View Single Post
Old 26-01-2014, 02:07 AM   #52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)

Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post
Abirato Radio 01 / 19 / 2014 -- ep85 - Guests: Simon Shack and One Born Free (OBF). Tim, Shack and OBF respond to Jim Fetzer's blatant Veterans Today hit-piece on Simon Shack and the Clues Forum research:

Jim Fetzer's Veterans Today Hit Piece on Simon Shack and September Clues Forum:

The Clues Forum Response:

Hoi polloi's point-by-point analysis of Fetzer's hit-piece on Shack and Clues Forum is friggin' brilliant, and it fully deserves to be reposted and read many times.

Too bad his ego got the best of him and he had to go ruin it by claiming Equinox was a 'sim' again. Since, according to Simon on Abirato's last show and Maxy on his own site, he is down in Australia right now riding his bike around, maybe he should find the time to meet Equinox in person, instead of banning him and talking smack? I'm sure Equinox would go out of his way to meet the infamous Monsieur Konrardy, just to see if Maxy boy chickens out like he did when both Brian S. Staveley and Justin Cooke challenged him or any other Clues Forum member to meet them in person, anywhere on the East Coast of the USA within 2 hours driving distance of Boston.

Of course, hoi/Maxy's absurd response to all this is ready-made and it's that no one but himself can do this in-person confirmation, since he doesn't trust anyone else on the forum he has not met in person to not be a 'sim' either. In this way, this ego-tripping twerp can accuse anybody he doesn't personally like of being a 'sim,' ban them from the forum and then simply never prove his accusations by refusing to meet them in person or to accept anybody else's evidence of a meeting.

The fact that Shack does not agree with him does not seem to bother Maxy at all,

At the 3 hour 24 minute mark of this audio

Shack is put on the spot by a caller and forced to comment on the 'Brian S. Staveley is a Sim' affair:

"The thing about Brian Staveley was that hoi polloi, my closest collaborator didn't think Brian Staveley was . . . . uh . . . . when Brian Staveley came to Clues Forum, he wrote long, long posts, not very articulate and . . . uh . . . seemingly acting like a 'crazy guy.' So, that's why hoi polloi thought that Brian Staveley was just a guy who hooked up to our research and didn't really . . . . uhhhhhhh . . . . but what I've seen so far from Brian Staveley, HE'S O.K., he's promoting the fake imagery, so . . . I don't know."

Actually Staveley wasn't banned for being 'inarticulate as a writer,' he was called a 'sim' by hoi/Max and banned because he was supposedly proven to be a 'simulated identity,' like the 9-11 VicSims and the fake Sandy Hook dead kids, etc. That's why, after he was banned and couldn't defend himself and after anybody else who defended him was banned, Staveley made a new video of himself to try and prove he wasn't a 'sim':

If he had been banned only for being a bad writer, no one would have cared. The very significance of Staveley's and Equinox's bannings on grounds of being 'sims' is that, hoi/Maxy is supposed to be the Clues Forum expert on VicSims, so much so that Shack let him write the VicSims Report mostly by himself under supervision in Italy, and gave him full credit for it later. Doesn't Shack understand that hoi/Max discredits the entirety of the Clues Forum VicSims research by pulling stunts like the Staveley and Equinox affairs? Apparently not. Apparently, sticking up for his communitarian buddy's out-of-control ego is more important than the integrity of 8 years of hard work and research, as if articulateness in written English and a super-sharp logical mind and subtle wit, all of which Maxy boy possesses in spades, can ever be a substitute for an obvious contradiction and non-sequitur, transparent dishonesty and finally and worst of all, a refusal to ever admit to being wrong.

What is communitarianism and what is its connection to Local Agenda 21?


Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by hoi.polloi on January 19th, 2014, 4:14 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! Hmm. 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.)

Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 03:25 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote