Friday, April 4, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Deanna, Keith Johnson and independent investigator, Wade, talk about the Sandy Hook School shooting.
ReplyDeletehttp://spingolaspeaks.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/deanna-keith-wade-sandy-hook-4/
In this interview, Wade, an independent researcher, answers all 16 of Wolfgang Halbig sixteen questions.
Well, I listened to their debate last night and his (Wade's) performance was ridiculous. He simply ASSUMES that the official report is accurate. Wolf repeatedly explained that you can't do that but have to go back to the original evidence. If you are this easily taken in, I can't imagine why anyone would take you seriously. After this comment, I most certainly do not.
ReplyDelete" If you are this easily taken in, I can't imagine why anyone would take you seriously. After this comment, I most certainly do not."
DeleteBeing kind of harsh ain't there Doc? I seen you make silly mistakes. Yet, I did not make you out to look ridiculous.
They do make some interesting points. Like there being more Xmas trees than just the 26.
The sign not being present on the day of the event.
Like OBF points out. You rely on official documents to back your views about the events occurring on 9/11.
Would you care to explain the difference?
We have counted the trees and there were 26. I am willing to give you more rope. The arrival of the sign is an interesting question, which I want to check out further. Keep on posting!
DeleteHere is the latest interview with Wolfgang about his visit to Newtown: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=16480
ReplyDeleteGood luck to the both of you. When is the visit scheduled to take place?
DeleteHow can anyone cite Keith Johnson on Sandy Hook after I took him apart during our debate? Here's an article that includes links and discussion about it: "The Ugly Truth about Michael Collins Piper, Cass Sunstein and Sandy Hook", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/25/the-ugly-truth-about-michael-collins-piper-cass-sunstein-and-sandy-hook/
ReplyDeleteHere's another article about my debate with Michael Collins Piper, which was, if anything, even more disgraceful. "After two defeats over Sandy Hook, AFP Editor declines a third debate", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/28/after-two-defeats-over-sandy-hook-afp-editor-declines-a-third-debate/
ReplyDelete“Please be advised that we have multiple weapons including long weapon and shotgun inside the building”
DeleteAs Wade points out this quote leaves out the word "could". "we could have..."
If you are going to use a quote. Make sure it is accurate.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThe blinking "Everyone Must Check In Sign" was from a FoxNews broadcast on Dec 18, 2012 in the America Live segment with Megan Kelly. It was not on the day of the murders.
You can see it at Archive.org
https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWS_20121218_180000_America_Live#start/5760/end/5820
Are you sure? I though it was visible behind Gene Rosen when he was being interviewed in the afternoon of the day of the event.
DeleteI've been trying to make sense of this question too. Why would the sign be there on the following TUESDAY? WHO, and WHY, would they be soliciting check-ins 4 days later? Delphi-Deanna also tries to make hay of (her assertion that) the sign/Rosen-video took place the following Tuesday, too:
Deletehttp://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?75243-Spingola-Jumps-Shark-Supports-Zion-gov-s-Official-Sandy-Hook-Story&p=702049&viewfull=1#post702049
But again, WHY TUESDAY? Note the light blue plaid shirt Rosen is wearing in the pic at the link above. Compare with the shirt(s) he's seen wearing under his blue down-feather jacket in a
http://images.google.com
^ google image search for "Gene Rosen Sandy Hook". How do we know which shirt is from which day?
I'd guess if FAUX News played that video the following Tues Dec 18, that is was just a replay of the video of what took place Fri Dec 14, as they were "following the (pretend) story", getting viewers up to speed on events, etc. Rosen, the sign, the commotion behind him, the "school bus driving by" as Delphi noted above... makes no sense that it would've taken place Dec 18. Makes perfect sense that it was Dec 14.
The archive.org video doesn't play for me, only stalls with the circular spinning arrow over the play console.
