 9/11 with.

Fetzer's antics and behavior over the years hasn't helped me forming a better opinion of the guy - ever since he rolled out that "Ace Baker" personage - and had him showcase my September Clues at his 2007 Madison Truth Conference. Need I recall that, shortly after that, "the image-compositing-expert" Ace Baker declared that September Clues was 95% false? Need I recall that Fetzer subsequently pretended to embrace my research (or at least, the "no-plane" paradigm) without ever mentioning / linking to my websites in ANY of his long articles on the subject? Need I recall that, grotesquely enough, the Ace Baker clown simulated his own suicide - live on Fetzer's show? Need I recall that Fetzer then embraced the asinine "hologram" theories peddled by the comical Scotsman Richard Hall (a self-declared former employee of the phony Trident nuclear programme?). Need I recall that, most recently, Fetzer and his cronies wrote a bombastic "hit piece" against our Cluesforum research on Veterans Today - "Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors" complete with ad hominem attacks against yours truly - and even using (copy-pasting from the Let's Roll forums) some cretinous, "damning findings about my connections to the Binladen family" and whatnot - compiled by my longtime stalker, the obscure "Ozzybinoswald" internet entity? And do I need to recall that, when Stewart Ogilby and I wrote a (tranquil and polite) reply to this hit-piece, the Veterans Today mods decided to delete it - point blank -within hours of its publication?

Need I recall that Fetzer has steadfastly avoided (and declined my invites) - for over half a decade now - to debate 9/11 over on my "turf", Cluesforum.info - whereas I have spent many hours responding to the discussions over at his own websites (hardly EVER getting any direct responses from Fetzer himself?). Need I recall that Fetzer's "Real Deal" blogspot has now become a puerile kindergarten infested with his in-house sock puppets and confusion-artists, such as Clare Kuehn, Ian Greenhalgh, Don Fox - and that the latter has been let freely throwing all sorts of sinister accusations at me ("ADL shill", "Zionist / Mossad disinformer", etc) and this without Dr Fetzer ever intervening and moderating such vicious attacks clearly meant to incense and disrupt our 9/11 discussions ? And lastly, need I recall that Fetzer himself has been calling various supporters of our research "idiots", "incredibly stupid", "time-wasters" - and so on and so forth?

Well - in the light of all this - why should I waste MY time debating 9/11 with Uncle Fetzer? Do I owe him something? Would such a debate really be - as Fetzer suggests - "worthwhile for the 9/11 community"? To those who think so - please forgive me, because I don't.

Edit to add (March 19, 2014): Just for the record: Yesterday, I had the 'great privilege' to be called an "asshole" by Fetzer's old buddy, Gordon Duff. This, only shortly after Jim Fetzer had called me a "whack-job" and a "moron".

Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:42 am


I see no reason why you should waste your time with Fetzer, but if you do decide to do it, I would suggest 1-on-1 with Abirato as the moderator. No need for extra participants, that will just cause confusion and make the conversation too scattered. I would also suggest a predetermined format so that Fetzer is forced to stay on topic and not stray into his asinine ramblings. A point-by-point format where you discuss key issues and allow for rebuttals would be ideal. At the end of the day, I doubt Fetzer would agree to such a format and probably prefers to have Don Fox on his side because he can't handle a true debate on his own. I'm not nearly as proficient in the breadth of 9/11 research as you are but even I think I can take Fetzer in a structured debate.


Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by lux » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:33 am

Smells like an ambush to me. <_<

Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by Libero » Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:40 am

Surely it must have been something similar to this device strategically placed throughout the towers, each timed to detonate at precisely the right moment to bring them a tumblin' down!!

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

Or perhaps it was an insidious plan through the people themselves... i.e., the morning coffee was spiked that day.



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

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by sunshine05 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:48 pm

After what he did at Veteran's Today, he doesn't deserve your time and I still can't believe they removed Stewart's response article. I don't understand why anyone would be interested in what he has to say after that.

Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by Farcevalue » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:18 pm

That "convictions" word is bothersome. No need for convictions in the face of observable, verifiable fact.

I concur with lux. Having a well moderated and evenhanded debate in that environment is about as likely Fetzer himself crossing the finish line of a marathon.

When that happens maybe you could reconsider.

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

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by brianv » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:41 pm

Farcevalue wrote:That "convictions" word is bothersome. No need for convictions in the face of observable, verifiable fact.

I concur with lux. Having a well moderated and evenhanded debate in that environment is about as likely Fetzer himself crossing the finish line of a marathon.

When that happens maybe you could reconsider.
Agreed. Beliefs lead to convictions. I think we have more than beliefs to bring to the argument.

I don't know about Simon, but I was banned from their forums and blocked from commenting on their videos before they went public. I wouldn't give the fat fuck the time of day!

Posts: 7042
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:11 pm

brianv wrote: I wouldn't give the fat fuck the time of day!
History seems to repeat itself, Brian...
Here's what reichstag fireman opined about Fetzer's insistent, wet wish of debating me on air - back in 2012:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2375403

Post Reply