Monday, November 10, 2014

9/11, Deja Vu, and "The Matrix"

 Youtube link:


 I have used the "Matrix" movie analogy in a previous article with regards to the events of 9/11, and I'm afraid that  I have once again succumbed to the temptation to use it for this post.

It is perhaps a far from perfect analogy [i.e. yes, I'm fully aware that the movie has its faults], however, because of its broad popularity and appeal, and because a lot of people reading an article such as this are probably familiar with the original movie "The Matrix" and various scenes in it, I feel it can come in handy  as an easy way of  graphically illustrating points I am attempting to make about the alleged events of 9/11.

The "Deja-Vu-Cat-Warning" Scene in "The Matrix" Movie

In the movie, there is a scene where the hero, Neo, spots, out of the corner of his eye, a cat walking slowly across an open doorway.

A moment later, for some reason he again looks back at the doorway and sees an identical cat doing the exact same thing.

He mentions these two strangely coincident "deja vu" events to the people he's with at the time, and they immediately start to interrogate him to try to find out whether the two cats he claims to have witnessed were identical, or merely similar.

They all conclude that the two events were in fact  identical, and that this is a sign of what is called "a glitch" in "the matrix", and is a CLEAR WARNING SIGN  that Neo's group is not experiencing reality, but instead, a simulated reality,  and that Neo's cat deja vu experience was  an unintended indication of a trap [i.e a technical error- a "glitch"],   set by the controllers of the matrix [artificial intelligence machines].

Flight 175's  9/11 Deja Vu Double Impact = The Deja Vu Cat "Glitch" Warning Scene In "The Matrix"

Well, just as the cat in the Matrix movie makes the exact same journey twice within a matter of seconds, on 9/11 Flight 175 [i.e the 9/11 "cat" ] apparently made its very own identical journey into WTC2 twice within a 3 second time frame, "live" on nationally broadcast TV!

Don't believe me?

Probably not, at this point in time, and so, a question for you, dear reader:

if the on-line archived mainstream media [MSM] video records for the morning of September 11th, 2001 are in fact all accurate, and are all genuine real-time records of what happened, as recorded live by those  five networks [ ABC,CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC] that morning, [as most still claim], then why does the impact of Flight 175 into the South Tower [WTC2] occur at two distinct  times, 3 seconds apart, on a minimum of at least 3 out of the 5 separate MSM networks, according to those very same alleged recorded live-in-real-time on line archives?

In other words, why is it that the impact  and resulting fireball of Fl. 175's impact  on CBS's "live" archived footage happens when it does, when,  according to those very same on-line archived video records for ABC and CNN, at the exact same moment in time as  CBS's post impact fireball makes its on-screen debut,  Flight 175's image is still to be quite clearly seen  in full flight, prior to impact, and similarly, on ABC and other networks the resultant fireball does not  commence until around about a full 3 seconds after the CBS  fireball makes its appearance on-screen ? :

            Fig. 1: post impact fireball already in progress [lower right corner] in the "live" CBS footage
                  as archived on line.[Click on image to enlarge]

              Fig 2: Meanwhile, at the exact same moment in time, on ABC's archived
                                                 footage, Fl. 175 is still in flight. 
[Click on image to enlarge]

I Submit: The 9/11 Fl. 175 Double Hit "Deja Vu Glitch" Is a "Matrix"- Like Warning - "A Dead-Give-Away" Sign of an MSM   Artificial Reality on 9/11 

I submit that this anomaly is in actual fact a "real world" replication of the deja vu cat scene from "The Matrix" movie - an indication [ or warning, or a "dead give-away" if you will] that what you were viewing on the morning of 9/11 was not reality as it happened in Manhattan , NYC, but in fact a simulated reality consisting of at least 2 different pre-fabricated movies that were being simultaneously broadcast on all 5 MSM networks on the morning of 9/11. 

However, I Ain't That Stoopid

However,  I am not foolish enough to believe that you would believe my above claim, based solely on the two screen shots I have provided so far, above [Figs 1 &2], neither of which even have a clearly visible, accurate to the second, network time stamp.

