Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Realist Report - Dr. Jim Fetzer: 9/11

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Dr. Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Dr. Fetzer and I will be discussing all aspects of 9/11.


  1. I hope Dr Fetzer or someone is going to do a rebuttal of D Spingolas series on Sofia Smalltorm's video (which intends to debunk the Smallstorm video)

    Any news?


    1. Spingola is self-destructing. Listening to her first attack on Sofia Smallstorm's "Unraveling Sandy Hook", I noted 30 points on which she was wrong or had a gross misunderstanding. Four callers took her to task. This week during her second in a series, NO ONE CALLED IN. She is going down the tube BIG TIME and losing a large segment of her audience.

      When I learned of Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper with 35 years in school administration, who is a nationally recognized expert on school safety, I interviewed him on "The Real Deal" and wrote about him in "After two defeats" on Veterans Today.

      I recommended to Dave Gahary that he interview him, which has now gone viral. Even Alex Jones, who has been stand-offish about Sandy Hook, has come over, where InfoWars has published a nice article about him you can find at

    2. Uh yeah, take a look at this Jimbo:

      Top Ten Reasons: Jim Fetzer and Friends are Sunstein Shills

      Update (February 21, 2014): Wolfgang Halbig busted as a Jewish internet activist

      Alex Jone$ has come over? Wow, that's really not saying much. Read and weep ladies...

  2. Fetzer is to 911 as Spingola is to Sandy Hook.

    1. Explain yourself. In my view, Fetzer has done more than almost anyone to clarify the major issues about 9/11. And I say that without agreeing with some of his positions especially re: the hologram.

  3. Why does Fetzer keep making broad brush statements supporting that most of the 911-assiciated imagery were genuine camera captures of real-life events?

    We already know that footage of planes defying the laws of physics is not a direct camera capture of a rea-life event.

    That means that we already know that manipulated/created imagery was a component part of the 911 deception.

    Any rational mind will simply reject any footage of that event as suspect unless or until proven genuine.

    Fetzer says he can't think of a reason why anyone would doctor or create collapse footage or aftermath footage.

    Gee. I can. Genuine footage of an event leaves tell-tale clues as to what actually happened. There are very good reasons why they collapse footage is suspect. There are also very good reasons why the JEW-dy Woods imagery is suspect.

    Please, Dr. Fetzer - I really think it's time you retire. We already have enough half-truthers and media-protectors to deal with. One would think that as a man reaches the twilight stages of his life - that he might reflect on the effects of what he has done.

    Dr. Fetzer, you have chaired certain "truth" organizations. As a result of your stewardship, those organizations have yielded no arrests, no convictions and have served the interests of the perpetrators nicely.

    Please, if you have any shred of decency - stop.

    1. I think I read somewhere or heard from somebody that REAL video of demolitions and explosions CAN be analyzed and determined what did it...

      If that is true I am still open to the fake collapse (although that part did take place because the towers are gone and destroyed).

      BUT...The real weakness of the Perps, Jew Conpsirators and Traitor Americans would be if people knew for sure that no planes were involved...No Planes = No Hijackers = No War on Terror = Wars and Death started over Jew Media Fakery = Jew Media is Finished = Pissed off Americans? I sure hope so...

      I think we can ALL agree that the other issues are not as important as the planes planes planes?

    2. Today I am probably the leading proponent of "no planes", meaning that none of the "official" 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11. All four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways. See, for example,

      “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”

      “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”

      “The ‘official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)

      "Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?" (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

      Part 1

      Part 2

      “Fakery and Fraud in the 'Official Account' of 9/11”

      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”

      “Planes/No Planes in New York: Dick Eastman vs. Jim Fetzer”

      “The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2

  4. At 1h22m, Dr. Fetzer said he has presumed that the Hezarkhani video is genuine, but of a fake plane.

    We know for sure that one or both the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos are fake because there are puffballs coming out above the plane's wings in the Fairbanks video and below them in the Hezarkhani video.

    At 1h15m, he cites Rosalee Grable and Ace Baker, and at 1h23m, he cites John Lear, but all three of them are highly questionable, though they each make some good points, which is to be expected, with mixing in good with bad in order to confuse people.

    Just as Dr. Fetzer speculates that they thought of using drones at first but dropped the idea because of the issue of things going wrong, like the drones not hitting the towers, he therefore later concludes that holographic images of drones were used after concluding that the planes were not CGI.

    He is a retired professor of logic, and I see the same logic applying to problems with using holographic projection, which can also go awry, and cause even more problems than errant drones, which they could at least still say were piloted by hijackers.

    Therefore, there is a similar reason to conclude that the perpetrators did not employ holographic projections for the same reason Dr. Fetzer said they rejected drones.

    1. Exactly...Further...You have to understand by now that they simply were not worried too much about a groundswell of witnesses who would be adamant about not seeing anything hit the towers.

      Huge explosion was enough...On lookers (almost entirely) on the north side focused on the North tower hole...Hezarkhani faked audio ('a plane hit the building' dubbed in later), Corchesne faked audio (insane jet sounds not present in videos which show no second hit)...On and on...

      Pledge (Hole on North tower)...Turn (Second hit much lower than first)...Prestige (Tower destruction)...Done...

      While there is still very serious issues that can be elaborated on and explored such as the excellent links John posted as relevant links...Computer graphic skyline and the like (whole thing being CGI)...Holograms are shit...They gots to go you know?

    2. When we study these videos, there are four possibilities:

      (1) real videos of real planes;

      (2) real videos of fake planes;

      (3) fake videos of real planes;

      (4) fake videos of fake planes.

      We know (1) is impossible because the absence of collision effects is a violation of the laws of physics. Since no real plane could have performed the feats shown in these videos, they are not real planes, which excludes (3).

      The options seem to be CGI, video compositing, or the use of holograms. I have explained (in considerable detail) why I have tentatively concluded that the use of holograms appears to be the best explanation of the data, but I could be persuaded to change my mind by new data or arguments.

  5. Actually very little of Dr. Fetzer's mini or micro nukes position relies on videos. It depends on comprehensive USGS dust study, and DOE water / tritium study and the fact that many first responders have died from or are dying from the kinds of cancers that are caused by radiation exposure. Knowing or determining whether each video that we know about is completely or partially faked is looking more irrelevant the more we explore the nukes issue.

    We are getting very tired of Clues crowd and their broad pronouncements about ALL and NO this and that. When you hear what they said really did destroy the Towers, then you might want to call them the Clues Clowns.

    9-11 is an event that really took place.
    Sandy Hook is an event that possibly did not take place at all.

    We are examining completely different kinds of circumstances for the two events and we have to explain as best we can what we observe. The government has made it as difficult as possible to do a rational objective study of both events, including planting or salting fake evidence, have actors in and around each event and having a gullible, mind crippled general population who imbibes whatever is fed to them via the boob tube.

    Additionally, at least for 9-11, we had something in writing from the govenrment stating the "official story" -- the 9-11 Commission Report.

    The government has learned how it works against their evil plans to tell us what their official position is, so for Sandy Hook, they have released one inadequate written public report by the Ct. state attorney and that report excludes the vital FBI report information. We do not even yet have the official story of Sandy Hook from which to direct our questions and refutations.

    Dr. Fetzer has explained many times why we have to keep searching out the HOW of 9-11 WTC. It gives us strong clues as to the WHO of 9-11. You need to know what the "weapon" was. I am beginning to think that those who just want us all to stop exploring the HOW and just focus on the WHO do not have the highest intentions of find the truth of 9-11.

    1. Absolutely...

      John is doing the right thing here...Keep hammering away at the mechanics of this stuff...What would a magician do if all his tricks were known? He would have to come up with some new tricks...

      That is what they do...They have new tricks always but knowing how they did this stuff gets you more familiar to recognizing the new ones when they come...And they will come...

      9/11 was a mixture of so many things...I would bet certain things that were appearing to be fake may be there to make people draw 'absolute' or 'broad pronouncements' as you said here...coming to conclusions to other areas where they may not need apply...Its a mindfuck...

      Combining two tricks...The whole list of types of tricks that Tom in CT was talking about with illusionism...I think 9/11 employed all of most of them...

    2. Jeannon has been an astute study of 9/11 from the beginning. She has it right--the videos are only part of the evidence that establishes that 9/11 in New York was a nuclear event. Why SS and obf claim the opposite is one of the signs that they are not committed to 9/11 Truth, only to prevailing in this argument. Why they are obsessed with an indefensible position is one of the curious aspects of this.

      On Sandy Hook, it is clear that no children or adults died on 14 December 2012. My most important articles about Sandy Hook are the following:

      "Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax" (with Vivian Lee, Sofia Smallstorm, James Tracy, me and other members of the Sandy Hook Research Group)

      "The Ugly Truth about Michael Collins Piper, Cass Sunstein and Sandy Hook",

      "After two defeats over Sandy Hook, AFP editor declines a third debate",

      "Sandy Hook: Free Homes and 'Big Bucks" for leaders and participants" (with Wolfgang Halbig)

  6. Did Fetzer look at one of the links in his Sandy Hook article? This one features a link to the highly suspicious God Like Productions which has been linked to Tavistock and called a CIA front;

  7. Why is Jim making it so complicated? And are we going to have to listen to even more hologram theories and fancy nuclear neutron demolitions for many years to come? Sounds like pure science fiction to me.

    And why should we care about what the witnesses provided by the MSM said at all? If they could fake the "live" plane crash, on all networks, they surely also could hired some actors with a script and put on the News.

    Odd that Jim so fiercely will deny that the collapse sequence, as aired on "live" news, should be pre recorded and animated. They had to air collapses that was consistent with the plane part of the story. And this was a operation where they couldn't afford to take any chances - they HAD TO succeed. Lower risk for the operation if they pre recorded or pre animated that part too. Maybe they could use the animation crew from Independence Day (1996)? - And how easy was it for the 911 operation management to send crowds down there when the towers were demolished. Did they have kamikaze cameramen available too? If they animated the collapse sequence, they could create all the necessary camera angles they needed, and also create new animations later if that should be necessary. Not hard to see the advantages with pre recorded animations contra risky "live" unpredictable ad hock editing.