In reply to my own post above, I found the Rosen/Kelly "interview" on YT. Kelly's intro and the content suggest it's days later. Esp near the end Gene's pedophilic desires are really on display... he also recites the "darkness into the light" meme a couple times; recall Sofia's video discussed this & it's occult significance. < 11 mins:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2PCg_ZF1gU
I saw a YT suggesting Gene was in front of a green-screen for that "interview"; I wasn't too impressed with it though! The sunshine/shadow points don't work coz Gene was presumably next to something which fully shaded him. And the supposed irregularities about his head's border vs the background are too ambiguous in a video which is low res anyways. The Vanderbilt/Cooper disappearing nose clip was much clearer to see. Here 'tis, judge for yourself, < 3 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jViclRKcM7A
I certainly allow for the possibility that he was "Gene Green Screen" there; but that youtube above wouldn't be convincing enough for me to declare it so.
And the question remains; WHY and for WHO was such a flashing sign ("apparently") there the following Tues 12/18??
I think that the timing of placing the sign is significant. Had it been there day one (or maybe even day two) I would be wondering why so quick.
DeleteBut 4 days after, with so many news agencies and others hovering around, I could understand it being there then. This would go for the lanyards/ID's, too
I have checked Fox News archives and the video cannot be found. The only place I found it was a archive.org (which breaks down the entire 2 hour show into smaller segments. The link still works for me this morning.
The WHY and WHO should be obvious. Hundreds of people to keep some sort of organization.
Let me explain that I still do not believe the entire thing, but it is important to understand that some of the 16 questions (and many other anomalies) may have a legitimate rationale.
Sorry my language is ambiguous in my @3:13 AM reply above. Following IS the FOX/Rosen/Kelly clip, 11 mins:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2PCg_ZF1gU
As to the significance of the sign 4 days after the event... all I can say is, Rense had Jay Weidner on last night and part of the discussion was how PO'ed the older intel agencies are with the new, Jewish DHS (who Weidner asserts has been orchestrating the string of fake tragedies), coz DHS are such sloppy amateurs. Some other interesting topics too, like the Vegas/BLM standoff; unfortunately Weidner doesn't source any of his claims so it's just a guy talking... listen if you're interested, 40 mins:
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/mm3v7jvyg1/Rense.20140410.2of3.mp3
^ advance to 11:00 for top of the DHS discussion.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a FEW POINTS and REPEAT THEM OVER and OVER."
ReplyDelete- Joseph Goebbels
Both Fort Hood shootings were hoaxes. And here is why....
Fort Hood is one of the largest military bases in the world.
Imagine a military installation big enough for 230,000 Foot Ball fields...including end zones...that sends it's wounded to an off base community emergency room.
A base housing 80,000 people - military personnel, their wives and children, civilian employees... and the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center.
From their website..."Historically, from national test scores and evaluations, the Army has three of the top Emergency Medicine Residency Programs in the nation. Darnall is of one of these programs. Our program has been nationally accredited and approved to train emergency physicians since its establishment in 1980."
And I'm expected to believe this base sends wounded soldiers to an emergency room at a private hospital. Of course they do. They've done it before. Once. And I should not need to tell you the "actor known as" Major Hasan was the former "guest" - or should I say "ghost" that time. Weak ass press conference and all....on video...on the same Scott & White Memorial Hospital website...while soldier's wives push out their pups au gratis at the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center on the base.
What does it take? What do I have to do? Fucking tell me! What's a cracka got to do to git his issue of legit propaganda? I stopped paying for bunk dope a long time ago. And I ain't buying now.
This shit they're slingin to us as news...' ain't the bomb. It's Ajax. Those blue crystals? Not buyin' it.
Ya'll best git yerselves some of that there proper like propergander. This shit ain't workin'. It don't smoke right - I can't even keep my eyes open. I'm crashin'.
Next time, I'm bringin' my own to the party.
[It struck me that Mr. Gardner was looking for a way to successfully argue his skepticism of media reported events that defy logic and rational thought. Wouldn't the probability theory help him with this problem?]