Enter: "Synched Out"- 9/11 Researcher Simon Shack's Analysis of the On-line Archived  MSM Video Records:

                Youtube link:

The two images below [Figs 3 and 4] are screen shots taken from 9/11 researcher Simon Shack's "Synched Out"analysis of the on-line archived MSM video records, for the 11 minute period, 8.52 am through 9.03 am, on the morning of Sept.11th 2001, for the US mainstream media [MSM] networks ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and NBC:

Fig. 3 . Screen shot detail [@5:41]from Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the 5  MSM network broadcasts [when run simultaneously], for the morning of 9/11.  Plane-strike fireball has just started to "bloom" on CBS,[see lower left corner of upper right quadrant],  therefor  Fl.175 has already struck WTC2 on CBS. Meanwhile, on ABC,[upper left quadrant],  the plane  [white arrow in upper left ABC quadrant]] is still in  flight.

Fig.4 : Plane still in flight on ABC and CNN- Screen shot detail [@5:47] from Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the 5 simultaneous MSM network broadcasts for the morning of 9/11. The plane  is still clearly in the air on ABC [top left quadrant], and on CNN [small sq. lower center] while on CBS [upper right quadrant], the post-strike fireball continues to spread, indicating that Flight 175 has already hit WTC2 on CBS.

"Synched Out" Analysis = 5 MSM Broadcasts - All Running Simultaneously, in Double Time, On One Screen, For Your Viewing Pleasure :-) .

What he did was download the on line archived records of those 5 networks broadcasts, and then start them all from the exact same point in time , and run them all simultaneously, on a multi-split screen, at double speed, to see how they compared to each other when so run, right next to each other on screen, where they could be easily compared.

REVEALED!: Network To Network, The Fl. 175 Plane-Strike and Fireball Imagery Is, Err....."Out of Synch" 

Mr Shack's analysis clearly shows that when these segments of the archived footage for that particular time period are run simultaneously, [i.e. "in synch" with each other], that the plane strike occurs at different times on different networks, when obviously, if the networks were all really broadcasting live, with no time delay [which,to this day, is what they all apparently claim to have done ], then they would all show the plane strike occurring at the exact same time, and the resultant fireball would also match network to network  in duration and other salient details . 

Proof That The "Live" 9/11 Network Imagery Was All Fake?

For myself and a [very] few others, this huge, 3 second discrepancy within the imagery of the various MSM broadcast feeds is proof positive that those feeds were actually pre-fabricated [i.e. made on computer beforehand] videos that were then fraudulently broadcast as live imagery that morning.

Objections To Mr Shack's and My Own Assertion- Mandatory F.C.C.  Time Delays?

On showing the last part of "Synched Out" to an interested member of The Freedom Network  at a recent meeting, the reviewer commented that the discrepancy in the timing of the plane strike was probably due to the F.C.C.'s mandatory time delay in force for all live broadcasts [ supposedly enforced so that , amongst other things, bad language can be removed before it goes out "live" on the air]. 

At first I though that that person had a legitimate point [about F.C.C. regulations requiring a delay], but on consideration I don't believe they really do, because:

1] If there was a time delay, wouldn't all networks use the exact same [mandatory] delay, so that even if on delay, they'd all still be in synch? 

2] To this day, there is no proof that the networks actually were on any automatic time delay that morning. None of the networks to date have ever disputed the accuracy of the times given for each of the broadcast segments for their individual networks as archived.  

Meaning all networks have apparently agreed to date that the on-line archived records for their  particular station are accurate historical records of what they broadcast live  that morning, including displayed times given for those individual network broadcasts. 

And let's not forget, the various times recorded for both the 2nd hit [fl.175] and the collapse of the towers themselves by those 5 MSM networks, all match the official times given for those events in  all of the official government accounts of events that day.

How Else To Prove Pre- Fl. 175 Strike On-Air Network Synchronicity ?

There are two possible ways I see of establishing that the video segments analysed by Mr Shack are actually running "in synch" prior to the 2nd. hit. 

1] An individual could go to the on-line archives and check that the sections shown in Mr Shack's analysis actually have the exact same 8.52 am EST start point in those archives as he  has used in his own analysis, for the stations concerned.

If you know how, you could probably even download the sections concerned and make your own video in the same manner as Mr Shack has done , so that all 5 network broadcasts can be viewed simultaneously in a suitable video software editor program. 