    I disagree wit this "Israel did it" part. Israel is just one of the tribes branches, like Federal Reserve and US media. It was the US media branch that pulled off this operation, as usual, in cooperation with some from their Hollywood branch, and many others too of course. When they control the media they also control the election process, and will always get their controllable puppet in the White House. Then they can get their agent in in the Gov wherever they want or need. They also control the gang in the Congress too, and can indirectly make the laws. But of course, all this is known by the brilliant people around here. But again, it wasn't their Israeli branch that was running this operation.

    I wish John could have asked how many victims there should be if they remembered to evacuate the buildings before they blew them up.

    Spamming one of my favorite 911 videos again: Jeffrey Grupp: Why the PLANES vs. NO PLANES on 911 distinction is SO IMPORTANT! Antimatter Radio 2010-10-1

    1. El Buggo is another who loves to post without doing his homework. See

      “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” with Preston James

      “9/11 Interview with Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran)”

      “False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State”

      “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)

      Anyone who denies that 9/11 involved collusion between the CIA, Neo-cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad is either ignorant or lying to you,

    2. Jim, you are blowing smoke again. I cannot spend several days on all those links.

      My investigation strategy is to follow Aristotle advise: “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”.

      With that strategy, it is not possible to start an investigation before the homework has been done.

      Take these nuke stories we have been told for almost 70 years now. How did that begin? Are the films or photos consistent with the reports? Have to look into that if I want to understand how it begun, etc. The peculiar thing with this nuke bomb history is that there isn't anything at all specific for any 1 huge explosion in Hiroshima in any of the published films or photos from that event. In fact, the balance of evidence suggest that the city was firebombed. I have studied every film and photo I could find on the internet, and also purchase the books Joe O'Donnell: Japan 1945: A U.S.Marine's Photographs from Ground Zero and Erin Barnett: Hiroshima: Ground Zero 1945

      So what has your study into the beginning of the history on nuke bombs revealed Jim? We need to do our homework you know.

      Re: Anyone who denies that 9/11 involved collusion between the CIA, Neo-cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad is either ignorant or lying to you,

      That is pure disinfo. It is of course the jew mafia that is behind this 911 operation too. That gang control the Federal Reserves and the money system, and could therefor acquire control on all the major media outlets. That gang already had this control more than 100 years ago.

      When this gang control the media, they also have total control on the election process, and will always get their controllable puppet in the White House. Then they can place their agents wherever they want in the Gov, like in CIA and DoD and what have you. Mossad is very peripheral in this operation, but also one of their braches of course.

      Did you check out that very excellent video by Jeffrey Grupp, Jim? He is a lecturer in philosophy at University of Michigan these days - so one of you, Jim.

    3. You "won't check those links"? But those are the articles that prove you are wrong. So I am hardly surprised that "you won't check them"! How in the world did you draw conclusions about my views about who was responsible IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE ARTICLES WHERE I DISCUSS IT? I guess this is an admission that you pull this stuff out your ass and have no serious interest in the difference between the true and the false.

  8. None of you have the guts to broach the subject of Jew Mossad doing Fukushima.
    And Jew Mossad in charge of the cover up/clean up operations.

    1. LOL, I posted Jim Stone's article about Israel's role in Fukushima when it first came out.

      I don't know if I buy this anymore though...

  9. It's Not Just "Leftists" Or "Fascists" We're Up Against--These Are SATANISTS And Psychopaths Pushing "BIG-LIE" On The People

    Good show John; Fetzer is a great fountain of worthwhile info, I'd say.

    Of course, we're up against absolute SATANISTS who worship lies, and esp. the BIG-LIE technique whence the people are much confronted w. the enormity of the proposition, false as it is. But the people are then impelled, by all the circumstances that they understand into FOOLING THEMSELVES by thinking, "nooooooooo--the gov. wouldn't lie to us about this, would it?--nooooooooo, they couldn't, they wouldn't...."

    Note then the BIG-LIE takes chutzpah, nerve, gall in supremely large quanitity.

    So not only are we hit w. just ONE big-lie, but an entire series, 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon among them.

    Key to it all, for this massive satanic conspiracy, is the US Federal Reserve Bank, the big-lie attached to it being it's simply legalized COUNTERFEITING, literally, but the folks don't want to face-up to it, the sublime simplicity of it all, imagining US "prosperity" depends on this gross criminal scam.

    The largest BIG-LIE is that ZOG cares about American people and their rights, big joke too, eh? Ho hoo ho ho ho

    Observe ObongoCare "death-panels" and AGENDA-21 "population reduction" genocide. ZOG hates humanity, like satan hates TRUTH, honesty, reason, law, etc.

    We need a cultural revolution much like that of St. Constantine the Great, early 4th cent., when the otherwise moribund Roman empire was revived to a degree, at least, and for a time, the eastern part of it continuing for another thousand years. Keep up ur great work, for sure.

    1. "It's Not Just "Leftists" Or "Fascists" We're Up Against"
      You mean the "IslamoFascists" the joo puppet Sean Insanity rambles about? It is not Fascism that is coming your way, but Bolshevism that is coming. Stop watching the joo-tube where the jews beat the word fascism (from both political parties)....because they know Fascist are ardent anti-commie.

  10. How many times must we listen to Fetzer and 911 opinions? Don't you get it yet? 911 will never go anywhere, and the crooks in Washington will never allow the truth that Izzy Rah Hell did it...ever come to the light of day. We seldom come here anymore to listen. You have some of the most boring guests a good share of the time.Or perhaps they're boring because you rein them in like a puppet master. If you do have an interesting guest, you tightly control the whole conversation and never let the guest go where he wants in his thoughts and conversation. He has to stick to your stringent freak control, or you verbally shake him and bring him back to what YOU want him to say. That is NOT how you treat a "guest." Last, but certainly not least, your deadpan, monotone way of speaking is maddening nearly puts us to sleep. You sound like a robot. No emotion whatsoever.

    1. Hi Anonymous, feel free to never listen to any of my programs again, and don't even waste your time commenting here.

      John Friend

  11. I haven't gone back and listened to this show in the archives yet, but I'd like to just say for the record that I have a hard time understanding Dr. Fetzer's hologram hypothesis. In my view, all of the imagery associated with 9/11, including the tower collapse footage (both "live" media coverage and subsequent "amateur" video) and especially the images of "an airplane" smashing into the facade of the WTC (again, both "live" media coverage and subsequent "amateur" video), is extremely suspect and unreliable. If the perps did indeed use a hologram, you'd still have to explain all the fraudulent imagery and all of the problems associated with it (different "airplane" trajectories, obvious examples of layering and digital compositing, use of scripted actors and "eye witness" testimony, etc.).

    I highly recommend everyone check out the links I posted above with this program. Simon Shack has a very good take on all this. Also, be sure to check out 9/11 Attacks - 102 Minutes That Changed America, which I'm sure you could check out at your local library (I did). Watch that "documentary", which is made up of alleged "amateur" footage taken in NYC by average people on the day of 9/11. I am pretty much convinced the entire thing is a Hollywood-style propaganda ploy.

    Bottom line: 9/11 was a massive media deception and media hoax.

    1. John- My sentiments exactly. Why would our "chosen ones friends" try to "set up a hologram" when it is far easier to use fake digital imagery and pass it off as "real". Simon's hypothesis is that the whole tip of Manhattan was enveloped in a smoke screen and the tip of Manhattan had a full scale evacuation- with no exceptions- after the first explosion.

      Actors and green screens were used to very very likely pre-film the imagery that was either released as "live" or later released as "real." There were no camera phones then, but the digital cameras did not work due to HERP jamming military technology and all cell phones in Manhattan did not work due to the network being cut off.

      Simon's hypothesis is clearly laid out in the movie and on Clues forum is a compilation of a great amount of discussion on his central thesis of Media Fakery that is constantly being used on us.

    2. John,

      Dr. Fetzer is not stupid.

      In fact, he specialized in issues pertaining to how Knowledge and Belief are established. He knows how people assemble ideas and formulate opinions and attitudes.

      Dr. Fetzer also knows what a find finding process is - and what it is not.

      The 911 narrative rests upon us "believing" that the imagery shown to us was an accurate representation of reality on that day.

      The people responsible for committing that crime have a vested interest in maintaining public confidence in the foreign-controlled media complex. Should we "lose confidence" they know that more direct measures will have to be used to "control us".

      We already know that Israelis have direct control of much of the US domestic media. For example, Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital in Boston. And Bain's CEO is an Israeli named Orit Gadeish who "was" the number 3 officer in charge of the Mossad. Now, she essentially operates Clear Channel as an Israeli propaganda asset.

      Because the technology, the motive, means and opportunity existed prior to 911 to create faked imagery and broadcast it as "news" - we should not accept it at face value.

      Manipulated imagery is the cornerstone upon which many modern deceptions are constructed. It is used all the time in film production and even "news".

      The concept of "holograms" is designed to draw you back into the imagery - as though it was authentic. That way, you remain boxed up inside "the matrix".

      Sad to say, Dr. Fetzer certainly knows all of this.

    3. [ The concept of "holograms" is designed to draw you back into the imagery - as though it was authentic. That way, you remain boxed up inside "the matrix". ]

      Anonymous 7:34 a.m- Great point you make there. The holograms debate takes the focus off the Media as co-perpetrator AND off of Digitally Manipulated News Fakery by that very same Media and Titans (Mostly Jews) at the top.

      "Holograms" is like a sideshow distraction that serves to take you off the trail of the truth of that event which is the one they would like you to forget: Media Fakery is consistently manufactured at the top by mostly Jews and Crypto-Jews and delivered all the way to the bottom to the masses.

    4. Anonymous (who won't even use his/her own name) is missing the point. I am not ENTHUSIASTIC about holograms, but logic and evidence compels me to embrace the hypothesis as the best supported among the alternatives.

