9/11 debate with OBF Fox and Friend

Be the 1st to vote.

OBF does a great explaining his position on 9/11, which parallels mine. He also does a good job explaining why blaming 0;the jews” as John constantly does is a red herring when this “chosen” group can be replaced or would be replaced with any other group (Jesuits, masons, etc.) if in fact they are the problem.

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 during this program. Calls will be taken in the second hour.


John’s show page, with a growing comment section: http://www.john-friend.net/2014/03/the-realist-report-911-debate.html

Thanks for the h/t at 1:49:00 OBF!


No tags for this post.

14 thoughts on “9/11 debate with OBF Fox and Friend

  1. tsisageya

    But, no. I don’t actually think that the Jews are the be all and end all of all things. I’m more looking at the trillionaires. I’m looking at, what, the .0001% of the one percent? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    They speak about working for transparency. They say how they are so transparent all while they are lying. Funny thing is, they’re transparent and are trying not to be. That is some terrible laughter.

  2. tsisageya

    It doesn’t matter since this is your site but, John Friend is a no go for me. He’s a David Duke fan. I want nothing to do with him.

    White supremacists— don’t ever speak to me. You’re disgusting

    I know. Who cares?

    I have said this before though.

  3. tsisageya

    I disagree. There’s plenty of proof about the disgustingly rich of the rich who seem to control everything and don’t give one single fuck for the “useless eaters”. I think we should just follow the motherfucking money. Just follow it along. The humans in control of America are Jews. Empire-building has control of ALL the money, or, at least, seeks to.

    I wonder how Putin gets along with Jews, Jesuits, Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics.

    The entire display makes me sick but Putin has become my hero. Take that away from me, that’s okay.

  4. simonshack

    Considering that there will be people on this planet who will have the natural / organic impulse to bang their heads into their walls for much less than that (listening to Don Fox’s claptrap), I can’t see how OBF’s far less violent guitar-playing urge can be interpreted as ‘shameful’.

    Just my two cents on the issue :O)

  5. wolfman9

    @Hoi, Ok, maybe fire and animosity is not required to effectively debate an issue. What did you make of OBF’s guitar playing? How about how neither Fox nor Friend batted an eyelash about it? It seemed like they weren’t going to address it and hope that he stopped without having to mention it. It went on so long though, they had to stop him. No one said, ‘come on now OBF, don’t you want to take this seriously?’ They just tried to ignore that it happened, except OBF was embarrassed, which he probably should have been. If OBF doesn’t take this stuff seriously, how can we take him seriously?

    With all the caution that you guys use of weeding out controlled opposition on Cluesforum, it baffles me that you are not more cautious about supporting this guy to represent ‘our’ fakery views.

    1. ab Post author

      I think OBF is the real deal. He thought he was muted, so I doubt he was being disrespectful. Either way Don was not addressing the debate points, so listening was rather optional. The discourse was civil compared to the fetzer forum ad hominem attacks against OBF.

      1. wolfman9

        Let’s just put it this way, if I was unaware of these two different positions on 9/11 and was listening to people debate these topics for the first time and one of the guys has to be told to stop playing guitar, what sort of impression do you think that would leave with someone new about the people or person ‘championing’ that position?

        If I get invited on a radio show to ‘debate’ something that I am passionate about, I would listen intently to every word so I can formulate an argument about what is being said. Do I have confidence that OBF was doing this? No. Maybe it was a little too easy to predict how long he had to practice his guitar when he wasn’t speaking because of the timed structure of the debate. If it was totally scripted, he could probably get away with not listening and have his arguments still sound relevant to what was previously being discussed.

        “Either way Don was not addressing the debate points, so listening was rather optional.”
        I disagree. If one’s opponent is going ‘off-topic’ or saying anything incorrect in a debate, it is smart strategy to call them on it, if it appears that is what they are doing.

        OBF also claims that he is not a ‘researcher’ but, someone who reviews research and tries to summarize it. He says he gets ‘board’ with this stuff and clearly displays/admits to a lack of knowledge about certain topics, probably because, he is “NOT A RESEARCHER”.

        It’s not about disrespect, it is a question of integrity.

        1. Hoi Polloi

          Very fair points, Wolfman.

          In my experience, Simon and others have been really adamant about trying to represent their views seriously and from a personal perspective, even if in a serious kind of good humor. OBF is deliberately distancing himself from this seriousness, responsibility and the terms of the debate, which again I think John Friend might have done better.

