Sunday, March 9, 2014

The Realist Report - 9/11 debate

On this edition of The Realist Report, we will be hosting a debate between two astute independent researchers into the events of 9/11. Don Fox and OneBornFree have radically different perspectives of what actually took place on 9/11, how the WTC towers were destroyed, the role the mass media played, who was ultimately responsible and why. We will be debating these and other issues pertaining to 9/11 during this program. Calls will be taken in the second hour.

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

I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in and supported the Spring 2014 fundraiser for The Realist Report and this website! If you appreciate and support what we're doing here, please consider showing that appreciation and support by participating in the fundraiser and making a financial contribution. You can make a simple, easy donation using a debit or credit card through Paypal by clicking on the "Donate" button on the upper right hand side of this page. If you are uncomfortable using Paypal, please email me directly and we can make proper arrangements. Let's make the Spring 2014 fundraiser a success!

Opening statement: First off, I want to thank both of you for agreeing to this debate, and I'd also like to thank Dr. Jim Fetzer and Simon Shack for their important contributions to our collective understanding of 9/11, what really happened that day, how the operation was pulled off, who was responsible and why. In my view 9/11 is the most important and game-changing event of our lifetimes. 9/11 was the seminal event of this young century, and has had disastrous ramifications on American foreign and domestic policy, international relations and other aspects of social and political policy-making in the United States and around the world.

The official government and mass media explanation for the events of 9/11 is fraudulent on virtually all accounts. In my view, it has been firmly established that:
  1. 9/11 was a sophisticated psychological operation involving extensive media deception including the presentation of manipulated or entirely fabricated video and photographic imagery coupled with false, scripted testimony from alleged "eye witnesses", "terrorism and National Security experts", government officials and other individuals presumed to be in positions of authority, both on the day of 9/11 itself and in the days, week, and months following that fateful day.
  2. The official government and media promoted conspiracy theory alleging that fanatical Islamic terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda hijacked commercial airliners filled with innocent American passengers and then crashed those airliners into the World Trade Center towers in New York City causing their destruction, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and a field Pennsylvania is an entirely fabricated, media manufactured deception
  3. 9/11 was planned, organized and executed largely by Jewish criminals connected to the state of Israel controlling key positions of power within the United States federal government and municipal governmental organizations and institutions in New York City. Jewish criminals also owned and controlled the World Trade Center complex and it is a well known fact that the mass media - which was the primary means by which the 9/11 deception was executed - is almost exclusively owned and controlled by Jewish criminals with deep ties to the state of Israel.
  4. The events of 9/11 have been used to justify the illegal, fraudulent, and completely immoral and unjustifiable criminal wars of aggression the United States military and her NATO allies have and continue to prosecute in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. The entire "Global War on Terror" was pre-planned by Israeli military and political strategists working in conjunction with Jewish intellectuals and public policy makers embedded in key positions within the United States political, intelligence and academic establishment. The "Global War on Terror" was designed to advance a strategic Israeli geopolitical agenda in the Middle East which would ultimately result in Zionist hegemony in the region using American and NATO military, financial, and human capital. 
  5. The events of 9/11 have also been used to justify the tyrannical abuses and subversion of the U.S. Constitution and traditional Western jurisprudence. The PATRIOT Act, torture at Guantanamo Bay and other prisons operated by the United States military and intelligence community, extraordinary rendition, targeted assassinations using unmanned drones and other domestic police state policies, in addition to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, were justified by the official explanation of the events of 9/11. The "Homeland Security" paradigm American domestic policy is currently formulated in is yet another Jewish constructed agenda which was planned well in advance of 9/11.
These are the basic conclusions I have come to regarding the events of 9/11. The issues we are going to be discussing and debating today are important. However, in my opinion the conclusions I just laid out are the most important ones that need to be brought to the attention of the American and global public.

The foundation of the 9/11 deception is that Muslim hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City. This is the most important aspect of 9/11 that needs to be exposed. The entirety of the official story rests upon this and the whole core of the deception falls apart when the seemingly strongest piece of evidence is in actual fact the weakest piece of evidence. No planes hit the World Trade Center towers, there were no Muslim hijackers, no passengers on board any of the alleged commercial airliners, therefore there can be no justification for the "Global War on Terror" and "Homeland Security". All other aspects that we discuss and debate on this program will always be secondary in importance to this simple fact.


  1. Thanks, John for inviting me on your show. For those interested , here is some more info about me:

    About "Onebornfree":

    Specific 9/11 blog posts:

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

    "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage":

    Onebornfree [Fake-Eye "D"] Music: Live solo [@"Open mikes"]:

    "Dreams [Anarchist Blues]":

    2: "Studio"/home computer recordings :

    "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" [Gospel/Blues/Hip-hop mix] :

    Onebornfree's "The Freedom Network":

    Onbornfree's Financial Safety & Privacy Blog:

    Onebornfree's Mythbusters and Freedom Network Blog:

    Onebornfree's "The Problem Solver": solving personal freedom issues, privacy, research/investigation, mediation, business and personal, fitness,health, relationships, etc. etc. FREE consultations via Skype or email:

    Regards, obf.

  2. Guess Ill jump in and bit first.

    I found the show to be without conflict or disharmony. That is good because I would have tuned out on that.

    The opponents seemed in many ways to present their position in a much more moderate light, not near as much "absolutism" that was shown in their comments and postings Dr. Fetzer's RealDeal radio show blog.

    Something I found rather odd was that OBF said near nothing about all the videos that have become available over the years that were NOT part of the infamous 102 minutes of "live" TV network broadcasting on 9-11.

    Simon Shack, and OBF to some extent who 're - presents" Shack's work but is not a formal represenative of Shack and Clues Forum, always made a big deal about how all the videos could be considered all faked because...

    "Electronic jamming devices routinely used in modern warfare were most likely in place as an extra “safety-measure” to impede any private cameras from capturing the morning’s events on film (and yes – I have a few credible testimonies to this effect). This is no science-fiction tech: For just $790, you can buy a consumer device which de-activates any video camera within a range of 70 meters. (Do a Google search for “Spymodex video jamming”). Now, imagine what the Pentagon might have! "


    So today OBF confines his comments to the videos being shown on TV as being 100% faked.

    OBF says Dr. Fetzer is just not applying rigorous scientific and legal standard analyzing techniques or even just basic logic when Dr. Fetzer says he accepts that some of the videos and still photos should be accepted as genuine. I think Dr. Fetzer has some reasonable reasons for accepting some of the videos and photos, though I do not think he as expressed them clearly or widely enough.

    But OBF's "anarco-libertarian" worldview seems to provide him the carte blanche to throw out all government studies (USGS, DOE, etc) and ALL videos and ALL still photos, as well as the free rein to lump together and then discount all groups, i.e., the jews, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, etc possible role in 9-11.
    So in this sense, OBF, while seeming to be much more moderate in his presentation today, is really demonstrating his standard "it's ALL FAKE" extreme position.

    Don did a nice job of presenting his viewpoint but it was clear that Don accepts at face value reports and information from various sources that OBF considers all totally bogus sources.

    One thing that causes me to wonder was regarding the information Don gave saying that 1,634 people's DNA had been positively identified as being that of 9-11 Tower victims.
    There has to be already in a national database a DNA profile on a person to have the DNA sample obtained from "Ground Zero" able to be positively matched so that you can say that you have the "identification" of the victim. I just doubt that 1,634 people who were in Towers that day were people who had a DNA profile "on file" in those national databases, which are primarily made up of people's DNA profiles who have committed crimes. The data is sent in to the national database from crime labs from state and local sources mainly as I understand it. Just wondering.