      We are observing something that looks like a real plane but is performing feats than no real plane could perform. Hence, it is not a real plane. We have three alternatives: CGI, video compositing and holograms. If there are any bona-fide witnesses who report having seen (what they took to be) a plane, then it cannot have been CGI or video compositing.

      I found a credible witness in Scott Forbes, who reported watching a plane approach the building and was astonished when "the building swallowed the plane". You can find the interview on "The Real Deal" radio archives at He seems completely authentic to me.

      Richard Hall has laid out an excellent argument as to why it appears to have been done using holograms. See "Richard Hall's 3-D Radar Study of Flight 175", Too many here are not responding to the EVIDENCE it was done with holograms.

      John Lear, our nation's most distinguished pilot, has endorsed holograms. Stefan Grossman, who has an on-line study of the absence of collision effects, has endorsed holograms. I interviewed Stephen Brown, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge, who reported that the technology was available then to perform this kind of projection.

      I have even discovered a page from a military manual showing one plane projecting the image of another. I laid it all out in "The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2", Why don't my critics take a look at the evidence and explain what I have wrong instead of shooting off their mouths without knowing what they are talking about?

    5. OK, Dr. Fetzer, lets investigate the hologram theory. Exactly what kind of hardware could have projected a 3-D airplane on that day? Who manufactured the alleged equipment used? Exactly what kind of projection system could have produced the required imagery? What platform would or could have carried the required hardware? What would be the power requirements for such a system? How much would it weigh? How big would it be? Was the projection system ground-based or was it airborne?

      You mention that you "believe" the testimony of a single eye-witness. As you know, eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

      Where is the other corroborating evidence for the hologram hypothesis. More digital bs that could be easily create with a few taps on a keyboard?

      John Friend does not seem to accept the "everything is fake" hypothesis. As you know, Dr. Fetzer - the science of Illusionism is quite broad and often times endorses the use of layering more that one trick to further confound the target audience.

      From the available evidence, it seems clear that the 1) The broadcast imagery we were shown on 911 is suspect, 2) No real airplane struck the towers - or the Pentagon - or the ground at Shanksville, and 3) Someone wants us to continue accepting the trash that the broadcast media presents.

      We don't think that 'Everything is Fake". We know that the towers are not there today. They were demolished. We have very serious questions about the imagery. We are not willing to rely on the imagery that we were shown due to chain of custody issues and motive to tamper.

      If we approach 911 by first ignoring all of the various imagery, perhaps that might help clarify things a bit and separate what we "know" from what we don't.

      I don't care about what Mr. Lear says. You place him on a pedestal employing the worn-out "Appeal to Authority" meme, which is a logical fallacy.

      The bottom line here is that we simply do not accept the imagery.

      You know better than most out there that there is a big difference between the occurrences in every-day life and those depicted in movies.

      If a situation is depicted in a move, it's not reality. It's a fake creation that might mimic reality.

      How a philosopher would explain the Sawing the lady in half trick? He might say, “You know, the magician doesn’t really saw the lady in half. He merely makes you THINK that he does.”

      911 was a magic trick designed to create a fake reality that we, the target audience, reacted to - in reality.

      Did planes hit buildings on 911? No, the man behind the curtain merely made us THINK that they did. How, exactly? Well, first off - we need to get to the bottom of the imagery issue.

      Method of creation. Chain of custody.

      You and I both know that's pretty much a dead end at this point.

      The fact remains that the broadcast media was at the center of the imagery issue. They played a central role in the dissemination of the magic trick.

      I am quite sure that if certain operatives were detained and questioned using enhanced interrogation techniques, we would then begin to get answers.

      BTW, John Friend is no sap. And he's not a paid operative engaging in counter-speech either.

    6. You are wrong again Jim. As Allan Weisbecker told you on your show; what people saw and what they aired on national news are two completely separate subjects. And as he told you, there isn't any motion blur in the videos, so there couldn't have been holograms they showed us on the news. Event holograms would have motion blur. The videos of the plane crashes are animations, like in the King Kong movie - no motion blur there either. Here, recap: No Motion Blur in 911 Plane Crash Videos:

      Much simpler explanation than fancy holograms is that they closed off and evacuated south side of the towers from where something could be observed, so that there wasn't any people there to see anything. Then they aired their purely animated cartoonish plane crashes, and REPORTED that a plane had crashed a million times.

      They couldn't have done it this way unless they had total control on the news networks, and that their agents in the Gov cooperated. That is the really big deal with this operation, and much more important and significant than 911 itself.

      If they can air fake plane crashes on "live" news (like in a Hollywood horror movie), on all networks, the 911 operation management surly can train and promote some disinfo agents as "witnesses" much later. Should be a piece of cake for that gang. After all, they also have total control on the MSM.

    7. The idea that eyewitness testimony is "the least reliable" is simply absurd. A study done by Harvard (which I cite on page 210 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE 2010), subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete when they were reporting on the observation of salient (important) features of events they witnessed.

      You can find the study in Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY 1996, Table 3.1. Why some here are spreading false information may be something they wish to explain. Moreover, McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, 3rd ed., 1984), explains that the admissibility of photos and films in courts of law requires their authentication by those who took them.

      That, of course, makes sense, because photos and films can be faked. I am not denying that IN PRINCIPLE the photos and films of the destruction of the Twin Towers could have been faked, but that it would have been very difficult to fake it from so many different perspectives (from the air, on the ground, from New Jersey and such).

      I attribute that outcome a likelihood of zero. Anonmyous continues to add to the weight of the evidence that he is a fraud by committing a classic "straw man" by imposing conditions that are practically impossible for anyone not involved in conducting this operation to possibly know.

      I have explained why I reject the "everything is fake" hypothesis. I have found a credible witness who reported seeing (what he took to be) a plane approach the building. I have consulted with experts (Lear, Grossman and Brown) and confirmed that it was technologically possible, unless Stephen Brown's course at Cambridge was incompetent. If I am forced to choose between Anonymous and Cambridge, it's not that difficult to make.

    8. Eyewitness testimony not taken under oath and not subjected to cross-examonation is worthless.

      Fetzer bases his case on bullshit. Worse, he knows it.

      Mistaken or flawed eye-witness testimony has been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing.

      Of all information sources, eye-witness testimony is definitely the LEAST reliable.

      This is a simply "fact" Dr. Fetzer.

      The readers here are not dumb and frankly, we are tiring of your antics.

    9. This is just a stupid and self-serving argument because Anonymous has been shown up. MOST TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN AND SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION. Most witnesses are never introduced into court. That is a rather infrequent occurrence. But lies from him are not.

      So this guy is claiming as a "fact" something that is not even remotely true. I have already address the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Apparently, this guy's mind is made up and he doesn't want to be bothered with facts! Science trumps bullshit, which is your area of specialization.

    10. Anonlymous claims of me, "In fact, he specialized in issues pertaining to how Knowledge and Belief are established. He knows how people assemble ideas and formulate opinions and attitudes." But there is an ambiguity here. While I do research and publish on the nature of knowledge and belief, I not work on propaganda or disinformation other than their definitions.

      This sounds like a variation of Michael Collins Piper's claims that, since I do research on AI and cognitive science, I am into "mind control", which I explained at the time displays a misunderstanding about my areas of research. I deal with questions about the meaning of "knowledge" and of "belief" and what it takes to possess knowledge.

      For example, in SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), I explain that, for a set of beliefs to qualify as "knowledge", it must be (i) deductively closed, (ii) logically consistent and satisfy (iii) partial evidence and (iv) total evidence conditions. This means if your beliefs cannot all be true, if you do not accept the consequence of what you accept, and if you do not have evidence to support your views, which are not contradicted by the acquisition of additional evidence, then you do not possess knowledge.

      This is the domain of logic and evidence, while Piper in the earlier case and this author in the present confound philosophy with psychology. I am not into mind control, information manipulation or disinformation, but I am into exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and other controversial events.

  12. Dr. Fetzer made the following comment to me via Skype, and said I could post it here for the record:

    I hate to say it, John, but you are being played for a sap.  These guys claim EVERYTHING WAS FAKE.  But (1) why fake the destruction of the Twin Towers in a fashion that CONTRADICTS the "official account"?  And (2) why fake the USGS dust samples in a way that discloses that this was done using nuclear weapons?

    I have a half-dozen articles about this, but they ignore them all. Here is a list of them:

    “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”

    “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino

    “Mystery Solved: The 9/11 was Nuked on 9/11” by Don Fox, Dr. Ed Ward, and Jeff Prager

    "2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11"

    "Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs"

    “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”

    “9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies”

    I have humored these guys. The have made multiple postings on my radio blog. They can't even come up with a single witness who claims that what they saw that day (with regard to the destruction of the Twin Towers) was different than what the videos show.

    I am embarrassed that you are allowing yourself to be played. Life is too short for me to spend endless hours with these loons. If you want to feature them to rebut my views, by all means. DO THAT. Don't drag me into discussing irrational views I have ALREADY EXPOSED. I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. This is rubbish.

    You are welcome to post this as my response in the comments on your radio show's blog.

  13. John- First of all I love your blogsite and your radio programs- especially your discussions with Mike Sledge.

    Its clear that too many of us (Dr. Fetzer for one) are trying too hard to take a stand one way or a position another way regarding the 911 event the % of the fakery in question.

    Why isn't it enough that people as individuals can express their viewpoints and hunches and agree for the most part on the simple idea that the truly Priviledged and self-chosen destroyers of civilization are what the rest of humanity is up against and those self-chosen were clearly involved in and behind the event itself because we know they own and control 99% of conventional media and about 90% of alternative media.

    With great respect for Dr. Fetzer (and admiration for his wealth of knowledge and his many well-grounded hypothesises), I would recommend that Dr. Fetzer just accept that this should not be a war against your brethen just because you believe that holograms were used and someone else does not. If they disagree over the hologram thing, it does not make them suspect as an infiltrator.

