Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The Realist Report - "One Born Free": 9/11 fakery

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by "One Born Free", an indepedent investigator of the events of September 11, 2001. "One Born Free" and I will be discussing his views on 9/11, particularly as they relate to media fakery, deception, and psychological warfare.

You can download the mp3 for this program here, or visit The Realist Report on BlogTalkRadio to subscribe via iTunes and view past programs.

Below are relevant links for this program:
It is fair to say the September Clues research has established these 4 main points:
  1. The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'firefighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The '9/11 movie' was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as 'newscasts'. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images - all of which in stark conflict with each other, as now comprehensively demonstrated in every imaginable manner, angle and method.
  2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for: their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC fa├žades defy the laws of mechanics and physics - and the absence of visible wake vortexes in the WTC impact imagery also defies the laws of aerodynamics.
  3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives. No image-analyses of the tower collapses can help determine just what type of explosives were employed - since the videos are 3D animations and do not represent the real-life events. In reality, as they collapsed, the WTC complex was most likely enveloped by military-grade smoke obscurants. No real/private imagery exists of the morning's events - 'thanks' to electromagnetic countermeasures.
  4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. Only one thing was more important to the perps than avoiding a mass murder of 3000 US citizens : to sell the notion that "bogeyman Bin Laden" killed 3000 US citizens. We have renamed the 'victims' of these psy-operations "VICSIMS" (SIMulated VICtims). In fact, our research has seen the same pattern emerge in all the so-called "Al-Quaeda Terror Attacks" around the world (LONDON 7/7, MADRID 11, BALI, MUMBAI, etc...). In all logic, the very last aggravation the plotters behind these false-flag operations wish to have, are scores of real families hounding them forever with real questions and real class actions. Hence: NO real terror victims = Logical PsyOp rationale.


  1. No one died, and no one got hurt 911.

    If you believe anything else, it is because you too have been indoctrinated by the million times they have aired these REPORTS. As we know, the power of "everybody knows" is HUGE. Same mechanism that protects the equally fake gas chambers fairy tail.

    Some reason for why we clearly can stipulate that no one died, and no one got hurt 911:

    Murders are very illegal, with no statute of limitations. The project management could expose themselves to blackmail. Would be harder to recruit people to the operation if it included murder. What would the national news reports say to this? Would certainly not appreciate it.

    How to cope with real and angry baksters victims families with access to uptown lawyers? They would maybe never let go and could create a lot of trouble for the 911 operation management. Real victims family members would be much harder to control then made up victims Hollywood style. The family member actors could be paid to read a script in front of a camera and give the operation management total control on the story. What about a real FBI murder investigation? Could also maybe create a lot of trouble for the 911 operation management et al.

    It is clear that no commercial planes crashed 911. So they must have faked those passengers. If they could fake those people, they could have faked the people in the buildings. They made them up, and REPORTED a million times that they had been killed, and everyone believed that of course.

    Fake news and fake reports aren't necessary illegal. So if the people who control the media and the national news reporters aired a pre recorded Hollywood horror movie 911, how is that illegal? Sounds more like free speech and legal to me.

    Every other possible crimes 911 have now expired, including insurance fraud and demolitions of buildings without permit, etc, etc.

    So unless anyone was killed in this operation, they got away with it. They knew this, and they avoided this. No one died, and no one got hurt 911.

    1. Thanks El Buggo, great comment!

    2. And the completely missing tears... is also quite telling..

      How many REPORTED victims family members do we have? About 50000? And yet, no tears anywhere that we have spotted? With no tears, we cannot have any credible family members (who?) And with no real family members, there cannot be any real victims.

      Just like in the Sandy Hook Hoax - no tears to be seen anywhere.

  2. Excellent show. Excellent. A couple things...

    The danger of libertarian/anarchism was shown perfectly by OneBornFree's comments at the end of the show. When John stated his opinion and asked about 'those we don't speak of, this is what you get from the libertarian/anarchism mindset...

    (this is not meant to be an attack, just constructive analysis of this viewpoint)

    'I know that they control Hollywood, not sure of who controls the newsmedia'

    -Well why don't you know that? Your analyzing the television coverage of those media outlets. Not some 'thing' called news media. They are companies that have an 'owner' or a 'group' who owns it. It is easy to find out who is at the top of the food chain. Who, What, When, Where, Why. The 'Who' is very important wouldn't you think?