    Thank you, John, for having the show. It went well. We must never forget 9-11.

    Contrary to OBF's libertarian Randian "virtue of selfishness" worldview, I think most of us have a need to search for the truth and we do not consider it a big waste of our time and energy to continue searching.

    1. Jeannon,

      Great comment:

      "I found the show to be without conflict or disharmony. That is good because I would have tuned out on that."

      I try to make these shows LISTENABLE for the audience. I don't like to listen to shouting matches and you don't either. I wanted to get my info out and that's what I did.

      As far as accepting DOE and USGS reports at face value I will say this: there is no good reason to doubt them. Finding tritiated water in the basement of a building with giant hole blasted in it makes sense. Finding evidence of ternary fission in the USGS dust samples makes sense when you consider what happened that day. Those reports fit in with other data quite nicely.

      The NIST report that states that puny office fires demolished giant skyscrapers. That's a load of BS and we all know it. Government reports are usually either really good or really bad - there isn't much middle ground.

      For those that want to know what happened to the biggest buildings in America's biggest city I laid it out for them.

      I've got more info on my blog:

  3. It is the same gang who control NIST that control DOE and USGS. How can we trust any of them if they are controlled by the same deceptive gang?

    There isn't any reports on any radiation damage to any films rolls in NY if Manhattan was nuked that day. Some films should have had some evidence of clear exposure to Ionizing radiation, but what we have is nothing. According to Pentagon reports, nukes should emit lots of this type of radiation, and that should be detected in some of these very sensitive film rolls.

    That Manhattan was nuked 911, sounds like some script for a James Bond movie.

    1. What about the 1,400 toasted cars and 1,100 people that got vaporized by the nukes?

    2. toasted cars?

      You mean "pictures of toasted cars".


      Pictures are not "proof". They are "pictures".

      They are "pictures" just like the fake images of "planes" striking the towers.

      I know how difficult it is for some to mentally process that "pictures" may not actually be a magic window on the real world.

      I know....thinking is hard to do and not everyone is cut our for it.

    3. And all the plates are missing in these pixels of thousands of toasted cars. This simple fact has to be explained. No plates on thousands of cars in NY isn't credible. Some staged and foolish cartoonish Photoshopped stuff is the simplest explanation.

  4. MY MISTAKE! : In the interview I mentioned the miraculous editing skills of the CNN studio editor concerning the live feed of the collapse of WTC2- this was a mistake on my part, I meant the WTC1 sequence. See:

    "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage":

    Also, regarding alleged victim Louis Mariani and his unusual haircut, please see:
    "Behold! Louis Mariani 9/11 Victim, Purple-Haired Punk-Rocker & King of Opera!":

    Regards, obf.

    p.s. Regarding the writings of Ayn Rand, although I have read practically all of her books, I am not a "Randian" in any way, shape or form. Rand was a statist, [a believer in governments], I am not.

  5. Overall a positive contribution to the corpus. If I might offer some constructive criticism, I do wish John, as moderator, had been a bit more rigorous regarding presentation of evidence. If someone says "according to the USGS, X, Y and Z," then I want to know (1) what's the name of the report, (2) when was it published, (3) who was the author or authors, (4) what are the authors' qualifications? That's just for starters. USGS is not a person, nor is the US government. By ignoring that fact, we are led to inapt rebuttals that are appropriate when dealing with individuals but not organizations, namely, if Joe Smith has lied in the past, he may be therefore untrustworthy to give testimony now. Fine. But Joe Smith is an individual. It does not follow that because some people who work for the US government have lied in the past, that all testimony from anyone working for the US government must therefore be disregarded forever into the future. As a more specific example, the 911 commission report has been criticized and discredited on its own terms. If the USGS report is subject to similar criticism, then let it be presented on its own terms, and let its authors' credibility stand or fall according to their merit, not simply because the entity that published the report has published other untrue statements by other authors in the past.

    1. ttp://

      Open-File Report 01-0429
      Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack.
      Version 1.1
      Published November 27, 2001
      Roger N. Clark1, Robert O. Green2, Gregg A. Swayze1, Greg Meeker1, Steve Sutley1, Todd M. Hoefen1, K. Eric Livo1, Geoff Plumlee1, Betina Pavri2, Chuck Sarture2, Steve Wilson1, Phil Hageman1, Paul Lamothe1, J. Sam Vance3, Joe Boardman4 Isabelle Brownfield1, Carol Gent1, Laurie C. Morath1, Joseph Taggart1, Peter M. Theodorakos1, and Monique Adams1
      1U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado
      2Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, California
      3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Denver, Colorado
      4Analytical Imaging and Geophysics, LLC Boulder, Colorado


      Also see this article with several other references and links...

      All one has to do is type in the search term "USGS 9-11 dust study" into any search engine.

      Also Don Fox and Dr. James Fetzer have hyperlinks in their articles on nukes on 9-11 at

      I agree that a brief explanation of where people can go to read the study and read and participate in discussions of the study might have been appropriate, but no more than that. Discussing the study in detail would have been inappropriate to John Friend's discussion "debate" at hand.

      And especially so since OBF made it crystal clear that ANYTHING that comes to us in the way of information, data, "evidence" etc. regarding is a priori to be disregarded. All things emanating from "government" are by definition "criminal."


      " It does not follow that because some people who work for the US government have lied in the past, that all testimony from anyone working for the US government must therefore be disregarded forever into the future. "

      Excellent point. But in OBF-THINK it does follow.

      "Why would they fake the planes but not fake the collapse?" ...'Pure logic.'


      I would like to see some real, carefully planned, debates, done in text only, on various important aspects of 9-11. What we have seen on radio show debates recently are not real debates in any sense of the term.,

  6. If any of the listeners would like to discuss further any of the issues I raised in the "debate", please feel free to email me at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom. We can then set up a time to talk via skype, if you like, or maybe briefly discuss via email, your choice.


  7. It was indeed an interesting discussion, with Don Fox citing evidence and drawing conclusions from a USGS study that OBF regarded as invalid, because it came from the same government that gave us the tale of 19 Arab-Muslim hijackers.

    It was great to hear Don Fox present things so calmly, well, and not attack anyone. OBF, don't play your guitar when he's talking, even if you don't think his sources are trustworthy.

    As for the reliability of the USGS study, I do have to come down on the side of saying it can't be taken as valid for purposes of alternative 9/11 research at all, and that is because of my experience with the U.S. $400 billion+ AIDS scam since 1984.

    You can actually see the original AIDS papers that were fraudulently altered by Robert Gallo, the man who claimed HIV was the probable cause of AIDS, with his lead scientist actually finding that despite intensive research efforts, the probable cause of AIDS had not been found. This fact went undiscovered and might have never been known, until 1993, thanks to the Dingell Commission.

    To this very day, Robert Gallo still gets support by the U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies, after he had his first conviction overturned, and the fact that HIV has never been proven to be the probable cause of AIDS is a little known fact to most, thanks to the duplicity and coverup of various U.S. government agencies.

    Therefore, I cannot take the USGS study as reliable in any way whatsoever, until proven otherwise, and any evidence cited and conclusions drawn therefrom, do not inform me as to my conclusions about what took place on 9/11.

