Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Jim Fetzer / Reno SaintJames

Jim with Pete Santilli Part 2 / Reactions


  1. the hurricane was most likely used to suck the clouds from nyc so conditions on the day itself matched up with the long preprepared cgi
    cloudless movie we were presented on tv with.

    hi claire. pshea from clare here.

    looking forward to hearing you on radio abirato. it surely can't be long before you come around to the right way of thinking i.e. 9/11, like sandy hook, being a complete hoax with no victims and copious cg video sequences.

    question to ponder:
    is simonshack playing the role of jan erik?
    is hoi polloi playing the role of robin fisher?
    -all 4 featured on previous shows.

    for me - 100% sure simon is-
    about 85% hoi is.

    what are the implications of this, if true?
    are they the last layer of 9/11 gatekeeping?

    subjects not shown due consideration on cluesforum:

    -jfk faked death (culto being a former cluesforum member)
    -paul mccartney replaced
    -advanced technologies

    for me, 9/11 is now irrelevant. the power base moves east, as the west which has longsince been pencilled in for destruction, goes under.
    all 'mistakes' in the 9/11 production were meant to be uncovered, and all those incriminated, up to and including the media, were meant to be incriminated. the absurdities of sandy hook tells me that we are in the end stages of their (the roman empire) endgame, and the house of cards is being intentionally exposed and forcibly collapsed. watch the whole obama fake come into the reckoning soon.

    anyway, good luck on the show. i can only hope
    you are genuine, as the number of those i once thought genuine is now dangerously low.
    (jim included here, as he refuses to investigate the main area on which the whole hoax hangs - the 3,000 faked victims).

    santilli makes good sense on some issues, but he is totally ignorant on the 9/11 question (at best).
    judy wood is also complete disinfo who promotes the analysis of fake/generated video and photo evidence to come to real world causal conclusions.

    9/11 truth is full of paid actors it seems.
    are characters being 'outed' and 'killed off'?

    some ham with your cheese?

    the whole world is fake.

  2. Santilli only "makes good sense" in the context as a sort of court jester, mocking and making fun of Jim's serious research. At other times, "Silly" Santilli was creating disinformation or obfuscation to confuse the issues. Hurricanes happen, maybe weather control by Illuminati, et. al is possible, but that isn't where the focus should be in 911 research right now. It's too diversionary.

    If Santilli can do talk radio, any moron can do this. He's a gutter rat IMHO.

    Jim performed honorably and outstanding under an unfavorable environment supplied by this worthless lackey and the lowlife producer who butters his bread.

  3. for sure. i was talking about his views as expressed on other shows of his i have listened to.

    santilli was a dumb asshole here and Jim is completely vindicated.

    however, gatekeeping/disinfo agents are everywhere and 9/11 truth is almost completely compromised, and has always been.

    that is the sad reality.

  4. Dear Pshea,

    You wrote:

    "question to ponder:
    is simonshack playing the role of jan erik?
    is hoi polloi playing the role of robin fisher?
    -all 4 featured on previous shows.

    for me - 100% sure simon is-
    about 85% hoi is."

    Well, you are 100% wrong about that. It would be nice if you gracefully retracted this silly assumption of yours. By the way, I'm still awaiting an answer from you on - please honor us with an answer!

    The rest of your above post is pretty much right on the money.

    Have a nice day

    Simon Shack

  5. Hi Simon.

    Hoi banned me, apparently thinking my 1st response to his 1st reply was my response to his 2nd reply.

    It wasn't. Anyway, I appreciate all that both of you have done and can only hope that all has been above board and has been done for the right reasons.

    I had a long reply written out for you, but lost it as when I went to post it, I was Banned.

    I hope the whole core matter can be cleared up. Thanks for the education.


    I have a strange feeling that the 9/11 truth movement is being imploded.

  6. Simon Shack deserves a great deal of credit for being among the first people then-- and even now --who question the very premise of 911 itself, whereas others arbitrarily choose which evidence they decide to throw out as false flag deception and which they keep as unassailable assumptions.

    I don't think Fetzer's avoidance of the hoaxed victims speaks to any obfuscation, but rather to the consensual, normative constraints imposed by the mainstream 911 truth community.