          And he even says he is doing so, because (I suspect) he is maintaining his own personal freedom. As the self-honorific Personal Freedom Consultant implies, he must be an expert himself and what else is freedom but the ability to disengage from a situation you just don’t want to be a part of? OBF repeats he is not a researcher and is not an expert but that he was willing to be consulted for his perspective.

          If you give Mr. Fox any credit, you could say he maintains the narrative that John Friend mistakenly uses: that we are meant to do anything but get further in our understanding of where the news and science originates in our culture. The truth is neither of these people would serve that particular debate properly, and only OBF seems to be willing to recognize that. Nor would a “Simon Shack vs. Jim Fetzer” so-called debate. Because that would just turn into an embarrassing shouting match of Fetzer using his terrible unscientific argumentation and bullying tactics to silence this important point. Failing to create this terrible situation, which seems to be Fetzer’s aim, Fetzer’s “team” if you will (not denying their individuality but just staying consistent with this hypothetical) sent in Don Fox. This is because OBF (as he stated in the beginning) did not get the contender he wanted, which was Fetzer, and so the topic strayed from the philosophy of science and returned to the same old boring shit we already know. Fetzer buys any official looking thing at face value because it’s got some supposedly reputable seal on it. OBF was not allowed to challenge Fetzer on this and so he may as well play the guitar around all the boring insipid endorsements of useless uninvestigated trivia.

          OBF tried to reframe the debate at the beginning by pointing this out but Friend was going to continue the thing as he planned, hoping Fox or Friend would actually admit that there is a fundamental problem with the idea of having Fox just read official news/science blurbs as the only thing he had for an argument. The only thing Fox brought to the table, it seems to me, is the same old PNAC and Zionist and dual-citizen awareness we already have. Friend seemed thrilled to make a connection that anyone could make about the power structure of the USA & Israel (which both governments are happy to admit are allies).

          So to me, OBF considered himself “taking one for the team” by patiently just sitting there where any other researcher (including Simon or myself) would be scribbling on the walls of the conference room in frustration.

          1. wolfman9

            Alright, I appreciate your replies.

            I will give you the benefit of the doubt, on this one but, you guys know how this stuff works. Trust NO ONE!!.. except me, of course.. 😛

            Cheers, WM

            1. ab Post author

              I re-read your comment and understand your concerns now. I agree trust no-one. That is the nature of the psyOp, create distrust so no REAL opposition can coalesce. Lead the opposition, like Richard Gage, so it goes no where. This debate wasn’t a debate, as usual, as points weren’t lobbed back and forth or even exchanged at all for the most part for people to see weaknesses and choose sides. OBF has been on my broadcast and appears sincere, so I think he’s at least worth listening too. Simon and Hoi have the magic anti-9/11 psyop tonic in their forum, so they have a right to be highly possessive and weary of anyone who tries to promote and repackage it. Like any great invention or formula, it can be run right into the ground and buried forever. Many singers (real or not) often accuse their managers (Elvis/Col. Tom) of taking a great concept/career and killing it, or at least stifling it from its potential. With that allegory in mind, I can only tell Simon and Hoi that I am sincere in my promotion of their concepts, but I will understand and accept their reservations as they come as part of the territory.

  6. Tom

    Having listened to dead-pan comedian Don Fox I am left with the impression, that in his understanding, this is what really happened on 9/11:

    There was a very rare type of nuclear fission/fusion. ( sorry, it’s confusin, it’s unclear, in fact, it’s nuclear).

    Anyway, this type of fuission only occurs in 1 in 100 million fuishion- events. ( !!! )

    This though, is not the clincher. The clincher is the TWRIDDIUM, sometimes pronounced TWIVVIUM.

    There was TWIDIATED water found by the Department of Health. ”You know, H20?” ( He actually said that.)

    So….because the water ( H2O, yeh? ) was found in pools in the basements of the towers, the towers were brought down by nuclear explosives.

    Hhahahahaha….and again come on hahahahaha ha ha HA!

    I have to take these moments to genuinely laugh. Ultimately it has to be total lies, on top of total lies, enforcing other lies. That’s the way, Jim Fetzer, the illusion of 9/11 and civilisation in general, ”Hangs together”, does it not?