  8. Anonymous said : "I know how difficult it is for some to mentally process that "pictures" may not actually be a magic window on the real world."

    Precisely, Anon.

    However, according to Fox/ Fetzer et al, an unverified picture of a "toasted" car [or whatever], is confirmed as being genuine merely by the presence of numerous other, equally unverified pictures of similarly "toasted" cars.....and vice-versa - the original unverified picture magically verifies the other unverified pictures!

    It's a truly magical process- all of the unverified pictures wind up verifying each other :-) .

    Then, for good measure, simply throw into that mix completely unverified "eyewitness testimony" from a couple of persons who claim to have seem "toasted" cars on 9/11, and voila!, we have 100% "authentic" images of "toasted" cars [or whatever] , or as Fetzer/Fox/ Greenhalgh would claim "9/11 imagery that all hangs together".

    This is what Fakeologist [AbIrato] has called "Fetzel Logic" . You gotta love it :-).

    See: "9/11 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method " :

    Regards, obf.

  9. To any/all: to clarify; the point about the USGS study is not that a 9/11 researcher should automatically dismiss it immediately as untrustworthy, merely because it is from a part of the US government [as I now personally invariably would do, as I regard all governments as 100% criminal enterprises, as I stated in the show]; only that it cannot/should not be believed or disbelieved until properly verified by an individual researcher, who cannot possibly know it is trustworthy or not without investigating it thoroughly first.

    Fox , as a researcher, has apparently made no genuine attempt to ever properly verify the alleged USGS study, but has instead merely regurgitated it as God's honest truth, revealing a research pre-bias that has no place in scientific research, in my opinion.

    As far as overall trustworthiness of the USGS goes, see, for example:

    "USGS is Lying about Earthquakes ":

    But, I guess if you guys, like Fox, wish to go ahead and accept on trust, and swallow, "hook line and sinker", an alleged "scientific report" from your beloved US government, despite the fact that it has lied to you about every aspect of 9/11 from day one, then that is your choice. Have fun with that :-) .

    Regards obf.

    1. If they could fake the "live" news reports 911, on all networks, how hard would it be for this gang to fake some simple reports much later? Should be a piece of cake for them, for sure.

  10. Interesting point about photos of the towers "pit" and molten material. If nukes were used, wouldn't there be high radioactivity and therefore evidence of radioactivity in the photos?

  11. How can someone who is not trustworthy enough to even identify themselves and who does not believe or disbelieve in anything related to 9-11 tell anyone else, especially those who have done the most careful and thorough 9-11 investigation what to do or not do and how to determine what is "trustworthy"?

    John Friend was nice to give you your last hurrah.

    We have all seen enough of your anonymous tap dancing. We have seen what you have to offer and it has been found wanting.

    Incompetency without integrity.

    1. Leave Off With Ad Hominem Arguments

      Jeannon: once again u fail--WHY do u demand people ID themselves?--working for ZOG?--trying to help ZOG?

      NEWSFLASH: there's outstanding reason not to be too public so that ZOG and minions can come after u.

      Newsflash: all u're doing, ONCE AGAIN, is falling for the ad-hominem fallacy--attacking the person, diverting fm the substance.

      So if there's something wrong w. someone's argument, u need to pt. it out--FORGET the balderdash about the person--this is an old Jew trick, which they always use--a dead give-away.

  12. OBF, you say the show lasted 102 minutes. so all done then by when, 10.30? So, at what time do you say WTC7 fell?

    Now, this is a question, OBF. What time do you say WTC7 fell? Was it still standing at 5.00pm? I believe it was, doesn't that complicate your 102 minute theory?

    1. Don, all the crucial moments 911, and the BigLie, and the basis for the War on Terror, and all this other nonsense we have to go along with, was created within this timeframe of 103 minutes.

      First they presented the very crucial attack by these foreign hijackers in these commercial planes that crashed into WTC. After 102 minutes WTC1&2 had collapsed, and that created the victims part of the story. Also part of the basis for WoT etc. Planes (with foreign hijackers)+victims=WoT.

      WTC7 is not a part of the basis for WoT, and isn't crucial at all, more like a BIG distraction. My guess is that they blew up WTC7 at about the same time as they aired the story.

    2. Don makes an excellent point. WCT-7 collapsed--the only one of the "big three" that actually DID collapse--at 5:20 PM/ET. That means obf's 102 minute time line is grossly inaccurate.

      His insistence that all of those videos were faked ignores the dozen plus sources of information we have about what happened to the Twin Towers, which I have elaborated elsewhere. Here are some crucial considerations:

      1- There were many Hollywood-style special effects, such as the smoke produced from the massive dumpsters in front of the Pentagon, the planting of a piece of fuselage from a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995, and so forth.

      But the wholesale faking of the Twin Towers footage is a fantasy for at least three reasons:

      (a) If they were going to fake the "collapse" of the Twin Towers, they would have filmed it as a collapse, not where both buildings are blowing apart in every direction from the top down and there is no pile of debris when it was over;

      (b) all the films and photos take from 100s of positions by multiple independent sources--some on the ground, some in the air, many in New York, others in New Jersey, on and on--hang together as images of a single unified process or event in each case;

      (c) to the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward to report that what they saw in relation to the demolition sequences was not what we see in these videos. I asked OBF about this repeatedly. Which means that he is making a claim for which he has no evidence.

      2- I agree all four of the crash sites were faked or fabricated, albeit in different ways. See "Planes/No Planes and 'video fakery'" for an early piece about this; see "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", Part 2, for a more recent presentation.

      3- I also agree that the major structures of the WTC were destroyed using extremely powerful explosives, which appear to have been mini neutron bombs. I have multiple articles about this from "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II" to (most recently) the first parts of "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2", which is devoted to this question just as the rest is to the faking of the crash sites.

      4- No doubt the number who died has been exaggerated. For example, no passengers dies on flights that did not crash. Two were no even in the air and the other two not deregistered until 28 September 2005. Planes that were not in the air on 9/11 did not crash on 9/11 and planes that were not taken out of service until 28 September 2005 did not crash on 9/11.

      Notice that, if obf were correct, we would be left with no visual evidence of what happened to the Twin Towers. Yet we know (a) they were present, (b) then they were gone, (c) they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, (d) they were demolished below ground level.

      We also know that (e) thousands of tons of dirt was brought into Ground Zero, which was also done at Chernobyl, (e) that first-responders are dying from many odd forms of cancer associated with exposure to radiation, and (f) that the elements found in the USGS dust samples indications that this was a nuclear event (using primarily micro or mini neutron bombs).

      Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, where obf wants to pick and choose and toss out some of the most important evidence we have, including the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the USGS dust samples, which is completely unscientific. He has offered no good reasons for doing that, yet it would have an adverse impact on sorting out what happened on 9/11.

      If the government were going to fake dust samples or videos, surely then it would create fake dust samples that were consistent with a collapse of the Twin Towers, not with its nuclear demolition. And likewise for the USGS dust samples. For all his ranting and raving about science and scientific method, the one who is violating the canons of science is obf, not Jim Fetzer.

    3. So OBF didn't reply to me. I expect he believes WTC7 did fall down in the late afternoon. I would like to ask him if he believes footage of the fall of WTC7 is real or faked.

      What do ya say OBF?