    The example that these 'photo journalists' had histories of manipulating video and were professionals at video editing, including 'live' video editing. The 'photo journalists', juding by their names, were mostly of a group 'those we don't speak of'. The callers who called into the networks, were mostly if not all, 'those we don't speak of OR wives and husbands of news media executives.

    You see why it is important to know the who?

    The Reason for why this is his view and is not aware of the 'Who' is this...

    Earlier, OneBornFree states that we should have no 'government' and he sites a 'those we don't speak of' Murray Rothbard as his example. You see, this mindset and ideology of libertarianism/anarchism leads people to this Philosophical Debating Society and ignores the 'Who',

    This mindset leads them down a road of...We should 'End Gov't' and that they think is somehow a goal that can be achieved. They see our identifying 'those we don't speak of' and wishing to address and remove that element from 'the Gov't' as not possible or a waste of time. I think removing the problem in Gov't or, more specifically, removing 'The Who' from the news media, is doable, at least more doable than convincing the world we have to abolish 'the Gov't'.

    They think that 'if it wasn't that group it would have been some other group'. What evidence suggests that? What historical, especially recent examples, would indicate that 'those we don't speak of' would not do this? To do that would be to ignore the very real history of terror attacks and false flags by Red Commies and more specifically 'those we don't speak of'.

    They don't think in terms of 'Race' or 'Groups' because they have 'bought' this product called Libertarianism/Anarchism, and feel very satisfied with their purchase of it. It's comfortable, not as scary as the 'Real Truth Movement'. If you apply your 'truthing' to race, you will come to very uncomfortable 'truths' as well, Just like how you do with the world trade center attacks being an 'inside? job'.

    'those we don't speak' = The mystery shadow elite, the freemasons, the illuminati, the knights templar, the annunaki, the blacks.

    No I'm just kidding...It's jews.

  3. Excellent guest today. I can't tell you how good it feels to hear people who think clearly and aren't trying to spread lies.

    I have to tell you that I'm really sick of hearing the various liars and shills who are engaging in "counterspeech"....most likely for a few pieces of silver.

    I won't bother naming names. It's obvious to all of John's readers who they are.

    Again, really great guest. My thanks go out to him for his self-less efforts.

    And the same for John.

    Very much appreciated.

    Thank you both.

  4. I agree. This broadcast was exceptional. Imagine that those of who you speak, the names that we do not want to name. did the show that John Friend just did. Imagine that...

    Wow, that would be something would it not? It is clear that evidence and reason and EVERYTHING Tom in CT says is the most important. We now know. We now know how to view future events in this light. People who are trying to beg the perpetrators for an investigation, although a nice gesture, are wasting their time and energy.

    We are not wasting our time and energy by identifying the center of the spider web. There are 'Dual Citizens'. Years back I was in a conversation with a couple old acquaintances, and I was explaining the problems we face. One of them, seemingly out no where, began to pontificate on all the dangers of the Republic of Iran. He did not call it that, he said, 'Iran...oh my god...scary...and stuff...blah...blah...'

    I am not kidding, that may be an accurate quote. He tried to shut me up. I said this...

    If Irish people, if Italian people, If BLACK people, controlled every aspect of MEDIA (more important) or Government (3rd or 4th lets be honest) to the extent that 'Dual Citizens' did, what would you say? Silence, moral high ground was confirmed and could not be challenged.

    It turned out, this blonde haired seemingly WHITE person was hiding a secret all these years I knew him (or maybe he didn't identify RELIGIOUSLY with that group). He may have not been a 'Dual Citizen', but what he was was a 'those we don't speak of'. He called me a 'conspiracy theorist', in a sympathetic tone. Dave, you are starting to sound like a conspiracy know....

    I said, I am? oh well, I don't give a shit. Oh, your a 'those we don't speak of' right? yeah he said. Oh okay, I said, that makes sense.