2] You could carefully review Simon Shack's entire "Synched Out" movie [it's slightly under 8 minutes long], to check to see if there are any  obvious clues to none-synchronicity  of all stations concerned occurred prior to the  out of synch by  3 secs. 2nd. plane hit. 

This [2] , is what I decided to do. 

An Obvious [Ad Nauseum] Sign of Inter- Network Synchronicity?

On checking for network synchronicity prior to the plane strike, I found many instances that suggest that prior to that strike, all networks were perfectly in synch.

Actually, it is one specific sign, repeated "ad nauseum", as it were. 

That specific sign being two or more networks displaying the exact same images, at the exact same time, within their own supposedly individually unique "independent" broadcasts. 

For just one glaring example:

  Fig. 5: From Simon Shack's "Synched Out"- ABC, CBS, Fox,NBC display the same feed at the same time.

An Obvious, Related, Question: The Exact Same Feeds On Competing Networks - How Come?

That question being, why on earth were supposedly rival, competing commercial TV networks repeatedly showing the exact same images on the morning of 9/11? 

Isn't there something dreadfully wrong with "the picture" here [ Different, allegedly "competing" networks showing the exact same "live" footage]?

Another 9/11 Red Flag?

Isn't this in fact, dear reader, one more very big, and very obvious, 9/11 "red flag", on top of the already  revealed Fl.175 flight impact time, err.... "discrepancy"?

If  not for you, dear reader, I would humbly suggest that perhaps it should be.

14 Randomly Picked Instances Where 5 "Competing" MSM Networks Broadcast The Same 9/11 Imagery:

Anyhoo, "onwards and upwards" as they say - back to the MSM archives "in-synch, then out-of-synch"  question. 

 Even More Examples?

Please understand, my analysis was by no means exhaustive, if you undertake your own review I'm  certain that you will be able to find  more instances where the feeds over that 11 minute time frame [8.52 am -9.03 am] are remarkably similar, if not identical.

Regards, onebornfree.

9/11 , Deja Vu , and "The Matrix"; Addendum

9/11 , Deja Vu , and "The Matrix"; Addendum - 14 Random Examples of Pre- Strike US M.S.M. Network Synchronicity

[14 Screen Shots Taken From Simon Shack's"Synched Out" Movie Showing Pre- Plane Strike Synchronicity of All 5 MSM Networks]

 Main article here

Screen Shot Explanation: 

For all figs below: 

Top left quadrant = ABC "live";                                 top right quadrant = CBS "live", 

bottom left quadrant= FOX "live";                bottom right quadrant= NBC"live"

                          Smaller Center square [position varies] = CNN"live".

N.B. All screen shots are taken from Simon Shack's "Synched Out" video. Times shown [bottom left] are for the  time the  screen shot was taken from main video. e.g. "1:22" in fig.1 corresponds to the 1 minute and 22 sec. point of the "Synched Out" movie itself. 

N.B. 2. :All figs appear, 1 through 14, in the same order in which they occur both in "Synched Out" and in the  original "live" broadcasts. 

                            To enlarge any image below, please "click" directly on it.

Fig. 1: ABC = CBS, FOX = CNN

Fig 2: ABC= CBS, [=NBC?]

Fig 3: ABC= CBS= NBC

Fig 4: ABC=CBS=Fox


Fig 6: ABC= FOX & CBS=CNN[center frame]

Fig 7: ABC= FOX= NBC[closeup]



Fig 10: ABC= CBS=FOX

Fig 11: ABC= CBS

Fig 12: ABC=CBS & FOX=CNN[small square bottom center]

Fig 13: As Simon says: "ABC= CBS= CNN" perfectly synchronised"

Fig 14: FOX=NBC & ABC= CNN

                                    But Then,  Suddenly, At 5:41 In "Synched Out" Everything Goes Mysteriously,   "Out of Synch", and the plane hits WTC2 on CBS and yet is still in flight on ABC?:

And Now, Let The Fireball Shenanigans Commence ! :

Saturday, October 18, 2014

9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim...."   Wikipedia on Philosophic burden of proof

Scales of justice/burden of proof
[N.B. "Onebornfree" is not an attorney and claims no formal legal training. Nevertheless, "Onebornfree" believes that in the US today, none of the stipulations of the Bill of Rights are in effect- and that since the alleged events of  September 11th, 2001, the entire Bill of Rights has been conveniently dumped in the trash-can of history - which was the desired effect, of course :-).   9/11 was, therefor, a very successful "coup d'etat".]