  13. Jim Fetzer said :

    "Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, where obf wants to pick and choose and toss out some of the most important evidence we have, including the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the USGS dust samples, which is completely unscientific. He has offered no good reasons for doing that, yet it would have an adverse impact on sorting out what happened on 9/11."

    But _nothing_ can be evidence of _anything_ until it has been first thoroughly checked for authenticity! Even a fool knows that much, surely?

    Which means that allegedly live videos of WTC tower destructions are _not_ , and can never be, authentic evidence until they have first been thoroughly checked for authenticity, independently of each other.

    Until such close analysis occurred, no honest scientist could know if the videos [or any other types of alleged evidence] were real, or fake.

    But instead of actually getting around to seriously checking for authenticity any/all collapse sequences etc., ALL _you_ and your cohorts have repeatedly offered is a list of lame excuses as to why you don't ever have to perform any such checks on any of this material.

    _You_ are the person who is being wholly unscientific and picking and choosing, by your repeated elevation of completely unverified video imagery, photographs, and eyewitness testimony to the level of trustworthy evidence, without ever having made a serious attempt to thoroughly, individually check for authenticity even one of the sequences/still photos or alleged eyewitnesses you continually cherry-pick as being authentic in order to bolster your own hypothesis about what did/did not happen on 9/11. .

    Exactly the same disturbing lack of serious analysis applies to your wholly unscientific acceptance of the purportedly "trustworthy" USGS "study" .

    No regards, obf

    p.s. And while I'm at it, thank you so much for all of the ad hominems/attempted character assassinations of myself by yourself and Fox etc. over the last 6-8 months, both at Veterans Today and at your own radio show blog, culminating in the Veterans Today shameless, comedic hit-piece:

    "Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors":

    Thanks for the laughs, Messrs. Fetzer , Fox and Greenhalgh - much appreciated- :-) .

    1. Don't worry, OBF. Maybe all of the negative articles on you at VT are part of Gordon Duff's 40% disinfo quota over there. :)

  14. For all of you Fetzer/Fox supporters out there, its worth remembering that these two clowns are telling you, with straight faces, no less, that on 9/11 one tower collapsed, as per the N.I.S.T. account, in _9_ seconds flat, and the other one collapsed in 11 seconds flat. [Fox regurgitated this particular "fact" during the interview].

    You gotta love it :-) .

    Thats how dumb these two clowns [and the N.I.S.T.] think _you_ and most everyone else, is, and sadly, in many cases, they are correct.


    1. OBF, I wondered about that myself last year, noticing the obvious relation to the date of 9/11.

      I was about to send a friend a video of the collapsing towers, where they are still falling past the 9 and 11 second times, as that would be a huge problem with NIST's claims.

      Then, I came across this NIST document, saying it was the "approximate" time taken for the first exterior panels to hit the ground, and not the entire buildings.

      "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."

      Still, it is an interesting "coincidence".

  15. Typical of obf, he cannot be honest about even the simplest aspects of our differences in opinion. He calls us "clowns" and says we claim that the buildings "collapsed" in 9 and 11 seconds, when we deny that they collapsed and assert they were blown apart.

    Such lingering vestiges of respect or kindness I may have felt in the past toward obf have been completely obliterated--as completely as were the Twin Towers--by his lies and misrepresentations, which appear to know no bounds. He is an unmitigated fraud.

    Here is yet another video he would have us believe was fabricated or faked in advance:

  16. Jim Fetzer said : "He calls us "clowns" and says we claim that the buildings "collapsed" in 9 and 11 seconds, when we deny that they collapsed and assert they were blown apart."

    So you want to argue over semantics, fer Chrissakes?

    O.K. fine; yourself and Fox claim that . as per the N.IS.T "study" one of the twin towers was "blown apart" in 9 secs flat, and the other one in 11 secs. flat.

    Happy now?

    Jim Fetzer said :" Such lingering vestiges of respect or kindness I may have felt in the past toward obf have been completely obliterated--as completely as were the Twin Towers--by his lies and misrepresentations, which appear to know no bounds. He is an unmitigated fraud."

    Lets get the chronology straight, Fetzer, so all can see who is lying, and about what, and exactly who is "an unmitigated fraud" here.

    _You_ [and Fox] started attacking me with ad hominems etc., for no good reason, [I was still being extremely polite to you at that time], in the comments sections of yours [and Fox's] Sept. of 2013 Veterans Today articles- to the extent that in those comment sections a fellow Veterans Today contributer, Stuart Ogilby, called you out on your behavior towards myself.

    Did that stop you? No.

    After this I appeared on your radio show for the 3rd time and _still_ maintained my civility.

    Despite your good behavior during that radio show [Sept 2013], you [and Fox] subsequently reverted to the exact same pattern of character assassination in the comments sections of various shows of yours featuring guests discussing aspects of 911 in which I myself made [at first] polite comments, culminating in your sorry-assed piece of trash journalism/ disinfo at Veterans Today, by yourself and fellow adoring cronies Fox and Halghreen, entitled : "Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors":

    The only "unmitigated fraud" around here would appear to be _yourself_[and associates]; a person claiming education in the scientific method who is apparently 100% dedicated to completely ignoring that method as regards the necessary analysis of possible evidence concerning the events of 911.

    As I concluded in my article "9/11 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method " : are either a very poor excuse for an investigative scientist or a paid disinfo agent.

    I am not going to waste my valuable time trying to determine which of those two possibilities is actually true, however, as I have more important things to do with my time.

    However, I_will_ continue to expose your fraudulent "scientific method" every chance I get, here and elsewhere.

    And the more it pisses you and your adoring cronies off, the happier I will be :-) .

    I am a patient, perhaps overly polite man, up to a point , but you crossed "the line" one too many times quite a while back, via your continual loud-mouthed, pontifcating "I'm a credentialed expert so shut the phuck up" horseshit and character assassinations aimed at both myself, and now Simon Shack and others.

    No regards, obf.

  17. Jim Fetzer wrote:

    "Here is yet another video he would have us believe was fabricated or faked in advance:"

    Dr Fetzer, that is a video from the NIST archives (inexplicably released only in 2010) titled "Unique, rare 9/11 material shot from the Hudson". I analyzed it back in May 2012 - so please spend a minute of your time understanding how we can determine - in this particular case - that it is not a genuine, authentic video :

    To be sure, there are countless problems (of all kinds) to be found in all the extant 9/11 video material - as we have methodically been demonstrating at Cluesforum for well over half-a-decade now. I fully realize that it requires considerable time and patience for anyone to sift through the vast amount of evidence of image-forgery that we have gathered throughout the years: however, this would be an obligatory effort required for anyone (such as yourself) who wishes to opine on this subject matter. For you to just keep posting links to these 9/11 video clips (which I'm fully familiar with, thank you very much) and saying "look! This video looks quite authentic to me!" - just won't cut it. I have not seen you performing any sort of imagery research of your own in all these years. It is a field of inquiry for which you clearly have no specific qualifications / expertise and / or willingness (?) to pursue. Whatever is the case, it would be wiser for you - and your credibility as a 9/11 investigator - to quit relentlessly opining (and rather aggressively so) on our work in this particular research area.

    Simon Shack

    1. Simon- I have posted a similar message to Dr. Fetzer. I started watching your movie 2009 and must have spent the next 3 yrs on your material. People w low attention spans get distracted and fall by the wayside of serious understanding that your research presents. Dr. Fetzer should stick to JFK research ive concluded.