    That's just my opinion for anyone to agree or disagree with in the spirit of an open exchange of ideas between folks that are trying to get to the actual truth.

    That said, I love Dr. Fetzer's conclusions re: JFK. That is where he sd. he was the strongest in his understanding- the JFK event.

    I've spent the last 6 years personally going over just about everything on - the very best source for examining the imagery of that day. I believe that after those 6 years of devoting thousands of hours on this topic, with Simon's help and the other veterans of, I would have a really good hunch at how they pulled that thing off. If Simon were an attorney, he would have a slam dunk with his movie and his discussion forum.

    That said, it's just MY hunch. I'm not going to attack anyone that politely disagrees with me. But let reason, respect for other individual expressions, and freedom of expression prevail.

    We are never going to survive amongst the priviledged if we continue to let their tactics fracture us. We must continue to protect open freedom of discussion without persecution which is what you give us John.


    -Anonymous 7:29 a.m.

  14. I'm going to add one more post (this is my last I promise).

    Here are my best guess conclusions:

    Two major things happened on that day.

    1) A demolition (of several buildings) took place behind a smokescreen in NYC and

    2) The world was fooled into thinking that: 13 Arab terrorists flew commercial airliners into two of those buildings (and those buildings got so hot that the other buildings collapsed because of the heat) when in actuality: Digital Fakery and News Fakery made it seem that way. #2 made it possible to invade Afghanistan and thus to totally surround Iran with Air Bases now in place in Afghanistan to compliment the air bases in Saudi Arabia (which began during and after Iraq War I)

    and later #3-

    3) Enabled U.S. Troops to invade Iraq, set up military bases there as well. Not because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction was what (this war) was all about" according to Jew Ari Fleischer, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush.

    So Iran is totally surrounded by air bases right now (see your video with the map of the airbases surrounding Iran) and my guess is that Jews can now send in American Soldiers to die on the Iranian battlefield so that they can control Iran's (and Iraq's and Afghanistan's) government with a Jew owned and Jew controlled Central Bank.

    If history is any indicator, it won't surprise me if they make up another story to get the war started. They've got DHS and FEMA in place to deposit dissenters (for indefinite detention if they wish- see NDAA Law) if the dissenters get too loud.

    Anonymous 7:29 a.m, 7:58 a.m, and 8:30 a.m.

  15. Here is an email I sent to John Friend and he suggested I post it here. It will take 3 part posting.

    Here is Part 1 of 3 Parts (or maybe more parts)

    "John, I wanted to respond a bit to something you posted in a comment of yours on your site yesterday. This is incomplete and you see how long it is, so I will just send it to you here as it is too long to post on your site. I will try to comment on other statements you made in your comment later on.

    Best wishes



    John FriendFebruary 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM
    “I have a hard time understanding Dr. Fetzer's hologram hypothesis. “

    Dr. Fetzer does not really have a firm position or “hypothesis” regarding holograms. He was impressed the work of Richard Hall in England. Mr. Hall said he found evidence that there was a real plane going past each of the two towers, i.e. two planes, and he found the official radar points of the travel of those two planes in relation to the trajectory points of the “planes” we “saw” that went into each Tower. The points of the two lines were exactly I think 1400 feet apart all the way along the two parallel lines. Dr. Fetzer was intrigued by this rather astounding data, and I have to agree just on my cursory level of knowledge about this, that it sure looks like those real two planes had a purpose in flying by each Tower. Those planes were real and the radar data came from a solid source. Dr. Fetzer has written about this several times on his articles as well as discussed it on his Real Deal radio show interviews, one time I think even with Richard Hall himself.

    " end of Part 1 of 3 Parts of this comment

  16. Here is Part 2 of my 3 part or longer posting...


    "I guess the main problem I have with the Richard Hall story is that we do not know how verified and objective his data is and none of us have checked it. Also, Dr. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson were big promoters of Richard Hall’s work when all along they almost totally avoided any talk of planes at all. Also, all along Dr. Fetzer had played down 9-11 WTC site eyewitness testimony. Dr. Fetzer never paid it much attention and Andrew Johnson even wrote an article showing how almost none of them said they heard and saw a real commercial airliner, large Boeing 757 type. But when Dr. Fetzer came upon the seemingly airtight data and “hypothesis” of Richard Hall, then all of a sudden he was telling us how we had to explain what several eyewitnesses said they saw and that he now had a good explanation. This is what I call the Downing Street Memo method, that is, fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy.

    I want to stress that emphasis is on Dr. Fetzer’s hologram “hypothesis” is often poorly motivated and even Dr. Fetzer does not mention it much these days. As far as “planes” and the Towers, we were able to establish, from looking at the videos shown on TV that there were no real planes. That really is as far as we need to go regarding plane video fakery.

    However, there are a few things that I have a problem with regarding Dr. Fetzer’s statements and position about holograms. (I still have not listened to this show of yours, John, but it is only because I have to use my time most wisely due to health problems and I have read and listened to and watched everything Dr. Fetzer has put out on 9-11 since he became involved with this issue in 2005.) I will list briefly below the “problems” I do have with Dr. Fetzer’s hologram position, none of which change my agreement with almost all of his other positions regarding 9-11.

    1. Dr. Fetzer said some things on one of his recent radio shows that indicated to me that he thought that it was holograms that what were shown on (all of ? ) the mainstream TV broadcasts on and shortly after 9-11. I could be wrong the way I heard that, but if that is what he believes. If that is what he is now saying, that is stark change from what he has said about those TV broadcasted videos, so Dr. Fetzer needs to be more clear to us about that.

    2. Back in the early days, Dr. F. would tell us often about the 18 (or 17 or 16?) second delay between real time and what we see broadcast on TV as “live.” I think his implication was that that was time for the mainstream TV networks to do their CGI (or compositing/layering) magic on realtime footage and then broadcast the faked footage on air. He gave the example of how he and his family could be watching a live ball game show on TV and have a radio playing the live broadcast from the town where the game was happening. They could tell how the game play was going to turn out by listening to the radio but it would take several seconds for the TV to show what really happened in the game.

    So I think Dr. Fetzer was saying that those faked videos shown on TV were not prepared long long in advance of that day, but were faked in that few-seconds interval.

    I have to say that does not seem right to me. It took much longer to put together, prepare, those faked videos, such as the Hezarkani & Fairbanks (both South Tower), and Naudet Brothers ( only video North Tower). So that lends credence to the Simon Shack stance that the faked videos we saw on TV were prepared long in advance, just like is done to make a Hollywood movie.) “

    End of Part 2 of 3 or more Part posting

  17. Part 3 of 3 or more Part posting...


    "However, there is the point of contention of whether each ENTIRE video was faked (in whatever way was chosen to use). Was just the plane part faked and the background building part realtime live? If we accept that the faked videos we saw on TV were prepared in advance, it is not logical at all, or even reasonable, to think that the background building part is live realtime, since 9-11-01 was future time. So that tells us that the background building part of all those faked videos was faked too. And that tells us that many things we talk about, such as the bright blow of some molten meltal from the 80th floor of the South(?) tower was part of the fakery, such as the cartoon-like shapes of planes in the side of the building, etc., were all part of the fakery, so we should not even be making postulations about the cause of those cartoon cutouts or that bright burning metal flow.

    I have to comment that if the fakers can put a fake cartoon pod on a fake cartoon plane in a fake cartoon video, then they surely are able to put a fake cartoon cutout or a fake metal flow from one window on the side of faked background picture of the Tower building.

    I am not at all totally averse to Simon Shack and his supporters’ work. I like their VicSim idea but it is totally unsubstantiated in any objective way. I know they are all volunteers and really do not have the resources to do this properly. His VicSim idea is where we get the first glimmer of the idea that some victims, such as victims at Sandy Hook, were not real people at all.

    I think Simon Shack’s videos in slow motion showing how the planes just meld into the buildings was great. However, overall I think his videos are too fast moving and too much music and too blurry pictures and we are not able to comprehend the point he is trying to make.

    Also the Shack people say Dr. Fetzer and others need to do a real scientific exam of all the videos but on several occasions the Shacksters refuse to say exactly how one would procure such a study.

    Also, there is growing evidence that the Shack people do not want anything at all ever to be said about the Jews and the Zionists in relation to 9-11 perpetration.


    End of Part 3 of 3 Part posting...

    1. It's really very simple. Since I take it we all agree that it was not a real plane, we have three alternatives: CGI, video compositing or holograms. If there were ANY WITNESSES who actually saw (what they took to be a plane) BEFORE IT HIT THE TOWER, then it CANNOT BE CGI or video compositing, since they would only present images during BROADCAST. Hence, it was done using holograms. Nothing else works. It's an argument by elimination. Those who insist that holograms are impossible or variants on that theme have to deal with this simple argument, which looks tough to deny.

    2. " If there were ANY WITNESSES who actually saw (what they took to be a plane) BEFORE IT HIT THE TOWER, then it CANNOT BE CGI or video compositing, since they would only present images during BROADCAST."

      I do not think I or anyone else has suggested that the "planes" that some said they saw before the "impact" could have been CGI or video compositing.

      Isn't it quite possible that witnesses who said they saw what they took to be a plane was one of the planes said to have been performing the holography?

      Someone else has suggested that the "holography planes" may have had only the purpose of having some people say that they saw a plane approaching the tower and planes that were not involved holography at all. That does not seem plausible to me if Hall's work is verified true and correct.

    3. if as richard hall states there were planes flying past the towers. Then anyone who claims to have seen a plane in most probability observed one of these planes. For example if you are far away your depth perception is rubbish, a plane flying behind the direct hit flight path would look like its going to hit the building. The eyewitnesses nearby are only going to have a fraction of a second to compute the plane trajectoies, so it makes logical sense that they will fill in these details with what is being presented on the tv etc. Everybody is going to swear blind they saw a plane on course for a tower just before the explosion focused there attention. No holograms/projections required.