Your Very Own Criminal Trial For the Crimes of  9/11?

To try to illustrate the main argument of this post, let me start with a [hopefully] hypothetical situation for you, dear reader : 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you have personally  been accused of being a terrorist involved in the plotting and execution of the crimes of 9/11, by the good old US government itself. A long shot perhaps, I admit, but please try to bear with me.

"Royally Screwed"?
As an accused criminal, you would then have to stand trial, in a US federal government criminal court, before a US Federal judge, yes? 
[Hint: not good.Even worse would be a secret trial, in which case NONE of what I say below would even remotely apply- basically you'd be "royally screwed" in "the land of the free"]. 

Your Defense
Assuming a public, criminal trial in front of a jury, you would, of course, need to hire competent defense attorneys,or,if you could not afford that you would be assigned an attorney to help defend you against those charges [unless you decided to defend yourself]. Yes?

Reminder:Your Freedom Would Be At Stake !
Your very freedom,for the rest of your life,or even perhaps your very life itself,would be at stake here, yes? 

At Your Trial The Government Claims  "Incontrovertible Evidence" Against You

Accordingly, at your criminal trial, the US government attempted to introduce into evidence certain claimed proofs of your involvement in the 9/11 plot. 

Some Of The Evidence Against You = Alleged "Live" Mainstream Media[MSM] and Other Videos, Photos, "Eyewitness Testimony",US Government Agency Reports etc.

Furthermore, let's suppose that a  good part of that claimed evidence against you that would supposedly unquestionably prove your guilt [according to the prosecution], consisted of  allegedly live video recordings taken from the on line archives of the various MSM networks who made broadcasts that day [i.e. ABC, CBS CNN, NBC, Fox], plus perhaps other, non-MSM derived  video footage and still photos allegedly shot by various other individuals, plus alleged eyewitness testimony, plus allege government agency reports [e.g.  United States Geological Survey {USGS}, and the Department of Energy {DoE} ], yes?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

First of all, it is worth remembering at this point that as an individual accused of a such criminal acts by the US government, at a criminal trial, you are supposedly "innocent until proven guilty", yes?  

Therefor, moving on.....

As a Defendant,The Close Examination of ALL Alleged Evidence Against You Is Your Inviolable "Constitutional Right"?

As a supposedly "innocent until proven guilty" defendant in that criminal trial, and in order to properly defend yourself against the governments charges, you and your defense attorneys would then have the inviolable legal right to closely examine and possibly disprove any/all claimed evidence of your guilt which the government tried to introduce at  your trial - yes?

Including: Your  Right As a Defendant To The Close Examination of ALL Allegedly Incriminating Video and Photographic Imagery?

That examination by your defense counsel of the government's "evidence" would [or should] therefor include not just what is traditionally regarded as eyewitness testimony by the "layman"[i.e. the verbal testimony of alleged eyewitnesses against you], but also, if ever introduced by the prosecution, a detailed examination of the "eyewitness testimonies" of any/all alleged camera recordings; that is: any/all of the  alleged live MSM video recordings introduced, and any/all other  videos or photos that the government tried to introduce as evidence against you, plus even, if your defense felt it were necessary, cross-examination of any/all of the alleged operators of the cameras that supposedly recorded those videos and/or photos, plus, if introduced, the close examination by your defense of any/all alleged government agency reports- yes ? 

Your Innocence or Guilt Would Hinge On The Government Proving/Not Proving  the Reliability  of Its Alleged Evidence  Against You, In Court

Therefor, it could only be after your defense's own thorough cross examination of all that alleged evidence against you at your trial was finally completed, including any/all alleged "live" videos -[regardless of original source], if introduced, any/all alleged still photos [regardless of original source], if introduced, any/all alleged verbal eyewitness testimony, if introduced, and any/all alleged government agency reports, if introduced -  that a legally reliable determination of your guilt or innocence could be made by the jury - yes? 