    2. Norwegian (Simon Shack) said…
      “To be sure, there are countless problems (of all kinds) to be found in all the extant 9/11 video material - as we have methodically been demonstrating at Cluesforum for well over half-a-decade now.”

      How can one say one has looked at “all the extant 9-11 video material” when none of us have a September Clue what the extant 9-11 video material is?

  18. Simon Shack said : ".. that is a video from the NIST archives (inexplicably released only in 2010) titled "Unique, rare 9/11 material shot from the Hudson". I analyzed it back in May 2012 - so please spend a minute of your time understanding how we can determine - in this particular case - that it is not a genuine, authentic video : "

    That's a great analysis Simon- very clear, and one I'd forgotten about. It was good to revisit it.

    What particularly struck me on re-review of your 2 selected frames, besides the magically shrinking black line you point out, was the "in your face" obviousness of the smoke cloning, particularly in the first [larger] frame. Tiny faces everywhere you look!

    Regards, obf.

  19. The NIST source / release of this video is curious. The same for this video that Dr. Fetzer cited…
    "Raw 9/11 Footage from a Hotel Window"

    Raw 9/11 Footage from a Hotel Window
    CTV911•419 videos

    Uploaded on Mar 14, 2011
    Looking down on bodies of jumpers, plane roars above out of sight then the tape cuts mid explosion -- full length tape from the International Center for 9/11 Studies NIST FOIA, release 27, folder 42A0276 - G26D153 “

    It is odd that these people all submitted their videos to NIST and NIST only, and then NIST held them 9 years or more before releasing them for subsequent posting on YouTube by someone. There are other videos with this recent upload to YT with the NIST source. (These videos may be loaded with every kind of deception and rabbit trails including total creation of the video, and to me, the NIST source alone is a game changer.)

    I can only surmise about professional video analysis and verification for authenticity. If any clear evidence of any kind of altering such as CGI or composit/layering or any other technique is found in a video, then the video could be automatically invalidated. (No matter how much anyone thinks Dr. Fetzer is a “trained scientist” and that it is he and he alone who must be responsible for the professional video analysis, that is not true. )

    There can be other kinds of anomalies in the videos that are less strong and do not automatically invalidate the video, but if found with several other such anomalies in the same video, then their strength toward invalidation becomes much stronger.

    I do not see how any video can ever be fully validated, authenticated or substantiated for the reason that is is not possible to positively assess the date and time the video was taken. So no matter how free a video is of any overt anomalies or revision/amendment techniques, it would never be possible pronounce a video validated or authenticated. ( I now wonder how videos could ever be used in a court of law trial as evidence.)

    Ideally, all the videos we have in the public domain could be carefully cataloged and every bit of information about each be duly documented in the database, including all the findings and observations of people associated with the September Clues forums. The date and source of each data point in the data base would be recorded and no anonymous sources would be accepted. Clear standards for classifying the “grades” or results of the comprehensive objective analysis of each subject video and database would be set out in advance.

    Since we could not even get one group of honest people to perform a comprehensive objective investigation and analysis of the entire 9-11-01 event, I find it highly unlikely we could ever find a professional video analysis expert or group of experts who could perform this 9-11 video analysis.

    All the various 9-11 truth seeking people and groups continue to seek 9-11 truth to the best of our ability. While I think that the 9-11 videos are an extremely important part of the 9-11 truth record, as I have stated, we are extremely limited as to the level of objectivity we can reach regarding video “evidence.” (Whatever reaches the definition of “evidence” is still not to be equated with “proof.” Different people interpret evidence in different ways.) The totality of the verified video record should not be considered the deciding factor in 9-11 truth determinations. There are other forms of data and “evidence.”

    In the USA, we no longer have “the rule of law.” It appears that all the world’s peoples are drowned in a sea of lies, deceptions, sophisticated trickery of every kind. We have been dumbed down and shut up in fear of our ability to survive. We are all in the situation of deciding which TRUTH we are willing to die for.

  20. JEANNON said: "In the USA, we no longer have “the rule of law.”"

    In my opinion, it is a fantasy to assume that "we" ever did, at least within a government monopoly on what is and is not “the rule of law” via its court system. But that's another story, for another time, perhaps.

    However that does not mean that the individual 9/11 researcher should be excused from the application of simple legal principles in their own research [assuming that they are aware of them].

    9/11 Videos/Photos = None Cross-Examined "Eye Witness Testimony":

    Which means that no allegedly live footage of tower collapses, such as the NIST sequence Fetzer linked to previously, [ a type of none-cross examined alleged eyewitness testimony, if you think about it], should automatically be assumed to be either genuine, or false, until it has first been _very_ closely examined by the researcher.

    Simply comparing one unverified video sequence with another another unverified video sequence [or even several], of the same alleged event, and then concluding that "they all hang together therefor they are genuine", actually in no way "proves" that the original sequence [ eg the one Fetzer linked us to], nor any of the others, is genuine.

    It can just as easily mean that they are all fake, and all manufactured on the same computer, with adjustments made within the program to simulate changes in viewer perspective etc.

    However, that type of spurious "proof of authenticity" methodology is exactly what Fetzer and associates [i.e. Fox,Prager, Ward, Hall,] has continually engaged in with regards to all alleged 911 evidence, to this day, and, at the same time claimed as being consistent within the rules of scientific enquiry and/or logic.

    For good reason, in a genuine trial, any/all video and photographic "evidence" submitted by the prosecution would most likely be subject to intense scrutiny by the defense prior to it ever being accepted as genuine evidence of _anything_[ Most likely also including a deep background check of the alleged photographer/videographer themselves.]

    Verbal "Eye-Witness Testimony":

    The exact same completely unjustified pre- assumption of authenticity is being applied by Fetzer to select [i.e "cherry-picked"] ,actual alleged verbal [as opposed to photographic] "eyewitness testimony", when anyone familiar with the most basic legal methodology fully understands that in a real trial, ALL alleged verbal eyewitness testimony, if crucial to the prosecutions case, would likely be subjected to a completely necessary, ruthless, intense cross-examination by the defense that included a very thorough background check of that alleged eyewitness via private investigators for that defense .

    Yet, failing an actual trial, with regards to both photographic and verbal alleged "eyewitness testimony", Fetzer is _still_ intent on avoiding/ignoring at all costs the consistent application of any simple, easy-to-understand-by-laymen "rules of evidence" regarding the events of 9/11, and is at the same time fully engaged in telling us all that thats all OK, because he is a trained scientist and professor of logic and he knows what he's doing, so we should all just back off, relax and accept his message from on high: that the WTC complex was nuked on 9/11, and Israel did the dirty deed.

    Well I, for one, ain't buying it.

    Regards obf.

  21. Simon Shack said : ".. that is a video from the NIST archives (inexplicably released only in 2010) titled "Unique, rare 9/11 material shot from the Hudson". I analyzed it back in May 2012 - so please spend a minute of your time understanding how we can determine - in this particular case - that it is not a genuine, authentic video : "

    Simon,the silence [from you know who], is deafening [but predictable, I guess] :-)

    Regards, obf.

    1. Don DamoreMarch 15, 2014 at 5:49 AM

      So OBF didn't reply to me. I expect he believes WTC7 did fall down in the late afternoon. I would like to ask him if he believes footage of the fall of WTC7 is real or faked.

