Jim Fetzer on media fakery

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by Libero » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:17 am

Brutal Metal wrote:^^ Don't kid yourself he's seen it and probably more than once, if there is an ANYTHING conspiracy this dude will dive head first into it.. :blink:

Yes.. we know that. But do the loyal readers of Veterans Today? It seems logical that anyone who would even speak of media fakery would undoubtedly be shunned by anything even representing the official media whether it be mainstream or under the guise of being something more alternative. He's not looking to expose the truth. It would affect his paycheck.

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by repentantandy » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:13 am

Look. Simon has already verified the instances in which Dr. Fetzer first asked Simon to do a radio interview (refused) and then to speak in person at a conference (refused again). Simon says he has his reasons for refusing, and I'm sure they are substantial.

Meanwhile, on Fetzer's own blogs other people occasionally DO bring up the fake-victim theory AND HE ALWAYS IGNORES THE POSTINGS (but he also doesn't delete the postings.) :huh:

Maybe he's patiently waiting for a chance to discuss the issue with Simon in a real-time conversation -- before taking a position (other than casually refering to the "three thousand") that directly addresses the many clues suggesting victim fakery.

If Simon's worried about how such a potentially confrontational encounter would turn out, I would like to remind him of the two (rare) radio interviews he DID consent to, several months ago. IMHO, both went quite smoothly and informatively, even when one of the questioners became overtly hostile.

Simon handled himself in a very dignified, informative and confident manner, and even appeared to be "winning over" one of the other interviewers by the end of the program. :D

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:40 am

What interviews were those? I'd like to hear them too, please. Mind linking, if possible?

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by repentantandy » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:56 am

Simon publicised them himself and posted the links earlier this year. If he doesn't respond to your question, Hoi, I'll search for them myself (assuming they haven't been deleted, of course).

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by repentantandy » Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:27 am

I see Simon hasn't re-posted the links to his prior radio interviews yet.

But while we're waiting, here's a curious excerpt from the most recently archive-posted episode of Jim Fetzer's radio program. The guest identified himself as Onebornfree (OBF) an “independent researcher” who also said he was definitely NOT part of the established 9/11 truth community.

JIM FETZER interviews ONEBORNFREE
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20 ... fakery.mp3


Fetzer: “...what we're talking about here (the CBS dive bomber shot) is a fabricated image.”
OBF: “I believe it is. It's totally fabricated. I believe what Simon Shack has uncovered. I believe that everything in that original CBS footage is a part of a video composite. No part of that video is real. The buildings are fake. WTC Two is fake. The (WTC) One is fake.”
Fetzer: “What do you mean when you say that the buildings are fake? (Do you mean) there were real buildings there (in lower Manhattan) but you don't think that those were what is seen in the videos?”
OBF: “No. They are video composites.”
Fetzer: “Could that have been done in advance?”
OBF: “Yes. The whole video would have been made in advance, including the plane. There's no plane insert. The plane is part of the original construction. The whole thing is a construct. The sky, the background, the foreground of the other buildings, the WTC Two, the two towers, and the plane itself –everything – and the smoke coming out. Because the first alleged strike has occurred by this time. This is the second strike.”
Fetzer: “Okay... okay. I'm open to the possibility that that particular piece of footage was done in advance. And that they played it. And that it wasn't quite consonant with what it was they were actually going to project. Maybe they weren't confident the hologram was going to hold... so they had that (CBS video) available and they ran it.”
OBF: “Jim, none of them are (real). If you look at Simon Shack's work – I can give you a link if you want – the original networks' footage, all of the major networks that broadcast, none of them really broadcast the strike. That's only available on the so-called amateur footage of Hezarkhani and
Fairbanks and similar. But the original networks' footage is not really (genuine), except for maybe the Fox 5 footage, but even (on) that you can't really see the plane clearly striking on the actual face (of the building). But regardless of that, 175 is portrayed in every one of them as taking a different path. So they're all in opposition to each other – if you totally disregard the amateur footage.”

Hmmm......