Therefor, At Your Own Trial, The "Burden of Proof"  For Any/All of The Government's Evidence Against You Must Always Largely Fall On the Government

In other words, at such a trial, the burden of proof for any/all alleged government evidence against you would lie predominantly with the government, which would have to prove, before the court, subject to an ongoing, detailed, in depth  cross-examination of any/all of that  alleged evidence against you by your own defense, that any/all of that claimed evidence against you was in fact genuine-yes? [see "scales of justice" illustration above].

What If The Defense's Close Examination of _Any_ Part_of The Governments Alleged Evidence Against You Were  Prevented ? 

If such cross examination[s] by the defense of any part of the prosecutions alleged evidence against you  were somehow prevented for any reason,[e.g. a judge ruling]; for example, if no close examination by the defense of any of the alleged MSM "live" 9/11 video recordings was allowed by the judge once introduced  into the court by the prosecution as evidence against you, then surely, any subsequent court-derived "guilty" verdict against yourself without that detailed cross-examination by your defense of any part of that alleged "evidence" against you  allowed during your trial, but yet somehow perversely based on the pre-assumed  "authenticity" of that same alleged  evidence, would itself constitute a false conviction and  a criminal act, yes? *

                                       "Judge" Prof. Jim Fetzer

NO! - Not In "The 9/11 Truth Movement's" "Court of Law", Nor In Prof. Jim Fetzer's "Court of Law"! 

Sadly, according to many/most persons within the "9/11 Truth movement", including Prof. Jim Fetzer, it would seem, at your very own  personal 9/11 criminal trial, with your own life/freedom at stake, much of the governments alleged "proofs" of your criminal involvement in the events of  9/11, including, if introduced, any'/all presented MSM network archives and related photos/videos, any/all eyewitness testimony and any/all governmental reports, would have to be pre-assumed to be genuine, by the judge [Fetzer?]- no argument allowed, with,therefor, no serious attempt ever allowed  for your defense to fully cross-examine  all  such alleged evidence in front of the jury, prior to it being deemed "authentic" by the judge.

How Do I Know This?

Simply because Prof. Fetzer has previously said [and most in the "9/11 truth movement" appear to agree with him]: 

" .........Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic..... So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."  **

And So, "God" Help You In Fetzer's Courtroom

In other words, according to Mr Fetzer and many others too numerous to mention here, if he or others of similar mind were the presiding judge at your very own 9/11 criminal trial, and if the government ever introduced any MSM or other related alleged video or photographic records, or government agency reports [DoE, USGS], or alleged eye-witness testimony  as alleged evidence against you, your defense would be forced  by the judge to accept all of that as genuine evidence that had been introduced by the prosecution into court, no "ifs, ands or buts" about it, simply because most of that purported evidence has, according to both himself and many, many others , it seems, a "prima facie claim to being taken as authentic". Yes?

Inside Court= Outside Court?
To be completely fair, Fetzer might possibly have only been referring to what he believed to be the prevailing state of affairs regarding alleged 9/11 evidence under private review by private researchers outside of a courtroom situation, at the time that the  above  statement by him was made. **

The question is, if that is the case, why would/should  Fetzer's [and others too numerous to mention], standard evidentiary review methodology for the review of possibly important 9/11 evidence be so radically different for outside of a courtroom from what  must be used [i.e.  is supposed to be systemically mandatory] at trial, inside a US  criminal courtroom?

Either, Or

It seems to me that either Fetzer and others like him  believe that the basic, specific in-built legal safety measures, procedures and principles  that are supposedly mandatory for any/all alleged prosecutorial evidence when introduced at trial, plus the mandated prevailing  burden of proof  bias inside  criminal courts [ which is always supposed to be more favorable to the defendants case], are  all entirely unnecessary and a waste of time for 9/11investigators like themselves to try to even attempt to roughly replicate outside of a courtroom when conducting their own research,[because they think all "know better", perhaps?], and that [therefor] much of that alleged 9/11 "evidence" ,"should ", "just" ,be accepted as  genuine, with no need outside of the courtroom for a really close examination of any part of it ever being  necessary,  right from the very "git go" of their own private 9/11 investigations.....


Or conversely, he and others see no inherent difference between the extremely "slap-happy" evidentiary analysis and burden of proof "rules" they all routinely apply outside of a courtroom  at this time[i.e. for his/theirprivate 9/11 research], and those that he/they all blithely imagine are/should be routinely applied, inside a criminal courtroom, during a trial.