    4. Jeanon,

      There is a certain volume of eye-witness testimony stating that a "plane" made a low pass near the Citgo gas station close to the Pentagon and then flew off into the distance.

      Did the perps use the same technique in NY? Was it necessary?

      The concrete landscape in NYC makes it extremely difficult to see anything. Building block your view. Go there and see for yourself.

      It is entirely possible that there were no planes at all in NY. Not even performing a close fly-by of the towers.

      We already "know" that the video of the planes striking the towers was fake.

      This is where the focus of this investigation should go.

      Dr. Fetzer seems to be making arguments exonerating the broadcast media from intentionally airing faked imagery.

      We already "know" they did.

      This brings Fetzer's motives into question. Is he being compensated to protect the broadcast media?

      I don't know.

      He does.

    5. Why does this guy try to put words in my mouth? Because if he were true to my arguments, he would have nothing left. It's truly pathetic. Everyone is aware that the media were complicit on 9/11. That is obvious. The clearest but far from the only example is Jane Standley of the BBC, announcing that "the Solomon Brothers building" (WTC-7) had collapsed at 4:57 PM/ET, when that would not occur for another 23 minutes. I use it as an example in my 9/11 lectures and presentations. Once again, we see more proof that Anonymous has no idea what he's talking about. Unreal!

    6. Jeannon, Nice catch! I meant, "saw a plane hit/enter the building", which is what Scott Forbes reported having seen. He said he watched and was astonished when "the building swallowed the plane". Check it out. The interview was on

      FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

      Scott Forbes
      South Tower Employee / 9/11 Eyewitness

    7. Jim Fetzer
      I applaud you for your dedication and passion for 9/11 truth. Pretty much everything that you that you believe I believe. However we do disagree on one thing. Eye witness testimony made by people who claim to have witnessed a plane crashing into the towers. You have relied on this character Mr Forbes. Did he believe he witnessed a plane, or did he believe it was a hologram that crashed into the WTC?

      You should be careful that you are not taken for a sap, when you believe the stories you are told are told to you in good faith.

    8. Don, I take nothing for granted. His report coheres with the rest of the data available about the encounter between "the plane" and the building and his description has great authenticity about it. He not only observed that he was astonished when "the building swallowed the plane" but that he was equally taken aback when the South Tower "came apart like sand", which I think is also an astute observation. If new evidence or alternative hypotheses become available, it may be necessary to revise my position by rejecting hypotheses previously accepted, accepting hypotheses previously rejected and leaving others in suspense. But that is a consequence of adherence to the requirement of total evidence, which demands that, in the search for truth, reasoning be based on all of the available relevant evidence.

    9. Hello Jim. The Harley guy wasn't witnessing a hologram when he said he saw planes scream in to the side of the tower. That's my point, the data is not very reliable.
      We have live eye witness audio footage of reporters telling us that they have just witnessed the towers exploding with fire, only to be told by the team in the studio that it was a plane that had just hit.
      Perhaps Scott Forbes is not a plant, but wanted his testimony about the collapse of one of the towers (or did he witness both) to be convincing.
      A hologram would suggest to me that the fake image would only be visible close to the point of impact, and when it really mattered. A hologram would not have been able to produce an image of a plane when it was making its approach.
      In 2010 I believed real planes hit the towers. There has been a lot of debate since then and my understanding has changed. You should get Mr Forbes back on your show to explain the finer details of what he witnessed.

      I think Mr Forbes did make an appearance in Massimo Mazucco's latest Documentary. I don't remember him claiming to have witnessed a plane crashing into the tower.
      Like I said before, we only differ on a quite minor detail. I'd be interested to know if you have accepted anybody else' testimony who claim to have seen planes hit the tower?

    10. Reply to

      AnonymousFebruary 21, 2014 at 2:41 PM

      I have always tried to maintain my objectivity and honesty about 9-11 and other issues. I always felt that Dr. Fetzer did far and above the better job of covering all information and viewpoints on 9-11 than all of the other “truth researchers”, “truth seekers” and alternative and mainstream radio and TV show hosts. In other words I felt that Dr. Fetzer was not only conducting his coverage of 9-11 as a true scholar but also as a good journalist.

      As I stated before, Dr. Fetzer early on seemed to be making the case that it was the media who was taking their own realtime/live footage from their own reporters/videographers and doing the fakery themselves in a short 17 second “delay” period and then broadcasting the faked video as live.

      Dr. Fetzer does these days, and some of his regular posters on his blog as well, be taking the stance that there was realtime/live “background” things like the building, the sky, the smoke, the dust etc…in the videos we saw on TV. I cannot elaborate very much on that but that does seem to be his general stance.

      Add to all these confusing discussions of “video fakery” the age old semantical problem. There are some very fuzzy uses of the terms “CGI” and Ace Baker’s “composit / layering technique” where people seem to be generally taking CGI to mean that the whole video was faked and where the composit/layering “camp” seem to be holding on the idea that there was real true live imagery within what we saw on TV.
      When I read a formal definition of CGI, I see that computer graphics can be added to or can “contribute to” existing “film” or digital realtime live “film”. That sounds a lot like “compositry” to me where the video can be part CGI and part realtime/live.

      I do think if one wants to prove that Dr. Fetzer is an “op” or an “agent” of some kind, it is probably this “video fakery” issue that would prove the most fertile ground. It also is the most fertile ground for use by people and groups and factions who want to obfuscate truth seeking and just put out all kinds of false arguments to take up everybody’s time. Many of these factions do seem to put out some good ideas but overall they do not seem to be aiming for truth and are using all the tried and true obfuscation methods.
      Another huge problem in all of this is that we have an “undefined population.” We do not know how many videos we are dealing with. We also know almost nothing about the “chain of custody” of any of the videos we do know about. (Try to keep in mind that the Naudet Brothers, Michael Hezarkani, and Evan Fairbanks may not have ever been on the streets taking videos at all but they were real people who perhaps just sold their names to the money entities pushing 9-11 untruth.)
      I do not know what would be the best format to sort out all this video fakery issue but I do know one needs rules and orders to examine all of this intelligently. Iwould advise that this particular blog and even Dr. Fetzer’s blog is not the place for such an inquiry.

  18. And as the theme song for this broadcast repeats, life does go on. Jim and John are gentlemen and scholars, and I am trying to keep up, and digest all that they post. In his report of 2/13/14, "Barbara Honegger 911 Video: Behind the Smoke Curtain", VidRebel discusses that video, which I will now watch, with eyes wide open.:

  19. i have an issue with the whole hologram argument that nobody seems to bring up. if you look up midair holograms or holigrams without screens, you will find a few demonstrations of the latest cutting edge technology in this area. they either use some form of smoke/mist/water to project the holigraphic image onto and they also are done at night, on a dark stage or dark back drop. i have read of one company that uses lasers to create points of plasma within the air to create the holographic effect. My point is that all holograms work by illuminating something. on 911 we have images of dark planes flying and melting into buildings, unless they have found a way to generate light obscuring molecules in air in real time and at a resolutions and refresh rates that would allow for video and photographic evidence to be produced i would discount the holographic plane theory. Richard halls radar analysis would account for eye witnesses seeing planes on the day. they just need to be flying in the general direction of the towers to fool peoples memory of what they saw that day. what they see later on the tv is going to wipe away any doubts they may have.

    1. Well, as I believe I explained during the show, I found a person who had taken a course in holography at Cambridge, Stephen Brown, and invited him on "The Real Deal", where you can find his interview. He assured me that it would have been possible to project the image as I and Richard Hall have described. So, while it may seem counter-intuitive if you are not a student of holography, those who know more about the subject are not skeptical about it.

  20. Onebornfree emailed me the following comment:

    Onebornfree here. Here are a few links to articles I wrote mentioned in this show:

    "Why Jim Fetzer,Ace Baker and Richard Hall Etc. Are Wrong About The Hezarkhani Video" :

    "Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique":

    "Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

  21. Hey guys. Please stop engaging Fetzer. The analogy I'd use to describe this is to ask you not to wrestle in the mud with pigs. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.

    We already know that the core problem is the broadcast media.

    It's controlled by jews/Israelis.

    Is Fetzer controlled by jews/Israelis?

    What good has Fetzer done with respect to 911? Has he had anyone brought to justice for that crime - or has he served another purpose?

    Just look at the facts.

    As for the JFK thing, has Fetzer had anyone brought to justice? Or has he engaged in a giant circle-jerk?

    1. This guy has made a lot of ad hominem attacks. He can't know anything about JFK research or he would know my work. Not only have I published the three books that cracked the case by shattering the cover up, but I am the only person to have identified six shooters by name.

      See, for example, "JKF at 50: The Who, the How and the Why". This is the kind of exaggerated standard of measurement I have come to expect from Judy Wood and the members of her cult. When we are exposing crimes by the government, indictments and prosecutions are a remote prospect, which he has to know.

      I think this guy deserves the boot--permanently! He is nasty and not remotely fair in his assessments. If one of us is an op, as he implies and I agree, then I don't think it's that tough a call. It ain't me.

    2. This guy has invoked a lot of logical fallacies in support of the hostile media complex.

      Now, he wants to invoke the jewish tactic of censorship.

      I think this guy deserves the boot permanently! He is nasty and not remotely fair in his comments.

      I think one of us is getting a paycheck to engage in "Counter-Speech".

      ...seriously, Jimbo - you've made a fool of yourself.

    3. Like most of his other posts, this is pure ad hominen garbage, which is the best we can expect from someone as ignorant as this. I make this point to remind John that his first policy requirement is "no ad hominems". Well, what is this? and take a good look at his "circle jerk" post. He's a shit.

    4. Yes I apologize for even posting some of these comments - if you have a criticism to make, please post it but there is no reason for attacks and irrational speculation about people being "agents" or whatever.

    5. This anonymous poster kind of smells like Michael Collins Piper, because he sure does sound a lot like him.

  22. john c said : "i have an issue with the whole hologram argument..."

    Good points John.