Dr. Fetzer, obviously distressed and perplexed by the guest's direct assertion of TOTAL TV fakery, recovers his composure and says he (Fetzer) is going to supply a copy of the interview to researcher Richard Hall (whose recent hologram-supporting “findings,” strongly criticised by the current guest, are based on assuming that the videos are real) to come on the program to respond. Fetzer then goes on to express his profound disappointment that Simon Shack, however, has refused “for his own reasons” all previous requests to be interviewed on the show.

The program concludes with the guest pointing Fetzer to a website exposing major impossibilities in the Hezarkhani footage and Fetzer seeming to be genuinely impressed with “how the building appears to be moving to meet the perfectly centered plane”.

Sadly the guest OBF (an obvious fan of September Clues) never does get around to raising the vicsim issue before the time runs out, but despite the contentious nature of his conversation with Fetzer in the early sections of the broadcast (with way too much arguing over why ANY media images or official flight data should be believed) Fetzer's initial, less-than-cordial attitude toward the Clues fan softens and warms markedly – after the above-quoted exchange takes place and the expose' of the bogus Hez. footage is examined. Fetzer ends the show by stating that he wants to have the (rather soft-spoken) Clues fan (whom Fetzer had earlier treated quite dismissively) return as a guest very soon!

Although it all could be just an “act” on Fetzer's part, he certainly did speak during this particular episode as if he were only superficially aware of the septemberclues.info research, depending instead on the recommendations, attacks, summaries and oversimplifications of others. It seemed as if he had not yet taken the time to actually read the detailed articles on the site and watch the videos carefully and completely. <_<

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

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by teriyaki taryaki » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:18 am

This is the only one I could find online:

Simon Shack Interview - Brian S Staveley, Justin Cooke - 04 / 08 / 2012

http://www.therealnewsonline.com/upload ... 4-8-12.mp3

Brian has an interview scheduled with Fetzer in a few days. I'm pretty sure, being from Clues forum, he will bring up the vicsims reports to Mr. Know-It-All

"Next Week Our Guest Will Be Professor James Fetzer. Tuesday The 25th at 9PM ET"

http://www.therealnewsonline.com/dose-o ... -show.html



Here's the latest shillery expedition by Judy Wood groupie Andrew Johnson:

The problem with Andy J. is that he doesn't mention whether the collapse footage, the rubble footage and Judy's Wood's hundreds of photos have been authenticated once in any of the interviews he does, only that Simon Shack and certain others are calling them 'fake' and this is, somehow, beneath contempt, given the 'irrefutable evidence' in Judy's book. :rolleyes:

When asked directly about the photos, he claims they are all 'sourced' to a photographer as if that makes any difference to authentication and then brings up Hurricane Erin, the seismic footprints, the bathtub destruction would result in flooded Manhattan, etc., as if this other stuff put together can then magically authenticate fake videos & photos:

Deanna Spingola - Tuesday, 9/11 / 2012: Andrew Johnson talks about 9/11

http://www.spingola.com/AJohnson_2012-09-11.mp3

I don't know if any of you here have heard the Deanna Spingola show on RBN network before but, in my opinion, she has, by far, the best show on that whole network. I'd say she has about 86 % shill clearance in my book, a very high percentage as far as truth-movement radio show hosts go (she passes most of the litmus tests and covers many subjects the other hosts will not touch) and I would have to say that at least half that negative 14% comes from her rather unwitting and not too discriminating over-promotion of Judy Wood and her number one groupie Andrew (the other half comes from some of the lunatic Christian Identity ministers she's had on). Christopher Holmes has also been on Deanna's RBN show. Apparently Judy Wood has not sent the word down that she's at war with Holmes or maybe she doesn't even know who Holmes is yet, so he's ok to have on, but Simon Shack, Fetzer, Ace Baker and some of these other guys who have 'attacked her' are off limits.

Some shillery highlights and other tomfoolery :

At the 28 minute mark Andrew talks about 'this Jim Fetzer character' who has the audacity to first spend years popularizing and then turn around and criticize her highness Dr. Judy Holly Wood herself for not meeting the 'Hutchison Challenge,' among other problems with her theory.

A little while later:

Deanna: You cannot argue with the facts, you cannot argue with the 'photos' -- (huh ? Sorry lady, but since when are photos automatically facts ? I thought she had seen "September Clues" and "Fabled Airplanes" many times and knew how easy it is to fake images).