Your Own "Fetzerian" Criminal 9/11 Trial?

 Again [i.e "once more with feeling"]: "Judge" Fetzer and most others  appear to  believe that  inside the courtroom, at your very own criminal trial, dear reader, that you and your defense would simply  be forced by the judge to accept that most all alleged evidence  the government might conceivably introduce at that trial was authentic, including: any/all MSM video records, photos, eyewitness testimony and government agency reports; with no attempt ever allowed whereby the defense could  try to prove  before the court that some parts [or perhaps all]  of that alleged evidence  against you was  not, in fact, authentic. 

Definition: "Prima Facie" = "At First Blush", or "At First Glance"

After all, according to himself and many others, even without close examination [i.e. "at first blush", or at "first glance" are the  literal translations of the latin term "prima facie"], much [all?] of that possible evidence [e.g. MSM "live" footage and USGS and DoE "studies"] "has" to be genuine, right?

So if he himself, and others, already mostly trust much of that same alleged "evidence" outside of the courtroom,  why should the real situation ever need to be any different if that same "evidence" was presented inside the  courtroom by the government that prosecuted you, dear reader, by  that very same ["Fetzerian"] "logic"?

The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus The "Burden of Proof" and The U.S. Bill of Rights

Up to now I have mostly focussed on what I consider to be the gross mental aberrations of Mr Fetzer, as if the behaviour starts and ends with him, however the sad truth is that Mr Fetzer is just the tip of the iceberg in this matter - it seems to me that similar beliefs actually infect  99% of the so-called "9/11 truth movement". 

That is, with regard to the matter of what is and is not to be considered  "real 9/11 evidence", almost the entire  9/11 "truth movement" appears to have  very little interest in themselves ever having to apply basic, fundamental  guiding principles and safety measures of law , including the principle known as "the burden of proof". [Principles and measures which I contend can- and should- be routinely applied outside of a US courtroom  by  private individuals attempting to establish truths about the events of 9/11 or similar, in all possible instances, no differently from how they were  originally intended to be used inside courts].

Guiding legal principles for evidentiary examinations that are extremely important-or surely should be- at least to persons both interested in a genuine "search for truth" and who are familiar with the original intent of certain  provisions of the US Bill of Rights as stipulated for all Federal criminal trials, and who are themselves currently privately engaged in 9/11 "truth" research [or similar] .

"This Just In" : At Real U.S. Criminal Trials- No "Level Playing Field" for The Governments "Evidence" Allowed!

Inside a US criminal court, because of the courtroom evidentiary provisions/stipulations of The Bill of Rights [BoR],  almost the exact opposite to Fetzer's contention concerning burden of proof is supposed to be in operation at all times; at such a trial there is never supposed to be "a level playing field" for the government's case; the evidentiary requirements of the BoR were deliberately designed to make it much, much harder for the government to prove its prosecutions than for an individual defendant to prove reasonable doubt.

In other words,to re-state: at all Federal criminal trials, the burden of proof must always  lie predominantly with the government and any alleged evidence of guilt of the defendant that it might try to put before the court,  and not with the defendant[s] on trial for the alleged crime[s].

No Automatic Legal "Handicapping" of The Government's Case =  A Scam Trial  

And to put it  another way: the government is supposed to be deliberately handicapped at trial by the provisions set out in the Bill of Rights, the presumption of innocence of the defendant on trial, and by the burden of proof imposed mostly on the government.

 Any outwardly perceived resulting "balance"  in the the legal process at trial is always/only a direct result of that deliberate pre-handicapping of the government's case - if that handicapping was not/is not firmly in place both before, during  and after that trial, then the trial itself would be a criminal scam, it seems to me.[ "a miscarriage of justice", in polite language :-) ]

I would urge you[again]  to take a close look at the illustration that heads this article to get the idea, I am trying to put across here.

Why Is The Automatic Imbalance/"Handicapping" Against The Government's Case At Trial Always Supposed To Be In Place?

This automatic pre-bias against the governments case and all of its alleged evidence exists because the individuals who wrote the BoR all those years ago fully understood [from personal experience at the hands of King George and the British Empire], just how easy it was for the government, with its enormous power and almost unlimited finances,to wholly manufacture any/all evidence and witnesses it needed against those it wished to silence and imprison, and to operate "kangaroo courts", and secret courts that would carry out the King's and the British Empires agenda via 100's [1000's?] of fraudulent convictions of American colonist's and their sympathizers.