      What do ya say OBF?

  22. OBF appears to find the most personal freedom producing use of his time to be that of criticizing Dr. Fetzer, certainly not actually seeking and sharing substantive 9-11 truth.

    We all have little or nothing to work with in terms of solid data and solid evidence regarding 9-11. It is all “tentative and fallible” in spades. No objective professional evaluations have or can be made of 9-11 videos, and even if performed at their best, they cannot pronounce a video to be “valid” or “true and correct”.

    That being said, I do not think that Dr. Fetzer should be held to a standard that OBF and Simon Shack should not.
    OBF and Simon Shack demonstrate more violations of basic objective research about 9-11 and basic logic than I can shake a stick at.


    You are a “researcher” but you aren’t/

    You do represent Simon Shack but you don’t.

    Dr. Fetzer can’t “be excused” from logic and legal standards but you and Simon Shack can.

    A double standard is appropriate in criticizing Dr. Fetzer because he happens to be a logic professor and has taught classes in the principles of scientific reasoning. (That makes Dr. Fetzer as having presented himself as a “trained scientist.” NOT!)

    Using every logical fallacy in the book is very much about ETHICS. Dr. Fetzer has posted some things that I have criticized but I have given up on posting criticisms of OBF and Shack because life is too short. It appears to me, OBF, that your logical fallacy of choice is the straw man, but you have not neglected many others such as “equivocation”, cherry picking or special pleading, and silence In this thread, and several others, I have seen you do a 180 degree turn in your argumentation on certain topics, slyly dropping off former arguments and subtly changing your definitions. You, oh artful dodger, often give unethical “answers” or refuse to answer at all. (See P.S. below)

    The only difference is, on balance, Dr. Fetzer PRODUCES. Dr. Fetzer has contributed about a thousand percent more substantive 9-11 truth than you, OBF, or Simon Shack ever have.

    I try to pick up nuggets of 9-11 truth wherever I can find them and try to “eat the meat and spit out the bones”. but, historically and consistently, you OBF and Simon Shack serve us no meat, only bones.


    Example of OBF’s contributions to 9-11 truth discussions.

    JEANNONDecember 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    OnebornfreeDecember 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM

    JEANNONDecember 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM
    OBF, I skimmed your answer to me and it was a joke. You answered my questions to your assertions with questions.

    Probably will not donate any more of my time to you.

    1. JEANNON

      I appreciate the way you have demolished OBFs bullshit analysis of 9/11.

      Images all fake? OBF, you're a fake!

    2. Don, could you point out some of the allegedly real images for us please?

    3. Oh, you folks are good, either that or you are stupid.

      You said WTC7 is not part of the 102 minute show. And you said it probably did come down when we were told it did, i,e 5.20pm. So you are saying, it's not part of the show, but the footage is fake anyway.

      Why would they bother to produce a video of WTC7 when it is obvious that they (the perpetrators) would have preferred to have had nothing; zero on the collapse of WTC7? Why would they want to fake it, when that only serves to incriminate them?

  23. Don Damore said : "So OBF didn't reply to me. I expect he believes WTC7 did fall down in the late afternoon. I would like to ask him if he believes footage of the fall of WTC7 is real or faked."

    I did not reply because there appeared to be no need- El Buggo seemed to have done a good job of explaining the time issue in lieu of myself.[ And no, we are not a team].

    As to the collapse of WTC7- I believe the footage shown on live TV, plus all of the subsequent newer footage that came out of the same event [mostly 2010 release NIST FOIA footage]; is, no differently than the allegedly "live" collapses of WTC1 and 2 shown on the networks that day, all comprised of 100% digitally animated sequences created exclusively on computers, prior to 9/11 itself.

    Regards, obf.

  24. Don Damore said : "Images all fake? OBF, you're a fake!"


    Regards, obf.

  25. FYI: Jim Fetzer has now linked to this "debate" and has a comments section where you are all free to post your most negative comments about myself, Simon Shack etc.

    Knock yourselves out, JEANNON, Damore etc. etc.:-) :


    Regards obf

    1. The 9/11 commission report didn't mention WTC7, why do you think the same people (the ones conducting the cover up) would wanna produce some fake footage of WTC7 being demolished?

      The video of WTC7 being demolished is real.

    2. Hi Don,

      Re: why do you think the same people would wanna produce some fake footage of WTC7 being demolished?

      To get better control on the operation, or reduce risk, could be one reason.

      When I think on it, maybe they blew up all the buildings simultaneously? Cannot defend that notion myself though, but could it be possible?

      Why are there so crappy colors on all these WTC7 collapse videos Don? Have you noticed that all the audio tracks in these videos are different and also come in several version for the same video?

      You may want to check out a real amateur video of the WTC complex, just to see what a real (amateur) video may look like. Absolutely no problems with the color balance here, and also lots of tiny moving details on the ground, etc:

      Why are there no similar HQ videos from any ($100000) broadcast cameras that day? They couldn't even get the color on the sky right, and in one of these WTC7 videos, the building even looks black! Much, much more on this if you want to look for it.

  26. JEANNON said :"Probably will not donate any more of my time to you."

    Likewise. Have a "nice" day :-) .


  27. Don Damore said: "The 9/11 commission report didn't mention WTC7, why do you think the same people (the ones conducting the cover up) would wanna produce some fake footage of WTC7 being demolished?"

    Who knows why? But instead of you or I trying to answer that question [a distraction IMO] doesn't it make more sense to instead just go ahead and take a close look at the actual sequences themselves to see if it looks authentic?

    After all, we could spend hours debating the "why" and still not get anywhere.

    For example see:

    regards, obf.

  28. That was the best debate I've heard so far; both sides were very respectful and calm. Good job moderating that John.

    I do think that One Born Free had a really good point about focusing on making ourselves more free; What we should be focusing most of our energy on is how to make ourselves independent of the current world's system. Build individual Christian communities that takes care of the majority of it's own needs. The whole exercise of learning truth is vain if all our hope is on somehow changing the government and/or putting someone else in power.

    1. Democracy is a war of everybody against everybody forever. It is clamoring over who gets to wield the club of Government to force others to be what you want them to be - that is not OK.

  29. Fetzer is a 911 gatekeeper who works for which seems to be to be a 911 gatekeeper organization. They, like Alex Jones, gatekeep to make sure that media fakery is not your final conclusion....

    1. From my observations over several years, Simon Shack and company, including OBF are not truly about seeking and sharing 9-11 truth. I believe there is some video fakery and I believe their are some simulated victims, but all of that seems to have been deliberately corralled into the deliberately constructed arena of conflict and chaos on discussion boards. We who think some of their ideas are very valid are continually put in the "bad guy" camp along with Dr. Fetzer.