ReplyDeletehttp://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html
by Elias Davidsson
Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.
The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.
Davidsson Continued:
ReplyDelete1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.
2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.
3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.
4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.
5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.
6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.
7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.
8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.
9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.
10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.
11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.
12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.
13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.
14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.
15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.
16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.
17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.
18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.
19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.
20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.
21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.
22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.
Couldn't we do something like the above for Sandy Hook? Seems to me this is Jim's cup of tea.
ReplyDelete1. Parents, when told their children have just been killed by a mass murderer. can be expected to not demand to see them or claim their bodies.
2. Police can be expected to keep the bodies of recently murdered school children at the scene of the crime until the middle of the night.
Police can be expected to ................
You may be onto something, Joan. Could you expand your list so I have a better sense of it?
Deletethe adam lanza pictured cannot be a human being, hence adam lanza never existed, hence the entire Hook charade is impossible. end of story. its truly as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the biographical info put out about Lanza, it's incredibly ludicrous, they really went overboard on making him sound freakish.
Deletej.Fetzer said :"Well, I listened to their debate last night and his (Wade's) performance was ridiculous. He simply ASSUMES that the official report is accurate."
ReplyDeleteCome on now. Isn't this a blatant example of "the pot calling the kettle black"?
Haven't you yourself [and numerous others here], simply ASSUMED that the the USGS and DOE official 9/11 reports are accurate and truthful, and that the archived MSM "live" 9/11 footage is genuine, and that all of the NIST released 9/11 imagery is genuine, and that various alleged eyewitness testimony is accurate? HMMMMMM?
No regards, obf.
obf the broken record that just repeats 'it's all fake' over and over and over in the hopes that some fools will be suckered into believing it.
DeleteFakery is practised but far from everything is fake and intelligent people are able to practise discernment.
obf's 'it's all fake' is simply gatekeeping, no more, no less, he's a shill and therefore the lowest form of life, utter scum.
We have good reasons to question the report. I take it you are endorsing the Sandy Hook hoax when we have amassed a lot of proof against it.
DeleteYou know my arguments about all of this. If the government were going to fake records, surely it would fake them to support its own "official account", not contradict it.
Many government agencies appear to have been doing their job on 9/11 and thereafter, not covering up, including the BTS, FAA, USGS and DOE.
It's inconsistent to hold that 9/11 was staged and not accept evidence that supports that view. Indeed, that evidence is an important part of how we know it was contrived.
Dr. Fetzer, shouldn't 2 items be in "Wolfgang's Questions", which are not there? These 2 don't ask why such & such didn't happen which can be dismissed under the catch-all "human error" banner. Rather, these two irregularities are backed by hard forensic evidence that they DID happen, question being WHY?
ReplyDelete1. The "free houses" recorded on Christmas Day '09. I heard these all trace to "victim families", and that they all went up for sale after the event sometime. A personal visit to the SH Clerk/Recorder's office for hard copies of these records-- and some questions of them about the "normalcy" of title transfer recordings on Christmas Day with *ZERO* sale prices, would be in order, yes?
2. The complete cessation of all internet traffic to/from SHES since the end of the '08 Spring semester. This was only discovered by a researcher about a month ago.
The 2nd item suggesting that SHES was closed since Summer '08, is corroborated by numerous videos showing the school's decrepit, unmaintained condition.
Again, the above 2 items are forensically evidenced, unlike several of Wolfgang's "why DIDN'T xyz happen" questions.
Good thoughts. Thanks for mentioning both. Important.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer said: "I take it you are endorsing the Sandy Hook hoax when we have amassed a lot of proof against it."
ReplyDeleteHow in God's name would you "deduce" that?
Jim Fetzer said:" If the government were going to fake records, surely it would fake them to support its own "official account", not contradict it. "
Have you, or has anyone else you know tried to personally cross-check/verify for accuracy these USGS and DOE "studies" ?.
Have you/they closely checked the backgrounds of any of the alleged individuals responsible for those reports ?