    THIS IS THE WAR. ITS IN YOUR LIVING ROOMS, IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS. Stop caring what they think of you. Don't be stupid, treat people how you always do, respectfully, and behave and respect the conclusions you have come to, but don't be shamed by knowing MORE than your attacker.

    Stand your ground and understand that the WAR will not be won in that particular BATTLE. But you win the battle by not succumbing to these juvenile name calling, OR as JF would say as he often does, CHILDISH attacks. HAHA.

    Once again. This...(maybe because of your caller as always)...was truly a historic show. This is what we got involved in this stuff for (the world trade center attacks), in the first place, and I know we are all going off in different areas. This is key. A 'spell breaker' is what Media Fakery is. Something so intense, so confronting to their world view, IT CAN BREAK THEIR SPELL. But only if you look them dead in the eye, and say, Yup. No planes. HOAX. I don't care if you don't believe me. I have looked into it. IF you don't want to, so be it. But you DO NOT KNOW.

    People are waking up...some mainstream Republicans are from the Sandy Hook fiasco and the Boston Bombing charade...having shows like this can help those who question JOIN THE RACE we are in mid stream, accelerating their awakening.

    These are just comments.

  5. Interesting show John! I'm about to write up a thoughtful critique of the whole 9-11 psyop thing and fake victim idea.....

    "In fact, our research has seen the same pattern emerge in all the so-called "Al-Quaeda Terror Attacks" around the world (LONDON 7/7, MADRID 11, BALI, MUMBAI, etc...). "

    That bit caught my interest because I know for a 100% certain fact that in the Bali Bombings in 2002, blamed on al queda, that 2 of the victims were absolutely, for sure, killed in the event.. I know this through the football club I used to be associated with... They alive at the Grand Final a week earlier, and never to be seen again after that. Its because the mossad blew them up.

    1. The Australian Federal Police attributed the explosives used in the Bali bombing as been home made, therefore not very powerful.

      However, a massive creator was produced where the bomb went off and a fire ball of very high temperature engulfed the busy tourist night spot.

      Explosive was likely to have been something more potent than TATP (acetone peroxide), probably military.

    2. Hey Brett, I read your post earlier and will likely write a response to it tomorrow.

      Re: the Bali bombing, I haven't studied it at all, so I can't comment on it. The PSYOPS I have studied in great detail are 9/11, the fake "Holocaust", and Sandy Hook. The "victims" in all of those events are extremely suspect, if not outright frauds.

    3. Sounds good man! I look forward to it. I'll catch ya on skype one of these days man and we can "shoot the shit" about this issue if you want!

  6. Don Damore said...

    I haven't listened to this shit yet, but I am familiar with the actors. They like to remind us that 9/11 was a 102 minute Hollywood/Jesuit movie.

    Well, if the movie began at 8.46 according to them it was all over by 10.28. They want us to believe that what we saw on TV was not live or even real footage but was made in advance and served up on the day and broadcast as if it was live and in real time.

    I would like to know how and where WTC7 fits in to their reckoning? It did come down did it not at 17.20, right or wrong?

    There is one thing that I do agree with the September Clues crowd, and that is, I am sure there were zero plane crashes on the day and there were zero commercial airliners flying anywhere near the twin towers, holograms? forget it.

    I for one am convinced, you could even say, I am a devoted believer in the great man and of the great work that Ace Baker has produced.

    There is no other 9/11 truth documentary that ties together as many loose ends as does "Psy-opera" His explanation of the nose in nose out, and the wide shot from Fox chopper 5 blows planes and hi-jackers out the window.

    The media corporations gave us the footage, and we have been able to put forth a case with evidence for controlled demolitions having occurred and we have idiots who want to reject it.

    It really is too bad that all of them want to push the clues angle.

    John. I asked you quite a long time ago to take into consideration the work that Ace Baker has produced on 9/11.

    1. Don Damore,

      I believe that John's position essentially echo's most - if not all of Ace Baker's position and conclusions.

      I also believe that John's position is that we cannot establish the genuine nature of any of the video we saw.

      First, can you personally lay out your thinking that establishes how you know that any of that digital video was a true and accurate representation of reality?

      I believe that John's position is that everything the corportate jewsnews showed us was shown to us on purpose. This includes the destruction sequence of WTC 7.