 Which is, of course, exactly what he/it did, on a daily basis, for years - hence, the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, "and all that jazz".

Foreigners Don't "Get It"? 

Now, why it might not be expected for the average foreign, non-US born 9/11 investigator to understand that deliberate in-built, pre-bias against the  governments case and all its supposed evidence for any/all real-world criminal trials, you'd maybe think that at least some current American 9/11 investigators would themselves understand these ultra- important, systemic legal concepts. Yes? 

NO -  Most Americans Don't "Get It" Either!

Well sadly,you'd be wrong- in point of fact, at this time there appears to be not one name  US 9/11 investigator who  has even the faintest idea of these simple concepts , including of course, yours truly, Prof. Fetzer, who  boldly claims:

"I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."  **

Forget Prof. Fetzer's Pro- Government "Burden of Proof" Assertion!

And so, even without yours or somebody else's 9/11 criminal trial on the horizon [I would hope], and assuming you still have some respect for the legal process/methodology and principles I have attempted to briefly outline here, I would humbly suggest that for your very own personal 9/11 investigations conducted outside of a courtroom, that it might  be exceedingly wise of you to completely disregard the  decidedly pro-government "burden of proof" assertions of credentialed, supposed "authority figures" such Prof. Fetzer, and  to not just [like him] go ahead and blindly trust, outside of a courtroom trial, without extremely close, detailed examination/re-examination  of any/all  alleged possible "evidence" that the government might conceivably try to use in the future, inside a courtroom, including : 

1] any/all alleged "live" MSM video footage.[regardless of alleged source]

2] any/all other alleged videos and photos[regardless of alleged source]

3] any/all alleged "eye-witness testimony"[regardless of alleged source]

4] any/all alleged official government reports [ e.g. U.S.G.S. and D.O.E.]; 

..... and for you to remain extremely doubtful as to the authenticity of any part of any of them, either collectively or individually, unless  and until such time as you can definitively and independently establish its/their authenticity and accuracy.   

 Question: Where Is _YOUR_ Personal Burden of Proof Going To Be Mostly Imposed In Your Own Ongoing 9/11 "Search For Truth" - On The Government, or On Those Who Seriously Question Any/All Of  It's  Alleged "Evidence"?

Knowing/understanding what you now hopefully do  about the true legal status of all unexamined evidence that might be presented by the government at your own future criminal  trial [or somebody elses], and failing such a trial; and for your own private investigations outside of a courtroom, are you really willing to just go ahead and blindly trust any alleged possible "evidence" that the government might, in the future , conceivably try to use to convict 9/11 defendants, just like Mr Fetzer and others apparently do and would, without ever bothering to closely examine it, and to thereby  completely ignore basic, systemic common law  principles, safety measures and pre-biases  against any/all possible government evidence  both present and future;  common law principles and procedures that, after a revolution was fought and won, were deliberately incorporated into the US legal criminal process all those years ago? 

You tell me. 

As always, in the end, it's your choice. [Related question: if you truly understand the enormous power of the US government, do you really want it to have  "a level playing field" in its very own courts , where its own, government-paid judges preside, let alone for it to be able to have non-defense-examined alleged evidence  ruled as "genuine" by the presiding federal judge?]

Ignore These Principles ? Then Don't Complain About a "Guilty" Verdict at Yours, Your Spouse's,Your Children's, or Your Best Friend's Possible Future Trial - "You Made Your Bed- Now Lay In It"?

But remember, if you agree with Mr Fetzer and [it seems] 99.9% of the "9/11 Truth Movement", regarding the unexamined, "prima facie" truthfulness of much of the so-called 9/11 evidence, if you yourself, or your wife, children, or close friend ever in real life find  yourselves facing criminal prosecution in the US at the state or federal level [for whatever "crime"- it does not have to be 9/11 related], and if the defense is not allowed to  thoroughly examine in the courtroom any/all of the alleged evidence that the prosecution tries to use to try to prove your/their guilt at such a trial, then you really cannot complain, should a guilty verdict against you or them ever be reached now, can you? 

After all, you "made your bed, so now lie in it", as the saying goes.