    Please see my article "Why Jim Fetzer,Ace Baker and Richard Hall Etc. Are Wrong About The Hezarkhani Video" :

    ....which demonstrates two very easy to understand reasons as to why the plane hologram theory cannot possibly be correct [for example: because the Hezarkhani video is demonstrated to be undeniably 100% CGI]

    Also, a while ago I wrote a 4 part in depth review of Richard Hall's plane hologram thesis here :

    which demonstrates that Hall actually deliberately misrepresents both the data he uses, [fabricating data points that don't even exist], and the plane videos he "analyses" [for want of a better term]; deliberately fabricating the path of the plane in one [at least] particular video he uses.

    Regards, obf.

  23. In this interview, Jim Fetzer claims :

    ".. there is no good reason to question them [network collapse videos etc.] that he [obf] has offered..." .

    This is absolutely, 100% UNTRUE.

    I have _repeatedly_ informed him that his very own claimed methodology [science, supposedly] , REQUIRES himself and any other 9/11 researcher claiming scientific credentials of one sort or another, to thoroughly check for authenticity_any_ and all forms of proposed evidence [eg videos, photos, alleged eyewitnesses etc.] , FIRST, before they can ever be trusted and used as bona fide genuine evidence to form a hypothesis about the events of 9/11.

    THAT, [i.e. the methodological requirement for the investigating scientist to first establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the proposed evidence is actually authentic, _before_ ever using it as "irrefutable evidence" to support a particular 9/11 "what really happened" hypothesis] is the ONLY reason that I have given, simply because it is the ONLY reason that an investigating scientist should/would actually need.

    For more on this please see:

    "Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

    I also discussed the scientists methodology with him in detail on his show a year ago [ironically, at that time he seemed to agree with my points :-) ]:

    Regards, obf.

    1. We have many resources in sorting this out:

      (1) They were standing, then they were gone.

      (2) It happened in a very brief period of time.

      (3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.

      (4) They were destroyed below ground level.

      (5) We have the so-called “toasted cars”

      (6) And massive parts blown great distances

      (7) There were videos and there were photos.

      (8) There were many witnesses observing.

      (9) We have cancer rates among responders.

      (10) We have USGS dust samples.

      (11) We have seismic readings.

      (12) We have acoustical recordings.

      Not only is there "no good reason"

      to question the film and photographic

      record when it "hangs together", but

      neither SS nor obf has given us any

      good reason to doubt it was nuclear.

  24. I wish Gerard Holmgren was alive...His writings are alive and well at

    Take a look around there folks....

    Take a look at ALL the sections there...

    Very Interesting stuff there...

    I wish Gerard Holmgren was alive...

    I really do...

  25. Jim Fetzer said: "Like most of his other posts, this is pure ad hominen garbage, which is the best we can expect from someone as ignorant as this. I make this point to remind John that his first policy requirement is "no ad hominems". Well, what is this? and take a good look at his "circle jerk" post. He's a shit."

    This is pure hypocrisy[i.e."garbage"] from Fetzer.

    He himself has used the dreaded ad hominem consistently against myself, with NO justification or name-calling in return from myself at that time, and allowed it to be used against me by co-author Don Fox, in articles Fetzer posted at "Veterans Today" last year :

    [08/28/13]: "2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11" :

    [09/19/13] :"Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs":

    to the point where, in the comments section of one or the other article linked above, one of the regularly featured contributors to "Veterans Today" , Stuart Ogilby, called him out on his behavior towards myself.

    Anyone reading the comments section at the two links provided above can clearly see this behavior by Fetzer on display for themselves. [ and note, no ad hominem in return from myself]

    Furthermore, after his and Fox's engaging in these attempted character assassinations of myself, I then appeared[again] on his show [09/28/13] :

    Anyone who listens to the interview will note that despite his and Don Fox's previous ad hominem attacks on myself at "Veterans Today", at that time, in the radio interview [although no longer] I was _still_ being civil towards Mr Fetzer.

    Since that time, in the various comments sections for 9/11 related guest interviews at his very own blogsite, and despite his more reasonable demeanor during the 09/29/13 radio interview with me, he has himself consistently engaged in ad hominem attacks against myself , and allowed Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh to engage in the exact same behavior there.

    Not only that, he then allowed those two clowns[Fox ,Greenhalgh] to co-author a "Veterans Today" article, [01/18/14] published under the Fetzer moniker, the VERY TITLE of which is _itself_ contains a childish ad hominem! [i.e "September Clueless"]:

    "Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “SEPTEMBER CLUELESS” distractors" [emphasis mine]:

    ....indeed the entire article is little more than a poorly written, poorly researched, silly little hitpiece/ ad hominem character assassination on Simon Shack, myself and others associated at Shacks website.

    So , although John may not allow it here, I would say to the hypocritical Mr Fetzer:

    get a life, Mr Fetzer, after all, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" as far as I'm concerned. If you can't take it, don't dish it out- simple .

    Regards, obf.

  26. Jim Fetzer said :"Not only is there "no good reason" to question the film and photographic record when it "hangs together", but neither SS nor obf has given us any
    good reason to doubt it was nuclear."

    But I just gave you the only reason you need Mr Fetzer just as I have previously on numerous occasions elsewhere - i.e. you are as a scientist, methodologically required to at least attempt to ensure the authenticity of anything that might be considered to be evidence [ eg videos, photos, witness testimony], before _ever_elevating it to the level of genuine, incontestable evidence [of whatever].

    As another poster at your blog site,[ Bob Bobson] so eloquently put this, 3 days ago here:

    "*Sigh* Can any of you who defend Fetzer and Fox on this not see the ridiculous level of simplicity to their arguments? The only people IGNORANT of the scientific method here are those two chumps."

    "This has been pointed out COUNTLESS times on these comments sections before, and in other places. AGAIN. Both are STILL basing their conclusions on UNVERIFIABLE imagery and UNVERIFIABLE witnesses! How difficult is this to understand? "

    "Let's break it down:

    1. Neither Don Fox nor Jim Fetzer have attempted or have any clue how to attempt even a cursory investigation into the authenticity of the video record! In order to use the imagery as evidence, then it must be able to be confirmed as legitimate! Fetzer himself agrees that NO PLANES were used on 9/11. This AUTOMATICALLY brings the video record into question (regardless of his outlandish and frankly laughable hologram theory). Therefore, Fetzer and Fox NEED to properly investigate the authenticity of the videos! This just not mean just a throw away opinion about how it "all hangs together". Because this opinion can be SHOWN to be false via the FACTS. Without conducting a proper scientific and physical analysis and investigation of the imagery, it CANNOT be taken as an example of real evidence."

    "2. Jim Fetzer and Don Fox are both completely willing to rely on the WORD of an unverifiable "witness". Regardless of people's emotional attachments and preconceptions, a person saying they saw something does not make it so. In order to follow any kind of scientific method, the word of eyewitness almost has to be entirely disregarded. At the very least, it cannot be taken as legitimate without a deep examination of the apparent witnesses story, history, background, financial situation, etc. And even then, due to the fact that the witness statements do not correlate with each other and there is no CONSENSUS between the supposed eyewitnesses, nothing can be taken as absolute fact. And considering that both Don and Jim would definitely agree, if questioned, that some of the 9/11 witnesses were definitely liars and 'plants' (Harley Guy and the Pentagon "I saw the logo of the plane" witnesses). So, how can you cherry pick the witnesses that you are going to believe in!? It makes no sense, and again is another reason to completely disregard the witness statements and rely on actual evidence."

    regards, obf.

    1. Anyone can verify the source and identity of photographers who took photos on 9/11 by doing a search on "9/11 photographers" and such. Even The Atlantic has an issue devoted to 50 photos from 9/11, identifying each of those who took them. This is an elaborate charade by those who want to undermine some of the most responsible research on 9/11 ever published.

      And as for his insistence that "we can never know how it was done", beyond the 12 sources of information I have enumerated here, I would add that the effects that were created underground are extremely telling. obf and SS want to do a debate with me and Don Fox, but anyone who checks out the sources of the photos and who watches this short video knows they are total frauds:

  27. I was extremely gratified to hear Fetzer name Michael Collins Piper, Keith Johnson, and especially Deanna Spingola as three individuals who should be shunned and viewed as probable agents within the patriot movement who are on the payroll of our opposition.

    I was initially introduced to Spingola when she used to be a regular guest on the Rick Adams program on RBN, and in the beginning - I found her to be interesting and I usually enjoyed her guest appearances. However, as time passed - I began to notice that her primary obsession seemed to be to go back through American history and perform the most vicious and defamatory hemorrhoid operations and anal exams on literally every significant White European man who had, in some way, played a role in founding, exploring, taming and establishing this nation - and suddenly, the light bulb came on over my head. I realized that what Spingola was doing fit perfectly into the Cultural Marxist's stated objective, i.e., endless and relentless critique and demonization of every prominent White American hero figure that played a part in American history. The Cultural Marxists clearly stated that they wanted to destroy White American's respect, reverence and admiration for the greatest heroes in their history in order to emasculate and weaken the White majority; in essence, to brainwash them into being ashamed of their past and to despise their ancestors and former heroes. This is part of the template to strip White Americans of their pride and self confidence, and a people who've been taught to despise their ancestors and to feel ashamed of their history - are less likely to possess a strong passion for their future survival. And, more apt to embrace the necessity of their own demise. This is Spingola's game; this is the mission that this woman has been assigned to promote. She's part of the White Racial Demoralization and Emasculation team.

    Keith Johnson serves a similar role; at various times during his radio shows and whenever he is a guest on the Ugly Truth Podcast - hosted by the anti-White racist Mark Glenn, I've heard him repeatedly parrot the exact same glossary of anti-White smear words that the jews use, whenever he is discussing issues relating to White Nationalists and pro-White race realists. And, yet - he pretends that he is fighting against the jews - while at the same time, he is following their template and reading from their script? And, like Spingola - when I was initially introduced to Keith Johnson, I found him to be fairly entertaining and for a time I actually thought he was on our side. Until the light bulb came on, and I began to notice the similarities between the venom that the jews spew at racially aware Whites and the choice of language that Johnson would also use when discussing the same subject.