      Please do some reading on how "evidence" is handled in a court of laws. What you research will reveal is that "evidence" will not be permitted into consideration unless it can be established that the "evidence" is at least no fraudulent.

      When dealing with digital video - if you can't establish how it was created AND what exactly the chain of custody really can't rely on it. You should not even bother examining it.

      Is that clear?

      In fact, we don't need any of the digital video to prove that the official story is not true.

      We know this through the systematic application of logic.

      You seem to be calling people who reject digital video - the origin of which is totally suspect - as "idiots". Is that right?

      Please do us a favor and show us exactly what your thinking is regarding how you believe that digital video should be regarded.

      Of course, we're not going to hold our breath waiting...

      To date, nobody has provided a coherent and logical reason that backs up why we should take any of that video as being a direct camera capture of a real event.

      Can you?

      Exactly which of that digital video was a direct camera capture of a real life event?

      And - how can you prove it?

      Please enlighten us.

    2. The WTC7 demolition is not part of the basis for War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with, since no one was reported killed there. The basis for the WoT is the planes (hijacked by foreigners) and the victim part of the story. WTC7 was just a building with some papers and is in the really important context almost irrelevant and mostly a waste of time.

      Ace Baker, as I understand him, is claiming that the planes were inserted in in otherwise real and legit live news reports. But that is just some Bravo Sierra. The "live" news reports were genuine pre recorded Hollywood horror movies. He is defending medias complicity in this operation and is a disinfo agent. He works for and is hired by the 911 operation management, as so many others. Don't believe they retired 911.

      Most people really need to get out of the virtual reality they created for us that day.

      "Disinfo must ALWAYS hide itself within a thick cloak of truth. Otherwise, no one would swallow the poison." - nameofthepen

    3. I emailed Ace Baker today and hope to have him on in the near future. I would also like to have Phil Jayhan and Simon Shack on (not together, obviously). If anyone reading this has contact info for either Simon or Phil, let me know!

  7. We cannot establish the time of day that WTC 7 was demolished by citing the digital footage that was (intentionally) presented to us on the BBC.

    What other independent sources corroborate that WTC 7 came down at exactly 17:20?

    In the real world, if something is true and is a fact - inevitably there will be other sources that will corroborate that true fact.

    If there aren't - well....that's a problem.

    The most rational position to take on this issue is to simply reject any evidence that we can't firmly establish credibility. This includes rejecting any and all easily manipulated digital video.

    The main value of Ace Baker's work is that he demonstrated some of the many technical errors that prove that digital video shown to us was not - and could not have been a true representation of a real event.

    The reason why the culprits make errors have to do with real-world operational reality. When constructing fake "evidence" there is a cost-benefit relationship that exists.

    What is the cost of producing really high quality - high fidelity fake evidence vs the beneficial effect on the target audience?

    In the real world - resources are always limited in some way. There are also time limitations.

    The bottom line here is that many independent researchers have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we cannot take any of the digital video as being a true representation of anything.

    So, we look to other "reliable" evidence. And, we have done that. There is plenty of it.

    This is the essence of what I believe John is trying to explain to people.

  8. This is how I view the whole issue:

  9. I did not listen to this yet but I have heard two recent interviews of OBF on Dr. Fetzer's show. I suspect JF's interview was much better in every way.

    I do not buy all of OBF's ideas which are simply a replay of all of September Clues gang's ideas.

    I do buy the vicsims to a large extent but it seems to me there could have been more formal record keeping and a data base of the research done on each vicsim.

    I believe in no planes and have from 9-11-01 though that was forbidden belief in early days of so called "9-11 truth movement."

    A person that I attended some meeting with said he was in NYC on 9-11 and it was he who took the most widely used video of Bldg 7 destruction in progress. His name is Jeff Kantoff and there are some videos of him on YouTube. He was the producer of a local cable access TV show called The Simple Truth. Jeff is an honest and reliable informant and I believe one of the many well-know videos his video of Bldg 7 is in is all the versions of Loose Change.

    So that device that supposedly prevented video recordings on that day must have been no longer operating by the time of WTC collapse.