Andrew: What is said is that what was shown on 9-11 is physically impossible in the real world, therefore the only conclusion is that the videos of the plane impacts are fraudulent.

That's actually NOT the only conclusion because one thing we have not spoken about is 'my friend' Richard D. Hall's analysis, because, earlier this year, he published a new analysis, I mean, God Knows, how he did this, it's Amazing ! I know Richard very well, I've spent a lot of time with him, I actually do know how he did it (?), he gave me all the files to do this, but, he took probably SIX months to do this.

What Richard D. Hall did, he has an engineering background, similar to mine, actually, is he decided to look at this PLANE ISSUE more carefully. He got all the video clips of this supposed 2nd plane crash and I think there are about 56 of them altogether. He got them all, he edited them all into these short clips, and then he went onto Google-Sketchshop which is a program you can download, that's a 3-D modeling package, it's free. He then plotted WHERE these videos were taken from and met the footage onto the 3-D model. He matched that up with the disclosed radar data of flight 175 which he'd also got from a record by Daniel Aurboa (?). So, in other words, what he did was he matched up the official radar trace with all these 56 video clips.


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=49497

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

Simon Shack's analysis and debunking of Richard Hall's silly 'New Hologram Theory' earlier on this very thread:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1246


Andrew: What he actually proved (Richard) is that the radar data and the video clips match very, very closely. Very Closely. I found that very, very interesting because from Dr. Judy Wood's research and bits and pieces that I've looked at, we were getting the feeling that all this talk of 'Video Fakery,' NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG, I do think there was some video fakery, I'm not quite sure how much, but all this talk of 'video fakery' was a cover for something else, and I thinks it's a cover for 'another type of technology.'

Now, I'll give it the name 'Image Projection.' Now, when you think about 'image projection,' some people will call it 'hologram technology,' again, we don't know the exact technology, but what is interesting is that people have been, sort of, trying to talk about this, and this happened to David Shayler, who's a former MI5 officer. He was talking about holograms and planes and in 2006 and not long thereafter something happened to David Shayler and then he claimed to be the new messiah.

Image

... his partner was called Annie Machon and I could tell you more about that because they actually both stayed at my house. My own understanding of this is that Annie Machon does not have an innocent role in this . I think she's involved and I don't know how but from her reaction to what I was trying to do, I was trying to 'present,' I could see that she was not being totally honest with me, perhaps I'll leave it at that for now.


If you look at Richard's film, it's a very, very good analysis, very thorough.

And what is interesting is a few months prior to this, you might be familiar with a film called "September Clues." I've given out many copies of that film on DVD, but some Red Flags were raised for me because I began to interact two or three years ago with the creator of that film whose name is Simon Shack, although originally he didn't give his name, he then gave his name as Simon Shack but his 'real name' is actually Simon Hytten and he's of Norwegian descent.

Now, I originally gave him some web-space because he appealed for that on his forum to store his video clips. I gave him that web-space in 2009 or 2008, yes 2008, I've got the date here and what then happened with Simon Shack is, ultimately, without going through the whole story, he turned around and started attacking Judy Wood.

What he said is: I see that Judy Wood has published a new book. However, her research is based on fake pictures. The sole purpose of her is, in my humble opinion, to provide a plausible explanation for the very stupid looking WTC pulverization animations.

And that's the way that he's described it.

I interacted with him via Skype and I published some of these communications which he wasn't very happy about, but I felt I had to do it because you can clearly see that he's up to something, in other words, he's being disingenuous. He later claimed on his forum, ah, no, he wrote to me : I and no one else will ever be able to prove exactly how the WTC complex was demolished, do you understand ? That's why Richard Gage concentrates on his own provable matter.

Well, I didn't even mention Richard Gage to him and I know that what Richard Gage says is unprovable because I know that it's false. That's been established.

This is another thing: Simon Shack never had a forum originally and it was set up when a couple of older forums closed down.

Let me get the comment from Simon Shack because it's quite revealing.

Somebody had posted some comments about Dr. Wood's research on Simon Shack's forum and Shack commented: I'll stop here for now. Please reply to this post before you spam any other links to Judy Wood's blatant disinformation bullcrap (pardon the language, but that's his language) on this forum, thanks.