Afterword: The Terrifying Truth  In The U.S.

The  terrifying truth of the matter [to a "madman" like me, at least], is that in the good ole' USA, by his/their own admissions, Mr Fetzer and many others similarly indoctrinated have apparently been "teaching" the exact opposite of those very easy to understand legal principles  to their students - in effect teaching them that in their own private "criminal" investigations of whatever [carried out outside of a courtroom,of course], that it is perfectly OK for them to simply trust practically any/all supposed current or future "evidence" that the government and media feeds the public - with almost no questions asked, and that, failing an actual trial, outside of a US courtroom, that in these types of instances the burden of proof must always fall heavily on the individual investigators contesting the  reliability of any/all parts of  the governments possible "evidence" that it might in future use at trial, and not instead at all times on the government itself and all of its  alleged evidence.

It's "Politically Incorrect" To Be Pre-Biased Against Any/All Possible Government  9/11 [ or Other] "Evidence"?

And that subsequently, according to those same "teachers", there is never any  real need for that "serious", "honest" 9/11investigator  to ever start their own private investigation from the  "politically incorrect" position of pre-doubt and pre-bias against any/all of the governments  alleged  story and  it's present or possible future "evidence", and therefor, failing an actual trial, it is perfectly OK for that individual investigator to never take the time  necessary to closely examine any/all  types/categories of that alleged governmental or media  "evidence" that might conceivably be used by it at any imagined future trial, and for them to ever try to make a sincere attempt at trying to determine for themselves whether or not any part of such government "evidence" is in fact genuine. 

"You Say You Want [Another] Revolution, Yeah"

Such is the sorry state of "9/11 Truth Research" and "truth research" in general, it seems - and, more importantly, such is the sad state of the average Americans understanding of the original concepts, biases and  protections of the Bill of Rights and common law vis a vis state and US federal [and state]criminal trials -  principles for which a revolution was fought more than 200 years ago.[What a waste of time that apparently was.]

These days,  most [including,it would seem, nearly all "serious" 9/11 investigators], believe that almost anything the government and/or the MSM feeds them, either inside or outside of a courtroom, is practically "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and that most of its "evidence" either before, or at trial,  should   never,ever be seriously questioned by an individual researcher, especially not when  starting from  that "terrifying",  "politically incorrect" pre-assumptive, philosophically biased position that that government's "evidence" is either miserably inept, simply mistaken in nature, or even worse, deliberately falsified .

Well, I wish them all "good luck" with their, er......"politically correct" "ideas", at their own trials,[should they occur]. Luck-  they are  going to need plenty of it - "so help them, God". 

Regards, onebornfree. 

* Actually the reality might be even worse than I have attempted to illustrate in this post. In conversations with a person claiming a current legal background and criminal court experience, I was informed that in an actual federal criminal trial, that these days the judge would in fact make all determinations as to the authenticity of, for example, the original MSM "live" footage and related, and of other videos and photos if introduced by the prosecution at trial as evidence. This would seem to match Mr Fetzer's own "vision" of how things need to be.

So the defense might well be forced to accept as genuine "evidence" , "evidence" against the defendant [you? me?] that it has never had the opportunity to thoroughly examine in front of the jury!

 If you think that that would be "OK" with you [Prof Fetzer and others "too numerous to mention"probably do] you might want to be reminded that the judge him/herself is always a federal employee, and that the trial always would take place inside a government owned/operated courtroom. How's that for a pre-bias for the defense to overcome?

** Prof Jim Fetzer to myself in a Veterans Today comments section regarding my quoting to him Wikipedia's definition for the philosophic burden of proof with regard to the question of the need to at least try to authenticate all videos and photos, regardless of source, prior to accepting any of them [let alone all of them], as being bona fide evidence

Original "Veterans Today" source thread for Prof. Fetzer quote above.

[N.B. My original comment to Fetzer, plus ALL others I made anywhere within the Veterans Today site, either before or since, have now been deleted and my account terminated by the editor there {Dean} ,on the excuse that I had violated the posting terms  by posting a link within a comment, even though Dean had previously told me that I was allowed to post one link per comment :-)] .

Complete Fetzer quote: 

"This is just silly. You cite an article because you don’t know what you are talking about. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years.Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic.Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it. So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."

More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 

 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]

The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]