    As for Piper, I really don't know what to say about this fellow. I was one of his biggest fans back in his early days on RBN. But, somewhere along the way, Piper just changed somehow - and it was about the same time he got linked up with Mark Glenn and his circle of associates. I was once a regular listener to the Ugly Truth podcasts - but, after they started with their endless anti-White bashing and started shoveling as much manure on the pro-White movement as they could, I just had to scratch them off my podcast listening list.

    Heck, if I wanted to listen to venom being spewed at Whites, I'd watch regular TV and MSNBC, in particular.

  28. I agree with you that these 4 people are Zionist agents. I have posted several comments to this effect referring to Mark Glenn mainly on other websites namely and Total

    Mark Glenn is a Jew who is working to promote Jewish interests and make no mistake that he is no friend to Muslims either. He is trying to destroy the reputation of Dr Kaasem Khaleel who is a very honorable person in the truth movement.

    Scott Roberts is right in the audio he did on this blog sometime back in pointing out that Mark Glenn behaves like a Jew and in fact he is a Jew.

    Here is something interesting:

    Eddie Devere said to Professor James Fetzer:

    “Jim – you might be right that The Ugly Truth (TUT) is a MC Piper cult but I am inclined to believe it is even worse than that. Having listened to Piper and his lead head-kicker Mark Glenn ramp up his hysterical and vicious attacks on Sandy Hook dissenters you would have to conclude that they are taking orders. And it hasn’t just been the viciousness but their willingness to use Sandy Hook to 1) advocate for gun control 2) embrace the msm (Newsweek) on SH, 3) declare that pesky ‘details’of such events are unimportant. Taken together these positions makes TUT look like something more than just a cult. A lot of people will find this hard to swallow but I can hear Dianne Feinstein saying that: “look, even a virulently anti-Israel group like The Ugly Truth thinks that we need to get rid of guns, so who other than completely insane and irresponsible people would be against gun control.” Remember the freshman Jewish student who was found to be responsible for defacing her own door with swastikas in order to get sympathy? I’m starting to think that TUT is just an elaborate version of those swastikas. Certainly, nothing from Piper, Glenn et al this week has suggested that they have the thinking or writing skills to be the authors of the serious works that have their names on them.”

    Read more:

    1. "He [Mark Glenn]is trying to destroy the reputation of Dr Kaasem Khaleel who is a very honorable person in the truth movement."

      While I like the work of "Dr. K" and his exposing of Sandy Hook and Boston especially, I do not like the fact that he appears on Joyce Riley show and other shows as a completely different identity than "Dr Kaasem Khaleel." On half of his media life, he presents himself as Dr. Kass Ingram of North American Herb and Spice and he tells the listeners all about his oregano oil product.

      Somehow using two completely different identities makes me question whether he is a very honorable person in the truth movement.or a very honorable person in the spice, health food businesses.

  29. There is a one other person who deserves to be exposed and the time is now.

    Professor Paul Pillar former CIA has written a truthful article about the violence that is being waged in and beyond the borders of Egypt by the Egyptian military leader a Jew who ousted President Morsi.

    There is a lot of misinformation that is circulating that Al-Sisi is anti-Zionist which is not the case and one of the culprits doing this is Brother Nathanael Kapner of Real Jew News who has started attacking several people in the truth movement and even calling them “conspiracy theorists”.

    It is time to expose “Orthodox” Brother Nathanael Kapner who is not only dispensing false propaganda about Al Sisi in favor of Israel but also defending Michael Collins Piper and Mark Glenn in order to continue their joint ruse. It now appears that these 3 people have been provocateurs.

    These 3 characters (Orthodox monk, loving father of 9 children and the world famous journalist) have all been created by the Zionist establishment in the CIA/Mossad to deceive the patriotic community and all 3 of them are showing their true colors.

    Brother Nathanael does not allow anyone to post any information about Mark Glenn or his friend MCP on his site: Real Jew News.

    1. There needs to be an investiagion of who exactly BroNate is. He is supposedly a ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) monk but I was never able to confirm that he is truly a monk in a real established Church. The investigation would not be appropriate for this website but it still needs to happen.

      The real truth about BroNate would tell us a lot about Putin and Russia and if all the Jewish oligarchs are really now totally gone or knocked down and if the Russian Orthodox Church is no longer the "state church" of Russian very much owned by the KGB as it historically has been.

  30. Fetzer never explained to us exactly how he knew that all of the various imagery we were shown was the product of a direct camera capture of reality.

    Exactly what make and model camera took each video segment? Exactly what were the exposure settings, frame rate and exact physical locating of each camera at the time they alleged took real-time video?

    Where exactly were those alleged cameras placed again? What is the name of each person who allegedly operated the cameras? Can we verify their identities?

    What about the alleged eye-witnesses? Can we get their true identities? Can we have them provide testimony under oath with criminal penalties for perjury? Can we cross examine the alleged eye-witnesses so that we can gauge their demeanor and assess them as people?

    No. Of course, not.

    We just have to "believe".

    At least that's what Fetzer seems to want us to do.

    Personally, I am not impressed with Fetzer's "work" on the JFK assassination either. Does Fetzer want us all to "believe" that the Zapruder film was also a direct and unaltered camera capture of what happened in Dallas?

    Well, we "know" that the Zapruder film is bullish#t. We "know" that the Zapruder film DID NOT depict what actually happened in Dallas.

    We "know" that messing with imagery is a favorite tactic of a certain group.

    Why does Fetzer do the things he does?

    What is the overall effect of the things that Fetzer does?

    Who is protected by what Fetzer does?

    What is Fetzer's motive?

    It appears that Fetzer wants us to believe that the israeli controlled media operating in the US is presenting us with the truth - at least as far as the imagery they present to us. He says it'a all "real". Believe it.

    Yeah, sure.

    1. Fetzer is one of the leading experts on the Zapruder film. He has been on the front lines exposing its fraudulence for years now.

  31. Anonymous said :" Does Fetzer want us all to "believe" that the Zapruder film was also a direct and unaltered camera capture of what happened in Dallas?"

    Oops! Bit of a "zinger" there, Anon.

    Ironically, indeed Mr Fetzer has been one of the leading lights exposing the fakery of the Zapruder movie, [and to a lesser extent, the moon landings imagery].

    However, he apparently to this day, for example, remains convinced that the Hezarkhani video of Fl. 175's miraculous entry into the S. tower is all genuine [except for the plane mage itself], despite the fact that the left wingtip of the plane image can, in slo-mo replay, be seen to disappear _behind_ a building which was, in reality 100's of yards _ behind_ the S.Tower face depicted in the foreground of the Hezarkhani video :-) .

    See: "Why Jim Fetzer,Ace Baker and Richard Hall Etc. Are Wrong About The Hezarkhani Video" :

    Regards, obf.

  32. The thing is OBF...

    The wing should NOT show any 'sky' of 'spacing' between the building and the wing AT ALL...

    That is the 'masking' or 'drawn' CGI effect...To make the 'plane' appear to pass behind it...No?

  33. Anonymous said: "The wing should NOT show any 'sky' of 'spacing' between the building and the wing AT ALL...

    That is the 'masking' or 'drawn' CGI effect...To make the 'plane' appear to pass behind it...No?"

    I do not understand your point.

    If you view the screen shot I have taken from the video, there is no sky visible at all between the last 3rd or so of the left wing, and the background building .

    The left wing tip of Fl. 175 has completely disappeared _behind_ the background building that is located at least 100 yards behind WTC2.

    Regards, obf.

  34. OBF, that building is NOT beyond the WTC...

    I tried to find a better video, but at the four minute mark you can locate these buildings...

    What I meant to say was Sky OR Spacing...Sure, at some points the wing is not showing a space, but at others it is showing a space, when it should not...There are definitely videos that show that. Its in the Video where John is interviewing Simon Shack on Part one...

    1. obf doesn't want to be bothered with facts. Similarly, I have now been sent yet another 9/11 video, this one taken from a hotel room, that confirms my points about the way in which these films and photographs "hang together".

      Here we also see a lot of paper being blown out of the tower PRIOR TO is destruction--which nullifies the claim that, had it been done with nukes, there would have been NO PAPER--and some of those who jumped, where we can see their lifeless bodies on the concrete below--which suggests that at least some of them were real, where faking them never made a lot of sense to me:

      "Raw 9/11 Footage from a Hotel Window"

    2. "Here we also see a lot of paper being blown out of the tower PRIOR TO is destruction--which nullifies the claim that, had it been done with nukes,"

      You may disagree with the claim, but you have not nullified or proven the claim to be false.

      I guess this is not the true informal logical fallacy of "begging the question" , circular reasoning, but it certainly is close to it.

    3. Jeannon, If there was paper all over the place BEFORE the destruction of the Twin Towers, why would the use of nukes (especially neutron bombs) have PRECLUDED paper being all over the place? You have lost me here.

    4. Firstly, I am not saying that claim made by that person is not false. I do think it could be proven false. I am just saying that you have not proven that claim to be false or “nullified”.

      However the claim does speak to the characteristics observable when a nuke “goes off” or right before the “building is destroyed” and in that sense the claimant is stating one of the things that he thinks proves it was not nukes.

      And then you respond to the claim and ASSUME that it was nukes that destroyed the building. You appear to be assuming the thing you are trying to prove, hence, my saying it certainly sounds like the circular reasoning fallacy.

      The claim sounds stupid on its surface and I wonder why you bother with it.

      I am concerned that you have made several postings in this thread on John Friend’s blog that just do not sound right to me. I have a pretty good sense of when something is not flowing logically, but I had one puny logic class by a little old nun in high school over fifty years ago, and since I do not enjoy being slaughtered, I would not engage you in a debate
      When I see these comments of yours lately here that do not ring true, I am weak and tempted to say something back to you. I confess I have done that a couple of times and managed to refrain from commenting a couple of times. I just wish you would not be placing me in the near occasion of sin so frequently.