    Social Proof is still a very powerful psychological effect, and just as the unawakened masses are slow to understand those wildly different paradigms of reality, so too are some of the most popular pundits unable to fully explore the avenue of a complete hoax, despite the overwhelming implications of such a possibility.

    But again, to his credit, Fetzer is among the few very open minded researchers who will pursue a contrary view, and he risked much cynical derision by focusing the Vancouver hearings on computer generated fakery and other controversial issues.

    I am still surprised that this far into the awakening process so many have yet to completely embrace what I consider self-evident aspects of the operation, and one can not help but reason that the infiltration of the movement is a critical factor.

    Yet truth slowly outs itself and we watch as everyone slowly makes their way into right conception of the event, but despite early researchers who should have been rewarded for their foresight, they still remain in an intellectual ghetto for so many.

  7. Here are a few reasons why...

    1. The Shack forum retains too much of a snarky and hostile culture to accurately sift the earnest opinions from the insincere. And this is a problem with the truth community as a whole; if there were more of a tacit rule that ad hominem attacks, to state just one problem, then it would be easier to measure claims for their objective worth. Unless one thinks snark itself is an indicator of dubious intention, which is often the case in JFK forums.

    Nevertheless, everyone usually thinks he is right, and conversely, that everyone else is a shill or and idiot... and as tough as it is to navigate between these extremes based on the evidence and claims, it is infinitely harder to do in the context of represented human personalities.

    2. Many have developed -- whether fair or not -- a belief that Simon's forum has thrown its net too wide, allowing for too much reality to be sacrificed before the altar of fakery. To be fair, cognitive dissonance prevents many from accepting demonstrably false events such as the moon landings, whereas seasoned insiders can easier take in the vast desert of the unreal.

    It goes to reason than that any neophyte might think such a community has gone too far, when in fact the neophyte has not gone far enough, problems easily corrected by deep research within a sympathetic community.

    To take the opposite view now, there is a sense that by too much being assumed as fake, a certain threshold is passed after which we have a kind of epistemological meltdown -- and we must declare that we know nothing, or at least we don't have enough of a common ground to understand our original inquiry with reasonable context.

    I know that some believe JFK did not get assassinated, and there are many other beliefs that strain credulity; the danger in such untethered speculation is that the entire enterprise of Simon's research forum -- including the unparalleled research and Simon himself -- is often viewed as suspect, if not thrown out altogether by those they hope to convince.

    I am not saying the work is disinformation nor the fountain of truth itself, but only that those listed factors convolute the issue, and other interesting facts discovered by their community often wash away with distracting elements.

    3. And finally, because there are no ambassadors representing their original groundbreaking research group that voyage out to the various radio shows, blogs, and other venues, a consistent message is not expressed, and thus many know only of their work only from their often unpleasant experiences visiting the site where they either respond to the idiosyncratic culture or not... and if they do not, beware...

  8. In conclusion, I think that time has only demonstrated the veracity of the original claims of Simon Shack, and no event gives us a better lens to appreciate their integrity than the recent Sandy Hook "shooting" event.

    This latest operation is the most blatant display of a flawed official story yet, but more importantly, this curious "shooting" features the most compelling argument yet for a complete hoax, and by extension, it also allows us to view all that preceded it as potentially featuring the same qualities and characteristics.

    "If Sandy Hooks is fake, then perhaps 911 was too?" is how the argument will go. Many have been slow to admit this in the days and first weeks after the event. However, I have noticed a tipping point being crossed, where everyone is acclimating to the possibility that this and other events are merely staged operations with actors. Professor James Tracy and other intellectuals are publicly stating the possibility of such scenarios, and fortunately for us, this revelation is discharging the emotional charge of the government's campaign for gun control.

    I believe this latest hoax can afford us the greatest opportunity ever for uncovering the last century of deception because the possibility of proving the case one way or the other seems like merely the easy work of determined investigators.

    If we can clearly demonstrate the contrived fraud in this case, especially after such committed investment by the part of the media, president, and law enforcement, then we can finally demonstrate the illegitimacy of our reigning government, and undermine their credibility once and for all.