    Also, I would add that in addition to full source info on each video (chain of custody, etc) being necessary, the same is needed for still photographs.

    One realization I had in studying 9-11 all these years is that a photograph or a video used in a court of law case may have been faked for many many years prior to 9-11 and this kind of evidence, though always considered very solid, is no longer so. It kind of blows rules of evidence out the window.

    I was on a jury about cocaine possession and selling of a person and an undercover cop did a sting operation and supposedly got the rock of crack and supposedly took good chain of custody procedures to bring to trial, but all of that seemed like no real solid proof of chain of custody at all. I could see where it could be easily "messed with."

  10. Wow. Interesting to see that some people simply refuse to apply logic to this.

    Is it due to a poor education?

    Is it due to low IQ?

    John just did a whole show devoted to "Knowledge" and "Justified True Belief".

    Maybe some of you guys didn't catch that one.

    Well, in a nutshell: If you "Believe" something - you have to have some rational way to "Justify" your belief.

    Rational people analyze information using a range of analytical methods.

    They don't just apply their emotions or biases to information to come up with a "belief". That's what "idiots" do.

    No wonder the jews view most of the population as cattle. They sure act like cattle.

    1. The videos look genuine to me. It could be argued that they are of poor quality, but let me remind you of what Ace Baker said, "they were made deliberately poor to hide the criminal fingerprints.

      Both towers had a normal appearance at 08.45 and at 10.28 they were not there anymore. So what are you arguing about? They couldn't have fallen down any faster, so are you suggesting that they fell down in 20 seconds or 30 seconds. There wasn't that much debris at the bottom where they once stood, that's because a massive dust cloud was formed. That's something else that we see in the videos.

      I read in the comments above that someone wrote "the news media are not bound by law to tell the truth, and if no-one died then no crime has been committed"

      Let me be clear, governments can't go around knocking buildings down that are filled with asbestos in the middle of population hubs and without providing notice.

      Looking forward very much to having Ace Baker on the show.

    2. Don,

      You are making a fundamental error.

      You are basing your opinion on the assumption that the video your watched that showed the towers appearing "normal" in appearance to you - as somehow being reliable.

      Have you every been to a Las Vegas stage magic show? Those performers are called "illusionists".

      We have supportable reason to believe that "illusionists" performed the 911 deception.

      We cannot rely on the content of any video footage presented to us by the jewzmedia. If you were to admit any of that footage into evidence - so to speak - you first need to explain to us all exactly how you are going to justify to us to accept it as reliable.

      What, exactly, is your analysis methodology that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular segment of footage is an "un-altered direct camera capture of a real event"?

      I am asking you a direct question now.

      Please provide us with a description of how you analyzed any particular segment of the 911 footage and established that it was an un-altered, direct camera capture of a real event?

      We have been through this analysis and we KNOW that we cannot rely on any of that footage. The reason is because they "generated" it. We know for for so many reasons that I'm not going to sit here and write a book right now.

      But - please don't blow us off here.

      You cited footage of the towers as somehow being reliable.

      Please state your case.

    3. Don Damore said :"The videos look genuine to me."

      Hi Don. Thanks for listening. Do you have a specific list of "giveaways" that you habitually use to look for in order to try to establish whether or not a video sequence is genuine or not?

      Regards, onebornfree

    4. Onebornefree - I don't know about Don, but I can usually tell if a certain video sequence is real if my piles start acting up. Sometimes I can also tell if when I'm watching a certain video sequence and my scalp gets really itchy, well - then I know it's fake.

      Hope that helps :)

    5. The towers were real, right? They did exist on the morning of 9/11. By 10.28 they didn't. There were not dismantled piece by piece but were obviously demolished in a controlled demolition.

      Does it even matter what video the media wants us to see?

      You must be thinking that the towers came down by some other method. You don't think that a space ship arrived, or some unidentified flying object hovered over the towers and plucked them out of their foundations, are you?

    6. Don....

      Are you ok?

      The "video" we were shown is unreliable and cannot be used in any way to discern what happened.

      The video is unreliable.

      Why is this basic fact so difficult to process?

      The video is unreliable. We can even prove it's been manipulated.

      How did the towers drop? What exact time did they drop? We would have to look to other independent and verifiable sources of evidence.