      I do not want to see someone whose work on 9-11 I have followed and respected all along “melt down” right in front of me, and lose all the respect he deserves because of so many hours and years of very hard and high quality work.

      Regarding video fakery, if you think Shack and obf crowd are “total frauds”, just stop making references to them and drop them off your site. Let them do their thing in some other venue.

  35. There are many people who use pen names when they write books. Dr K has written books on Natural Therapies where he has used one and that's the reason for going by that name when he goes on shows to discuss natural remedies. Dr K has not committed any crime and he is one of the most courageous people I have come across when it comes to exposing Jewish crime and corruption. He honors free speech and allows people to post their views on his blog even if he disagrees with them. He is a very kind person who is kind to all people and is supportive of White people and he understands what the Jew has done to the White race especially White men. All in all Dr K is a reasonable person and he needs to make a living in this corrupt world filled with Zionist crime and the Zionists have taken his medical license away because they don't like him and they have done this to many doctors.
    Everyone may need even 3 names to survive in this Zionist infested world just to make an honest living.

    "..Scottish author Iain Banks died earlier this week after battling gall bladder cancer. With him died his nom de plume Iain M. Banks, under which he wrote science fiction. I admit I’m not familiar with the work Banks wrote under either name, and when I heard the news, I initially thought it weird that two writers with such similar names died on the same day. I wasn’t alone, and my Twitter feed was soon littered with realizations from others that they were the same guy.

    Some pen names are fairly well-known for what they are. Most people know that Mark Twain was the alias of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. The outing of Richard Bachman as a pen name used by Stephen King was well-publicized and inspired King’s novel, The Dark Half. Some pen names you don’t see coming, though, and assume the name on the book cover is the real deal. Here, eight that threw me for a loop when I first heard about them....."
    Read more:

    1. Using "Anonymous" or "pen names" in these kinds of discussions like this wipes out all the good legitimate and helpful information many of the comments contain. I much more respect people who use their real names.

      Here is a hit piece that TUT did on Dr. K. While I believe Dr. K is absolutely correct in what he writes about Boston and Sandy Hook, it does indicate that Dr. K has somewhat of a shady past. Seems Kaleel is his made-up name and Ingram is his real name. He lost his Chicago license as a osteopath but still holds a license in Iowa I think.

      I think it is kind of funny how TUT uses the "conspiracy theorist" phrase so often. It is also funny how they say Cass Ingram "promotes herbal medicinal remedies." They make him sound almost like one of those charlatan traveling medicine men on wagons in the old west who often had to leave town in a big hurry for fleecing people with bottles of the "remedy" that was nothing but low grade alcohol. My brother used to own and operate a very high end restaurant and club atop a high rise and he was sort of politically active and a hit piece in the newspaper said he ran a "saloon."

      There is a social psychologist who writes for Veterans Today, "Preston James" and many people do not realize that because he has not mentioned that at all I do not think since he worked with Dr. Fetzer on his Peeling the Onion" article of August of 2011. As much as I like many of the writings and inteviews of "Preston James:, I now no longer pay much attention to him.

      "Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government."

      Nowadays everybody is suspecting everybody else of being an "agent" or and "op". That is unfortunate because is almost destroys all our efforts to uncover truth bit by bit by the input of many people. There are people on the comment boards who are "trolls" and indeed are paid to subvert truth seeking. Bravery in using one's real name is very much needed these days. Bravery and courage is also needed by each one of us in taking personal action in our personal lives to say a giant NO NO NO to the evil system we are living under here in the fallen and ended constitutional republic of the USA.

  36. Thank you for the information. I was not aware about the Ugly Lie website article about Dr K. Truth can never be ugly and this is just another twist by a sick mind that is psychopathic. Dr K is a very decent human being who has been attacked by the Zionist controllers of the medical establishment and we all know their viciousness. Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper are vicious Zionists who have infiltrated the truth movement to fracture it on behalf of the Zionists. They each have been given certain assignments and these two are doing the dirty work for the enemies of humanity. They are getting exposed for who they are. Their close friendship to aid each other to keep the ruse going, Michael Collins Piper's attacks on Christopher Bollyn and Professor James Fetzer and Mark Glenn's attacks on Dr K and various White men and their lies about Sandy Hook and other false flags will only backfire.

    I stopped going to the Ugly Lie site because this vicious man was constantly attacking White men and was picking fights with them all the time for no reason except hatred and jealousy in his heart and his affiliation with ADL and DHS and never went back although I like Mark Dankof who is a very decent White man trapped in a tyrannical relationship. I hope Mark Dankoff will leave this tyrant so that his tribulations will improve.

  37. I have to agree with your assessment of Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper. I stopped listening to MG, MCP and the rest of the TUT crowd long before Sandy Hook even occurred because I found it highly suspicious that they repeatedly accepted the official story on all the recent mass shootings, like Batman/Aurora, Sikh Temple, Norway, and Gabby Giffords, which all had highly questionable elements. I'm actually surprised that they still have a following given the fact that they support the Jewish media narrative on all of these suspicious events. The only time MG and the TUT crowd ever question events is if a Muslim is accused.

    And I'm not at all surprised by MG's smear attacks on Dr. K, as this is completely consistent with his low character, which became glaringly apparent in his vicious attacks on those of us questioning Sandy Hook. It's sad to see that Deanna Spingola has also adopted the TUT/MG/MCP/KJ smear tactics and recently accused Wolfgang Halbig of lying about being a school safety expert and about being harassed by law enforcement. She even went so far as to suggest he was jewish and was doing this for attention. Her comments are posted here at 6:19:

  38. Thanks for taking the time to write the above informative post. It will be a futile effort to attack a well trained, highly experienced and reputable person like Wolfgang Halbig and it's sure to backfire.

    Dr K is a very talented and skillful professional who along with Dr Mercola have been a great blessing to many people who have healed their ailments with Natural therapies they have advocated. To slander good people who help the advancement of the planet is by itself sinister and sinful. Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper are mean spirited people who engage in mean and ugly behaviors and are Jews. Mark Glenn is there as a provocateur and he is of no real help to Muslims either. He pretends to be a friend only to create a rift between various groups.

    They are envious of good people and the success these good people enjoy because these two vicious people are unhappy with their lives as no one who harms innocent people can experience happiness. Dr K enjoys his work and he is a productive person like Professor James Fetzer and I enjoy their work.

    Hate and ill will toward fellow human beings will not bring anyone peace or happiness and Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper will continue to suffer misery which will make them more hostile and vicious. To every action there is an equal reaction and they will reap what they sow.

  39. Below are relevant links for this program:

    Sandy Hook: Free homes and "big bucks" incentives for leaders and players - Dr. Jim Fetzer with Wolfgang Halbig

    I just wanted to make a brief comment relating to Sandy Hook and Halbig, which I think is not completely off topic.

    At the very beginning of Alex Jones' Wed. Feb 26 show, he said that he was going to have Wolfgang Halbig as his guest the next day, Thurs Feb 27, for a full hour.

    Alex gave a very fair and balanced introduction to Sandy Hook and Halbig and said it had all the marks of a staged event. Alex did say "I believe they killed real kids."

    Alex's stance to day was that Adam Lanza was under the influence of powerful psychotropic drugs and that Lanza did indeed do the killing. Jon Rappaport had been on Jones' shows several times doing the "it's the drugs" and there was a "lone gunman" mantras.


    I tuned in Thursday to see how Alex treated Halbig and see if he would give Mr. Halbig a fair interview, as much as any Genesis show host can do that in light of the fact that 27 minutes of every 60 minutes are ads and breaks of various kinds.

    On Thursday, the show began with David Knight saying "I am David Knight and I will be filling in for Alex today." And then David very quickly skipped on to how great the show for the day was going to be. Usually the substitute show host gives some brief explanation of why Alex has not shown up to do the show, but this appears to deliberately not have happened.

    Then David said Mr. Halbig was going to be the guest for the full second hour of the three-hour show.

    While I know that David Knight does better interviews than Alex in terms of objectivity and fairness, I was particularly interested in hearing Alex Jones do a fair interview of Halbig.

    As the first hour of the Thursday was drawing to an end, David Knight said that they had received a call from Wolfgang Halbig who said he could not be on the show because of a family emergency. David Knight said we should pray for Mr. Halbig. I believe Knight said they would try to reschedule Halbig for a future show.

    I just had the feeling that there was a REASON Alex did not show up to do the interview. I believe Alex Jones has handlers and his handlers did not want Alex to do the interview. It was as if Alex's handlers were worried Alex would screw up and agree with Mr. Halbig's thesis that Sandy Hook was entirely a staged event and that no one was killed.

    Alex's handlers probably gave David Knight strict instructions on how to make it appear that he did a very fair and balanced interview of Halbig but to be careful to not agree with Mr. Halbig's theory.

    Also I believe that Mr. Halbig, and possibly those guiding Mr. Halbig ("Halbig's handlers"), definitely did not want to be interviewed on that show by anyone but Alex Jones. I think that was a big precondition Halbig had though may not have overtly stated. So that is why I think Mr. Halbig called in with the excuse at the last minute to bow out of the show.


    These are just my speculations about something that appears very minor. However, Alex Jones appears very much to have some strong Zionist/Jewish controllers around his show and everything he does and says so this little incident kind of tells me those controllers do not want Sandy Hook to be portrayed as what Mr. Halbig thinks it is, but Alex's handlers do want to keep the show's image of being fair and balanced and objective. So maybe this points us to the Sandy Hook operation as having very definite Zionist/Jewish operatives involved.

  40. I would think hologram technology would be a good choice, but why then would they use holgrams that did not look like a real AA plane and have pods underneath? Unless that would just add to the confusion..So the fake videos with real planes maybe?I dont know but the perps def did a good job confusing the issue..I dont think they would have taken a chance therefore i do not think there were real planes but maybe someone can answer my questions if no real planes were used why not make the CGI look exactly like the planes were blamed on..


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.