      Dr. Fetzer is not on my ever-changing list of 9-11 gatekeepers. I look for who religiously supports the Steven Jones / Richard Gage theories and who religiously avoids any mention of Jewish/Zionist involvement to decide. My current incomplete list of “gatekeepers” is Dr. Steven Jones, Mr. Richard Gage, Dr. Judy Wood, (recently for me), Simon Shack (so far), writers for, radio show hosts, The Ugly Truth / Mark Glenn, those who say official story of Sandy Hook is true.
      Dr. Fetzer does support plane video fakery but thinks there are some non-faked videos of the Towers and Building 7. He has said that video analysis is a complex skill. OBF insists Dr. Fetzer presents himself as a “trained scientist” and that any “real scientist” would to do a better job of “verifying the evidence”. (straw man fallacy at work.) Dr. Fetzer’s 9-11 work leaves the work of the Shack/OBF faction totally dustified. There could be good reasons Dr. Fetzer will not lend legitimacy to the "program" of Shack/OBF. To me if that gang wants to be treated with respect they need to present their work professionally directly to the public and they should use their real names. All they seem to want to do is cause division and conflict everywhere they post.
      Dr. Fetzer has shown us that none of the four 9/11 aircraft actually crashed at the four sites on 9/11. He gets an A+ in documenting how every thing about planes , not only faked videos, but everything meant to convince the public that planes and hijackers were real was a deception. (Dr. Fetzer’s VT articles are not censured, though Mr. Duff has operated in questionable ways.) See "Planes/No planes and 'video fakery'","9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I", The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2"

      I thought at first that OBF wanted there to be a comprehensive professionally conducted video analysis of the videos of 9-11, done by some other entity than themselves, but that is not their game. They do not care about 9-11 truth. They want to keep their work anonymous and unprofessional. They mainly want to show Dr. Fetzer and others as dishonest and incompetent for not paying attention to their “research."
      From the very beginning Shack (September Clues Video) and Hoi Pilloi (Vicsims paper) have emphasized that ALL videos are fake and ALL (Tower) victims are simulated victims (VicSims) who were not real people at all. There was from the beginning something deliberate and glaringly “wrong” about their presentations by video and the pdf vicsims paper. This “something wrong” includes not wanting any mention of Jewish Zionists personages involvement in 9-11. They seemed to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot from the beginning in making absurdly extreme claims as to ALL videos faked and ALL victims faked. They never wanted to bring forth their video fakery and vicsim ideas in an objective professional way. They wanted to always be in the position of "the opposition" to Dr. James Fetzer.

      *The OBF/Shack gang NEVER STATED THEIR THESIS clearly and openly, so we never know what we are arguing against or about. It has changed and "evolved" over the years as best I can tell. For video fakery, their latest “thesis” appears to be…
      “ALL of the original live footage depicting towers collapses [i.e. from NBC, CNN, etc., of the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7] is 100% CGI imagery concocted prior to 911 and then broadcast as live imagery.”

      Shack/OBF are not about 9-11 truth.

    2. Your last two paragraphs completely contradict each other.

      Also .."Probably will not donate any more of my time to you [OBF]."

      In hindsight --- "Definitely will"

    3. No contradiction at all. I am addressing the ENTIRE video fakery subject as peddled by Simon Shack and a host of other anonymous names including OBF. I felt I needed to do that because Dr. Fetzer and John Friend need to look at the big picture and decide, in relation to their respective blogs and comments sections, whether the Shack gang people's voluminous comments move us in the direction of contributing substantively to our fund of 9-11 truth that has been so laboriously gained, little by little over the years.

      I submit the gang's comments do not.

      We haven't got time for the pain.

    4. Penultimate "From the very beginning Shack (September Clues Video) and Hoi Pilloi (Vicsims paper) have emphasized that ALL videos are fake and ALL (Tower) victims are simulated victims (VicSims) who were not real people at all. "

      Followed by "The OBF/Shack gang NEVER STATED THEIR THESIS clearly and openly, so we never know what we are arguing against or about. It has changed and "evolved" over the years as best I can tell. "


      By the way, you are wrong, Simon has admitted to mistakes in regards to his video. From the very beginning the September Clues Video does not emphasize that ALL videos are fake.

      Clues forum is hard to navigate, just like any other forum. However. I find it odd that you struggle to understand what they are "arguing against" 99.9% of the posts I've read are very clear. A child could easily understand Shack's video, and when he was allowed to speak, OBF was quite eloquent on Fetzer's show. I don't know what you mean by '"openly", it's not clear at all.

      Ironically you don't even have Fetzer's no plane theory correct, but THAT is understandable. The confusion originates in how he defines terms.

      PS - JEANNON is that just one name? Like Cher? Who cares if they're anonymous anyway? Does it make any difference? Can you post your drivers license? Do you have your papers JEANNON?

    5. I said that Shack never stated his thesis plainly and I stick to that. I always had to try to deduce or surmise what their basic position was, and just when I thought I had figured it out, something would get posted on some forum, that would tell me it was not what I had thought.

      When a lot of hard work is done to back up an important idea, one should give it its best chance of having its full impact. None of Shack and company's work will ever get the attention it deserves until it is published in professional form with real people's names. But as I said, that does not appear to be the goal of Simon Shack.

      I know there are videos of Building 7 that are not faked, and I strongly suspect there are live videos of the Towers, or parts of live videos of the Towers, that are not faked. Among numerous other evidences, the rubble pile in the aftermath of the Towers' destruction was not anywhere as tall as it needed to be in order for a conventional "controlled demolition" to have destroyed the buildings. But, oh I forgot, Shack says all the still photos of the aftermath were faked too, or maybe he does not say that anymore.

      I am sad that Dr. Fetzer has gotten in to name calling of Shack and OBF and that he still allows them on this blog comments. However, from my observations, Shack and company "started it", that is, it was they who started the name calling. I have been around a long time and I just do not think Shack and company are acting in an honorable, up front, way. I do not think that there main concern is getting helpful important documented facts out there to build up 9-11 truth.

    6. I think Simon is writing a book. It takes time.

      I don't care much about the name calling, I'm definitely not sad! It's mostly harmless, the worst I've seen from Shack is "clown". FOX throws a lot about but... whatever. If you can show me some name calling from Shack, OBF, El Buggo, Bob Bobson, Andy Tyme, Joan Edwards etc I'll have a look, I'm not going to search through comments though.

      Someone did call Clare Kuehn a 'c**t' but I missed it. Shame.

    7. I do not think it is harmless when Dr. Fetzer does it because a scholar is supposed to be above that. The rest of us poor schmos can be expected to become intemperate and write and say things we wish we had not.

      But I personally think that many things are "ad hominems" but that are not clearly name calling.

      I used to participate in Killtowns forum which is now defunct. Hoi Pilloi came out of the gates with his newly released VicSims pdf document with a very hostile, arrogant and combative attitude. People including me challenged certain aspects of the paper but almost all of us said vicsims was a true concept and should be proven up to the fullest. Hoi Pilloi summarily dissed everyone and killed all discussion of his not-to-be-questioned hypothesis.

      I cannot comment so much about Simon Shack's examples of "ad hominems" because it has been a long time since I looked at his work, but I think ridiculing Dr. Fetzer, even if one does not want to call it "ad hominems", was rampant on Clues forum. One could almost say the Clues forum posters along with Shack have taken personal attacks on Dr. Fetzer to a high art form.

      Glad to here Shack is writing a book. I hope he will not use one of his many pseudonyms.

      I can see where Simon Shack would not want to debate Dr. Fetzer on the radio or attend one of his conferences, but I cannot see why Shack, who to me from reading some of his recent postings has an excellent command of the English language, would not try to have an IN TEXT ONLY debate with Dr. Fetzer. Also I do not see why Dr. Fetzer is not pushing for that too.

      Radio debates, no matter how fairly moderated, just do not work. We need people to have rules and put things in writing.

      (As I have stated a couple of times, there is a big problem with discussing videos. In order to discuss a particular video, all the videos to be discussed and studied must be cataloged, numbered, indexed and documented. That has never happened.)