    Tridiated water reported by the Department of Health , proving nuclear explosions? All in that dead-pan style? He almost comes across as an intelligent man in very fleeting moments. He nods to the research at September Clues, he acknowledges some validity. But then seems almost unable to pronounce the word vicsim. Yawn to that line drawn, (and a nod to Hoi- on this very thread 🙂 of course, that’s where his imaginary line is drawn. That big lie, within the first big lie.

    Don Fox, like a tired old company man, doing his duty for the boys. No passion there- indeed – reading from the current version of the script. Foxy! You’re making me laugh.

    No wonder ‘anarchist’ OBF started playing his guitar. I think he’s just heard it all before. It’s absurd and not even worth listening to really. Twiddling the guitar relieves stress. If you’ve got to listen to ten parts of illogical bullshit…

    wolfman questions OBF’s validity . I found that interesting. I’d had a feeling of OBF being somehow…I dunno… -the voice…a little bit lazy like the guitar playing. Not truly engaging. I listened with that in mind.
    For me, right now, he’s cool. A source of logic and good reason, he has impeccable taste in his source- a body of research way beyond any individual . He’s doing fair leg-work for sanity, in putting forward the case of September Clues.

    Hoi’s endorsement here says a lot.

    At least we get a chance to laugh at Don Fox as the dead-pan comedian he is.

    Hey, maybe there is such a thing as a wholesome Social Service..?

  7. Hoi Polloi

    It seems to me that both voices ‘debating’ are reading from their own scripts because they knew they had to prepare but maybe John Friend didn’t prepare them properly about the terms. I am not saying it’s easy to facilitate, and he is brave to try it on such an issue, but Friend might have benefited from a facilitation mentor to help him frame the debate better. It also would have helped to do test calling beforehand and make sure the set up was technologically protected for the duration of the call. (However much that can even be done. It may be difficult if someone like the NSA really wants to hack/disrupt the discussion). But he did a very very good job. Better than anyone’s framed the debate before, thankfully! Good on John Friend.

    For the debaters, it is like the debaters are reading scripts and competing to sound like they sound on their posts — posting familiar messages from their stories — rather than an actual debate on the merits of the claims. For my part, it sounds a bit like two mature people in a competition to sound mature and composed, and this is where the “lack of fire” you are reading into it comes from. This “calm” is at the expense of a true investigation into Fetzer’s claims, which unfortunately never get questioned as deeply as a true criminal investigation, let alone one proportional to the size of the alleged crime. Since the onus is on the person with the theory who claims to know facts that others don’t to demonstrate the evidence for their theory, and that continues to “elude” Fetzer and Fox, it doesn’t seem to me that Fox actually knows the facts he claims to know, he merely trusts the stories of the DOE, the USGS, the falsified imagery and the primarily fabricated eye-witness testimonies reported. OBF does very well in trying to see if Fox indeed knows anything about what he’s talking about, and Fox seems to indicate he doesn’t actually know, yet trusts (without clear understanding) that the government information is not falsifiable. How strange a position!

    And we are left to conclude that Fox exists in the debate to defend one of the government’s conspiracy positions. “Outside job-Inside job collaboration” continues to be the cry of those with sympathies to Fetzer’s “Zionists did it” hypothesis, denying the phenomenon of the power of imagery to suffice as “evidence” in investigations that are not treated scientifically. That is to say, they are unprepared to question the government and keep our government accountable to the people where it most counts. Yes, Zionists are undeniably involved in the 9/11 plot, the terrible and traitorous results of their involvement are plain to see, Israel is no doubt a dangerous terrorist government that perhaps should never have existed, and “nuclear weapon” science is important to clarify for everyone (which Fox doesn’t do) but to conclude the investigation into all of these things before it has even begun seems almost as criminal as performing the crime itself. I think OBF did very well in trying to represent the big problem, but Fox did a powerful job of, basically, defending our criminally negligent government and serving as an apologist for the lack of science, forensics and reason in the debate. What a shameful performance by Fox. Big thanks to OBF and John Friend for keeping the discussion in the arenas of science, reason, logic, forensics and criminal investigation.


  8. wolfman9

    OBF sounds like a real honest truth seeker, not. My favorite part of this is when you can tell he is not even paying attention to what is being talked about because, he is playing the guitar in the background. He says he thought his mute was on. Hahaha, whoops! No real fire or annimosity between these guys, in fact, it sounds like they are reading from a script. I think these are grounds to question OBF’s validity, no?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.