And this is the guy who spent months and months making a film called "September Clues," a very good film, very well-made, very well-produced and he highlights significant anomalies, and I still think that, despite what I've just been pointing out here.

But what I'm trying to bring out in the comparison between these two things is: we have Steve Deyak (? ), specifically focused on the crash issue and then he's just disrespectful to the other researchers. This is the same feeling I got from Architects and Engineers. Let's get some money together, get this 'crash test' done and then everything will be fine. This is a theme I've seen emerge and then re-emerge over the last few years and I think it's important that we remain vigilant on this anniversary. We need to focus on what 'actually happened' and getting a 'clear picture' of that. And that job has essentially been done with the publication of the book "Where Did The Towers Go-Go." :P A lot of people say that it's 'too expensive,' 'too complicated' and all these other sorts of criticisms but if people write to me I'll send them dvds for free.

This shows you how sophisticated the psychology is because as you said the truth isn't coming out. What you've got is a different lie with maybe a little bit more truth in it in certain small parts of it. The whole title 'Explosive Evidence': we're not dealing with an explosion here, the towers didn't explode ! I mean if you simply look at the title and look at the psychology, the choice of words, I mean, I'm sorry but it's not. If the title was '9-11 Pulverization' or '9-11 Dustification' then we'd know that we're dealing with perhaps something a little bit closer to what 'actually happened' to the towers.

Alleyways have clearly been set-up ahead of time. Steven Jones was put in there at a specific point in the development of the cover-up to soak up some of the inquiring minds at precisely the time when these 'technical reports' came out. Now, I can't prove that but that's my own speculation.

I suppose we're a little bit further along in that they've got to produce something on PBS which is just a regurgitation of the official story, changed slightly.

Replacing one lie with another lie doesn't get you farther down the line. It's arguably even worse because people are more convinced they're getting the truth and actually they're not, they don't realize it.
Last edited by teriyaki taryaki on Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by repentantandy » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:23 pm

Thanks very much for your contributions, Teriyaki. The Judy Wood cult has some really devoted, true believers, doesn't it? And according to their creed, their sacred text (the 9/11 photos and videos) MUST NEVER BE QUESTIONED!

In retrospect, however, I think many of us (including me) have been a bit too free with the derogatory term "shill," since it implies certainty of someone's deliberate complicity with corruption. Perhaps "mistaken," or more strongly put, "wrong-headed" is a fairer appraisal in some cases. It seems unlikely that Cass Sunstein is funding ALL of the image-and-victim-fakery detractors. ;)

BTW, could you possibly go back and slightly re-edit your above posting to make it more clear as to which are your words and which are quotes? Thanks again.

reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by reichstag fireman » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:59 pm

Why should Simon Shack debate anything with Jim Fetzer? The Flabby Fibber has a long history of denial in the 911 Fraud. He's ignored countless requests to expose the media and its instrumental complicity in the whole sordid affair. After all, no media, no hoax. The media is the trillion dollar elephant on the sofa that Fetzer still cannot, or rather will not see? Recall the times he scorned queries over fake footage with flippant replies like: "Didn't you see the sign on the door? DO NOT DISTURB!" That means Professor Fetzer is busy today (again, as he always will be)!

Fetzer has wasted everyone's time for over a decade, leading millions into dead end alleys of ignorance. He's a disgrace to academia. Yet now he and his crew suddenly want to chat?! Sounds more like his handlers are sharpening their swords, in readiness for a hostile radio show. A carefully planned ambush to eviscerate the robust research behind September Clues. One where Fetzer & Co micro-manages every second. Calls for a 'Grand Debate' sound suspiciously like the laying of a Honey Trap.

Besides, what relevance Fetzer? Not a lot. And for those feeling otherwise, surely it's their duty to take the truth to the Big Fat Deaf Man. Good Luck with that!