  9. A few years ago, when the (at that time) startling proposition that some of the 9/11 "heroes" and "victims" were fictional creations was first proposed on 9/11-centered forums, several of the early, standout web researchers on this topic (if they themselves were real, that is) put in many long hours, painstakingly digging through both online and hardcopy public records (births/graduations/deaths/marriages/property tax assessments/drivers' licenses/real estate sales, court judgements, etc.) to determine the likelihood of certain individual, mass media-promoted characters (in the 9/11 drama) being genuine. Some really glaring, obvious cases of victim fictionalisation were indeed, uncovered, and the responding silence of the mainstream media only amplified the confirmation.

    Then new episodes of "drama" began to occur, with the very first forum to host such research being destroyed under still-mysterious circumstances. Subsequently, several of those groundbreaking identity-researchers reported either being warned off by law enforcement officers, threatened by pseudonymous trolls, hacked by cognitive-infiltration shills, or administrator-banned from the surviving forums that had allowed such discussions in the first place.

    Yet the meme persisted (albeit among a rather slim cadre of official-story sceptics) that 9/11 was essentially a massive psyop, populated mainly (if not exclusively) by people who never existed in real life. Today however, some of the strongest adherents of this position avoid continuing the time-consuming, face-by-face, name-by-name, identity verification process altogether, cynically and lazily dismissing it with an attitude of "What's the use? Why bother? They're ALL fake anyway!"

    And so, tragically, open-minded RESEARCH has hardened into dogmatic BELIEF. And that firm article of faith has been extended (by the "psyop fundamentalists" among us) to virtually all (potentially politically significant) reports of murder and terror, both in the present era and even in the distant past. One can almost hear the fundamentalist choir, joining in chorus after chorus of John Lennon's "Glass Onion":

    "Nothing is real... Nothing is real... Nothing is real..."

    It's as if to say that the perps have as their MAIN OBJECTIVE not to foment endless wars of obscene profiteering, civic repression and ritual brutality -- but just to play an OCD version of "The Joker," whose chief aim in today's world is to repeatedly and cunningly FOOL US WITH FAKE VICTIMS!!!

    But I beg to disagree. The perps have NO qualms about simple killing and only expend the extra efforts required by elaborate fakery when they deem it supportive of their utterly evil, long-term goals. So whenever fakery is suspected, dig for the facts; support your assertions. Otherwise you are only lamely positing a "conspiracy so immense" that no one SHOULD believe it.

  10. I can't wait 'til the latest interview with Mike Sparks (which I heard on Revere Radio and is great!) is posted here. I HAVE to comment on the Woods-Johnson "Aftershow Commentary" (read: "psyop") that followed on Pete Santilli's show, here: I've given this pair a huge benefit of the doubt, but this latest act of disinformation, if it can be dignified by this term, puts them over the top. Woods and her knight-protector Johnson have thoroughly discredited themselves with this recent attack against reason and rationality, and I use the words advisedly.

    Jim, you should embed the full interview you did with Santilli side by side with this Woods-Johnson "commentary" in a prominent place on your blogsite so that visitors can decide for themselves. I think the Truth movement will begin to have second thoughts about the Woods cult: the perfect characterization I believe the movement will come to accept. Let this outrageous pair fashion their own rope!

    Hurricane Erin is Dr Judy Wood's (and her psyop directors'?) MacGuffin ( and was never meant to be analyzed: it's there to add a sense of mystery to set her Hutchison allusions, which likewise lack analysis, within the fabric of nature (nature as it's understood by pseudoscientific romantics). There MIGHT be something that relates her cataloged data to torsion energy, but in every instance that this is suggested (by Fetzer, Hoagland) Wood explodes. Why? Is it not because her mystery has been threatened? There is some good science in Wood's work, but underlying all of it is a deep tendency to mysticism. This is also the reason she eschews theory, because cogent examination of facts should lead one to the choice of a theory; and her object is not a theory, but a mystical obfuscation.

  11. Great thread. Andy, Solfeggio, Atlantabill are all welcome to come discuss their great posts on sat Jan 26 8pm.

    1. Am i not me ? No i am Simon. This is so funny to me.
      As i do live in Oslo and Simon claims he lives in Rome.

      I have been Italy but no longer south than Rimini over ten years ago.

      But i guess i am not me and Simon is playing me :-D

      I know the web is full of fake people. But i suspect Simon has an agenda.
      I differ from him on key issues and can easy prove that i am not him.

      I find it an insult to be accused of being a non person.

      Jan Erik Oslo Norge