      What kind? Well, many seismic data. Unless it's been faked and manipulated.

      What we are saying here is that "planes" did not hit the towers. We are also saying that the video is unreliable and does not depict a true and accurate representation of reality.

      In addition, we have all noticed that you side-stepped the question "How do you know that a particular segment of video was an un-altered direct camera capture"?


      You never explained your process of analysis.

      But...that didn't stop you from invoking "space ships"....

      Ok. Enough.

      I'm done responding to people who can't apply basic logic.

      Bye now :)

    7. Anonamouse said
      "The "video" we were shown is unreliable and cannot be used in any way to discern what happened"

      The video explains pretty much what did happen. The planes were added as live video composites and so were the jumpers. But it doesn't really matter because the towers came down as documented in the video footage. We just have incriminating evidence provided by the MSM to suggest that the towers were demolished. Don't you understand (whatever your name is) that this is an admission of guilt by the MSM.

    8. "The towers came down as documented in the video footage"?????

      Specifically, which footage - exactly?

      You might wish to pay a visit to Onebornefree's site and point out to us which exact segment of video is authentic.

      If you can do that, I would be most interested in hearing your analysis methods.

      The facts indicate that we cannot rely an any of that footage. Not even the BBC footage that "accidentally" showed WTC 7 in free-fall.

      There are lots of reasons why the perps would purposely present fake and composited video.

      Maybe it will help if you think of it this way: They hired a bunch of professional illusionists (a.k.a. Psychological and Information war specialists) to completely bamboozle the public.

      Those specialists rely very, very heavily on your irrational dependence on what you saw on a completely controllable, manipulatable digital video source.

      Lesson Number One: Disregard Media Video.

      Lesson Number Two: Learn How to Think.

    9. Is that you, Ace Baker?

      If it isn't so important whether they just inserted a plane in the live feed or if they faked the whole broadcast Hollywood style, why did you bring it up then? Because it IS important of course. But you prefer that people don't look into that concept, for one or another reason.

    10. We know that ALL of the video footage we were shown by the jewish news organizations is unreliable. in "ALL".

      Why? For many of which is that we can't establish that any of it was a direct camera capture of a live event.

      It is most certainly "important" how they did this. It's important which video is composited - and which video is entirely produced by software simulation tools.

      Who is saying it's not important? It is.

      But, it's not important to our analysis in the sense that we must discard any and all video for which we cannot establish origination, method of capture and chain of custody.

      I am not Ace Baker and don't know what he's saying. I don't know if he's running interference for the perps or not. Unfortunately, we've seen a lot of that. Apparently, many people will do just about anything for a few pieces of silver.

      The actual forensics of the video is not important to a fact finding analysis. We already know we must reject it as "evidence". But, for those who find it amusing to examine endless steams of video for which there is no established proof of origination - by all means - have at it.

      If you want to "know" exactly how they did it down to every detail - that will require the convening of some sort of Grand Jury (if legal obstacles can be overcome - which is unlikely) - and it will require Subpoena Power with the Police Power to back that up.

      We need to be able to begin a real fact-finding process that allows for the detention and questioning of suspects.

      All of the video is suspect. You can't just pick a choose which video you want to rely on when you can't establish its creation background.

      Part of the cover-up strategy has been the flooding of the internet with all kinds of video and still imagery "allegedly" showing some aspect of the event - when it's all been faked.

      In fact, that is what the jew jew-dy wood-stein spends her time with. Ms. hook-nose wood-stien points incessantly to "melted cars" and all sorts of weird imagery to further confuse the non-jewish public.

      As amusing as that all is - it's all total bs.

      John has already walked us all through the required steps necessary to perform a coherent analysis of 911. None of that includes accepting unverified materials as "evidence".

      The video presentation of the 911 event was the "smoke and mirrors" portion of the "trick". You won't find answers by continuing to examine video.

      You need to look to other evidence that is corroborated by yet other evidence.

      It's time to pretty much ignore the video. It's only value was to prove that it's all unreliable.

    11. Looks like you too have escaped the virtual reality they created for us that day. Then it can be possible to make sense of all the nonsense.