Image
A-BOMB HOAXSTER: Jim Fetzer

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

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by brianv » Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:34 pm

reichstag fireman wrote:Why should Simon Shack debate anything with Jim Fetzer? The Flabby Fibber has a long history of denial in the 911 Fraud. He's ignored countless requests to expose the media and its instrumental complicity in the whole sordid affair. After all, no media, no hoax. The media is the trillion dollar elephant on the sofa that Fetzer still cannot, or rather will not see? Recall the times he scorned queries over fake footage with flippant replies like: "Didn't you see the sign on the door? DO NOT DISTURB!" That means Professor Fetzer is busy today (again, as he always will be)!

Fetzer has wasted everyone's time for over a decade, leading millions into dead end alleys of ignorance. He's a disgrace to academia. Yet now he and his crew suddenly want to chat?! Sounds more like his handlers are sharpening their swords, in readiness for a hostile radio show. A carefully planned ambush to eviscerate the robust research behind September Clues. One where Fetzer & Co micro-manages every second. Calls for a 'Grand Debate' sound suspiciously like the laying of a Honey Trap.

Besides, what relevance Fetzer? Not a lot. And for those feeling otherwise, surely it's their duty to take the truth to the Big Fat Deaf Man. Good Luck with that!

Image
A-BOMB HOAXSTER: Jim Fetzer
Looks like he swallowed Evan Fairbanks. Which so-called govenment buiilding is that he is screened against?

maggie
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:08 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by maggie » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:01 pm

Hi Brian,
The domed building in the background to the left is Madison, Wisconsin's State Capitol building. That was where there was a dress rehearsal for the Occupy Movement, in the spring of 2011, to protest cuts to the wages and rights of union workers, including teachers, when people flooded into that building and made a stink. Not that anything improved for anyone since.

Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by Terence.drew » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:08 pm

ImageImage

Spot the real nutty professor.

Spot on reichstag fireman. Screw the entire circus; the nutty professor and all the rest of the idiots and lets not forget all the hammy 'expert' groups. Water pump installers for truth would have more cop on.

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

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by brianv » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:31 am

Image

Had to! You cracked me up Terence!

reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by reichstag fireman » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:56 am

repentantandy wrote:Here's Dr. Fetzer's most recent political analysis article, Reichstag boy. http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/09 ... d-war.html
Oh dear. Barely two paragraphs into Fetzer's sewerhole output and he's already citing his first shill - "Mike Rivero" of whatreallyhappened.com.

Whose biography speaks for itself. From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0729489/bio :
Michael Rivero..left film work after High School to follow a career in science, working for NASA on the Viking and Voyager projects, among others. Following the post-Apollo crash of the aerospace industry, Michael went back into film work arriving at the exact time Hollywood was beginning to employ more computers for visual effects; a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with the right skills. Having paid for college as a professional stage magician, Michael brings an awareness of how an audience perceives what they see to his designs for visual effects..."
Amazing! What coincidence! Fetzer's friend is an old hand at Hoaxing.

If anyone should see 9/11 for what it truly was - a hideous computer-generated video fraud - then it is Michael Rivero, ex-NASA, ex-Hollywood CGI producer.

But perhaps Fetzer has been too busy (with his most recent political analysis) to share notes? :rolleyes:

P.S. note how Professor Plumpy yet again weaves in the A-Bomb Hoax, for that extra bonus point. :rolleyes:

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by repentantandy » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:31 pm

But what did you think of the main point of the article, Reichy, the warning of a possible, massive new false-flag FRAUD performed by Israel to draw the U.S. into a huge new mideast war? Or did the Rivero quote (which I agree was unfortunate) prevent you from reading the rest -- so you could quickly and gleefully resume this thread's banal-but-humourous, ad hominem attack on ol' "Professor Plumpy"?

I restate my question, since you said he's a "disgrace". Who in academia has been doing a better job (flawed as Fetzer's gradually improving vision still is, regarding total fakery) in lifting the veil on the perps' many FRAUDS of assassination and war? :o
Last edited by repentantandy on Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Unread post by brianv » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:46 pm

repentantandy wrote:But what did you think of the main point of the article, Reichy, the warning of a possible, massive new false-flag FRAUD performed by Israel to draw the U.S. into a huge new mideast war?
The warning of a possible yawn! Is that you Fetzer?

In years gone by nutters like this used to walk the streets wearing a sandwich-board which read "The end of the world is nigh", "Prepare for war" or "We are Doomed". I see no difference in fact.

Post Reply