    8. I have no problem understanding Shack's spoken word.... enough with this. He can communicate in more languages than most people. He brought it up himself... but as most of us want to hear his views, why can't we encourage him? Instead of of saying his oral English is poor.... it just isn't.

  30. Outstanding debate (absent a few technical sound quality issues). I feel encouraged that we have younger and sharper brains moving into leadership around the 9/11 issue. With respect to strategic goals and objectives, OneBornFree seems to carry a bit of the "burnout" mentality that infects so many aging baby boomers (like me). I'm counting on the vitality, boldness and skill of the younger ones like Don Fox, and especially John Friend, who has really grown as a radio broadcaster and activist over the last few years. Gentlemen: You must not let the passing mood of this or that moment demoralize you or darken your outlook for the potential of an authentic "9/11 truth" movement that is capable of carving out some measure of "justice" for the perps, their accomplices and accessories. All of us are riding the long-term wave of a massive societal collapse. Economies, governments, institutions - and especially the corporate media - are headed for catastrophic instability. All "legitimacy" and moral authority will be shaken to its foundations; especially in the eyes of younger generations who are learning that these criminals have cheated them of their freedom and their future. OUR principal task is to do "target acquisition", to stay on top of the societal "blame game", to continually sharpen and refine our use of the available evidence as "public relations" WEAPONS against the perps and their supporters. Part of that task is to clearly define a "history" of 9/11, that successfully crosses over from marginal to alternative to "revisionist" to "mainstream. Exhaustively and continuously exposing the ongoing 9/11 media psyop is indeed CENTRAL to that objective. But other exposures are breaking through as well, and paving a highway for us. Aurora, Benghazi, Sandy Hook hoax, the Boston Marathon frame-ups and FBI murders, etc. Reinforced by an increasingly bitter disillusionment, our efficient promotion of 9/11 as a provable and punishable crime, will penetrate popular public opinion; tailoring the issue to suit an emerging historical revolt. We must maximize the profile of the 9/11 media psyops and actual destruction, to fit the ideological and emotional needs of an enraged population, looking for elite targets to hang. It can be done. It has been done in the past. Never underestimate the fury of an enraged population. Lets hope we can educate and smarten up that rage, to ultimately use 9/11 as the tip of the spear in identifying public enemies.

  31. Swiss Kinist said :"I do think that One Born Free had a really good point about focusing on making ourselves more free; What we should be focusing most of our energy on is how to make ourselves independent of the current world's system."

    Yes. In my opinion regardless of whether an individual believes what I believe about 911, or what Don Fox believes, or something else entirely, and assuming that individual is looking for more freedom for themselves in their own lifetime, the worst thing that that individual can do is to join groups, do marches/protests, vote for law changes etc.etc.

    Doing any of those things [or similar] will end up _decreasing_ an individuals freedom, not increasing it, for reasons I will not get into here, only to say that false assumptions [about the nature of human nature, human action and the true, fundamental nature of government itself] are at the root of it all, in my opinion.

    Regards, obf.

  32. El Buggo said: "Democracy is a war of everybody against everybody forever. It is clamoring over who gets to wield the club of Government to force others to be what you want them to be."

    Or, as H.L. Mencken said:

    "Democracy is a sort of laughing gas. It will not cure anything, perhaps, but it unquestionably stops the pain."

    "Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses."

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    "If x is the population of the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American, then democracy is the theory that x times y is less than y."

    "All of democracy's axioms "resolve themselves into thundering paradoxes, many amounting to downright contradictions in terms. The mob is competent to rule the rest of us – but it must be rigorously policed itself. There is a government, not of men, but laws – but men are set upon benches to decide finally what the law is and may be."

    regards, obf.

  33. Los Alamos said:"OneBornFree seems to carry a bit of the "burnout" mentality ..."

    Not true L.A. I have high hopes for an individuals freedom [maybe even _yours_] - just not for "humanity" as a whole. Please see my related response to Swiss Kinist .

    Regards obf

  34. Jim Hollander said :"PS - JEANNON is that just one name? Like Cher? Who cares if they're anonymous anyway? Does it make any difference? Can you post your drivers license? Do you have your papers JEANNON? "

    Yeah, I noticed that too. "The pot calling the kettle black", perchance? :-)

    Regards obf

    1. JEANNON could be a bloke? Could be a woman? The most anonymous amongst us.

      Regarding Jeannon's last post, not a lot to disagree with... but I want to point out that; ...

      ...the admin at cluesforum are strict, there are downsides. However, for people like me who are late to the game, I rarely feel the need to read each and every sentence twice...

      .. I THINK simon shack is writiing a book... I don't know.

      ... I might get some negative comments about this, but I think debates are near useless.

  35. "JEANNON" wrote:

    "Glad to here Shack is writing a book. I hope he will not use one of his many pseudonyms."

    JEANNON, I do not have many pseudonyms. While it's true that - as I released September Clues in 2007 on, I used as handle my band's name 'social service', I soon opened a Youtube channel as "Simon Shack". As I have explained time and again, this is actually my least anonymous name - a nom d'artiste officially registered at the Swedish Musician's Union (STIM) since the early nineties. Ok, so I'm no famous rock star - but nevertheless, for the last 20+ years (ever since I started making music professionally) all articles / music reviews / radio interviews have had me as Simon Shack. You may also know that this is an extremely common thing among musicians (that of adopting an artist name) :

    Now let's imagine that, for instance, David Bowie suddenly started researching 9/11 - and decided to sign his articles with his real birth name, "David Robert Jones" : would he not be suspected to hide his real identity - and to attempt to remain anonymous? In any case, I have also long made public my birth name Hytten (which means 'the shack' in Norwegian). I hope the above is a satisfactory explanation regarding "my many pseudonyms" as you wrote. For more info about my humble self - if this is what you're interested in - please peruse this Cluesforum post of mine:

    To be sure, if I had decided to remain anonymous - it would have saved me a lot of time and aggravation, but that's another story. Believe me, I would rather have spent that time ('defending' my persona against a mudslide of puerile slander / ad homs) in more productive manner - and so would you (or anyone) if you were in my shoes, JEANNON. By the way, I think I may be the only 9/11 researcher on this planet who has invited a dozen fellow researchers to visit me from abroad and stay in my house for days, weeks or (in the case of Hoi Polloi) even months at a time. Mind you, three of them turned out to be most sinister individuals - so this may not have been among the smartest ideas I've had in my life...

    I know nothing about you, JEANNON (nor do I wish to), other than that you've been around a long time - ever since Killtown's forum - and that you've kept commenting / lamenting unfavorably on my work and / or intentions. By now, you must have made your mind up about me and my efforts, so I doubt these lines I'm typing will make any difference - but hopefully I am wrong about that.

    As for my 7+ years of steady research not being clear enough / or sufficiently professionally presented for you - I'm sorry, I'm doing the best I can as a lone, private / unfunded researcher with two hands only: I have no resident writing team - nor even as much as a secretary - to help me along with its presentation / editing / archiving / source-referencing - all this while keeping up my ongoing research efforts (which now span way beyond 9/11), running my time-demanding forum, my recording studio / music-making and well, also tending to my own life. Anyhow, here's the best one-stop overview of my 9/11 investigations I can offer you at this time:

    The September Clues TOUR GUIDE:

    Simon Shack


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.