      I really liked this part:

      "The video presentation of the 911 event was the "smoke and mirrors" portion of the "trick". You won't find answers by continuing to examine video."

      My Ace Baker question was directed to Don DamoreNovember 3, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    12. Sorry, El Buggo. My mistake.

      You're restoring my faith in (some of) humanity. Evidently we both know how to apply reason and logic.

      I'm honored to make your acquaintance. :)

    13. The video footage presented by the MSM corporations does incriminate not only those news networks that fabricated the plane crashes, but also sounds the alarm that the towers were demolished in a controlled demolition by rogue insiders.

    14. Strictly speaking, the video footage is unreliable. That means we can't rely on it. The fact that the jewish media and jewish controlled government points to it as "proof" of something is what is important.

      The footage itself is unreliable. Which segments of footage are reliable enough to base any sort of judgment upon? None.

      If you want to make a statement pertaining to some video footage, first, show us how you know that footage was a direct camera capture of a real scene. Then, establish the chain of custody of that video segment.

      We know you can't do either. The video is unreliable. If this were a jury trial, we would not let the jury view the footage - except, perhaps as proof of video tampering and compositing. That is a separate issue unto itself.

      But the fact remains that we cannot rely on that digital video as a true and accurate account of anything. Not even the dynamics of the building collapses. All of that stuff could have been completely created with software simulation tools that pre-existed 911.

      It would be wise to assume that what we were allowed to see via the jewish media - we were intended to see...on purpose.

      The video is unreliable.

      Can't use it as evidence ... except as evidence of video compositing and tampering.

    15. Remove the plane crash video composite inserts and the falling man and the two towers and building 7 demolitions looks real to me.

    16. Well, at least that is clearly disputed and demonstrated here:

    17. Dan Damore,

      It does not matter if the building demolitions "look real' to you.

      When you say they "look real" - what you're really saying is that you watched a digital video. That's all.

      Believe it or not, prior to 911 - the military had software simulation tools that could create scenes that "looked real". Even down to particle effects that simulate smoke and suspended particles moving around in air streams.

      Assuming that you're not just a hasbarat trying to inject some "cognitive diversity" into this thread - you would benefit from learning a bit about how science and law go about the task of finding fact.

      They don't sit around and debate digital video that might "look real".

      They have to establish method of creation and chain of custody.

      You have not done this. You just say it looks real to you. Sorry, that does not qualify as a method of analysis.

  11. simonshack is easy to contact john. go to his website for contact details. good show covering most of what some of us have known for a long while now.
    a show pertaining to the jfk faked/staged assassination is called for considering the year that's in it. culto would be a fantastic guest. you could contact him via letsrollforums, where he is an active member.

    Index to the Thread;

    but there's a 50/50 chance the future is bright.

  12. funnily enough 111c (and the day that's in it) was what I had to type to prove I am not a bot!

  13. DavidMathewMansfield said : "The danger of libertarian/anarchism was shown perfectly by OneBornFree's comments at the end of the show. "

    "Dreams" That Governments Are Not A Scam [Anarchist Blues] :

    Regards, onebornfree

  14. El Buggo said: I "Ace Baker, as I understand him, is claiming that the planes were inserted in in otherwise real and legit live news reports."

    I haven't been in contact with Ace Baker for a number of years, so I have no idea if his theory has developed at all since his original "Fox5 , plane image inserted into live video" hypothesis.

    If he does a show with John it might be worthwhile John asking him if he is claiming that all [approximately 50] of the videos showing a plane image approaching/hitting WTC2, [including all of the original alleged live network footage] , is genuine live imagery with "merely" a plane image inserted into all of them, in his opinion, or is he claiming something else?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  15. i have come a long way in 911 Truth and have accepted the implications of cgi. i can only say that despite , i can absolutely confirm one of the alleged victims of flight 93, linda gronlund, was a real person. she was a student of my father at Pierson High School in Sag Harbor, and i used to shop in her mothers store as a child. do i know that that their entire family isnt lying and she has just gone awol? no i do not, but not all of these names were fake people. Kevin Szocik is another who was a real person. i know the girlfriend Lorraine mcneal. not intimately, but she was dating him at the time.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.