Have you/they assayed the laboratories where the various dust samples were allegedly examined/tested, for pre-contamination levels via prior experiments/research?
Has a clear, verifiable chain of custody for any of those alleged dust/soil/water samples allegedly studied been established to date?
Have the prior existing criminal histories/records and various nefarious reports/studies of either of these agencies been taken into account?
And yet , despite all those unanswered questions, somehow, you reassuringly contend that "we" , like yourself, are supposed to believe that in this one particular instance [9/11], both agencies are believable.
Yeah , right.
Your ongoing naivete continues to astound and amaze- so keep it up. [It's _great_ entertainment :-) ]
J. Fetzer said: "Many government agencies appear to have been doing their job on 9/11 and thereafter, not covering up, including the BTS, FAA, USGS and DOE."
70 years old and still that "green" and trusting of governments. My oh my. Some people never learn :-)
Sweet dreams:
"Dreams [Anarchist Blues]": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk
obf.
One of the keys to understanding why obf has a cognitive incapacity to process information about situations like this is his fixation on deductive reasoning, which has a very limited role to play here. We are talking about inductive reasoning to conclusions that have more content than do their premises. Because of his misguided search for certainty, he has an inability to appreciate conclusions that are well-supported inductively and are therefore not certain but which are well-founded anyway. I have refuted his nonsense again and again, but he appears to be here for the duration. A fool lacks the capacity to recognize that he is a fool, which is why he continues to make a fool of himself, over and over and over again.
DeleteIan Greenhalgh the broken record that just repeats 'it's all real' over and over and over in the hopes that some fools will be suckered into believing it.
ReplyDeleteReality is practised but far from everything is real and intelligent people are able to practise discernment
Ian Greenhalghs 'it's all real' is simply gatekeeping, no more, no less, he's a shill and therefore the lowest form of life, utter scum.
Most major news stories these days that get any sort of coverage, especially in the US are fake. Its hard to think of any major news story these days that is not fake. Maybe you have not noticed since you have been busy lapping up them dust samples.
I have never, not once, claimed everything is real, I acknowledge fakery.
DeleteTo call me a gatekeeper is ridiculous.
Ian, I completely agree. Not only are you not "a gatekeeper" but that is a claim of last resort from those who can't marshal arguments to defeat your position. Another kind of name-calling and a sign of intellectual weakness.
DeleteThankyou Jim.
DeleteI realise I get strident and sometimes aggressive with the people I consider shills, but it's simply, like Pete Finch in Network because 'I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore'.
It sickens me deeply how infested the truth movement and alternative media have become by cointelpro entities of one form or another and because I do give a damn about the truth and trying to do something to fight for justice, I will speak out, albeit sometimes stridently in harsh terms.
You said "fakery is practiced but far from everything is fake" I would disagree, by far most major stories on the news are fake.
DeleteThat message i posted was your message with a few words changed. That shows you how generic and pointless your original post to obf was.
Yes, I recognised what you had done, and it was you who were being pointless.
Deleteobf is a disgusting sick-minded individual who contributes nothing worthwhile whatsoever and continually makes the same two or three falacious points over and over again.
Either he really sick minded and a bit retarded in his cognitive processes or he is deliberately shilling.
It is never pointless to combat these people and point out to others that they are shills.
You said "far from everything is fake".Would you not agree then that most of the major stories on the news are fake.
DeleteI wouldn't know about US TV News because I live in England and don't watch US TV News.
DeleteI live in the northern ireland but i can get the US news on the internet. How can you say not everything is fake if you admit you dont even watch US tv news. If you had been checking the US news, you would struggle to find any news story that appears to be real. Dont take my word for it check it out for yourself, It'll be an eyeopener.
DeleteAmanda, its not so much that the news in the US is fake as it is superfluous banter and fluffery designed to entertain the by now almost completely lobotomized American public
DeleteSure they fake stories but mostly they just dont report anything of relevance.
It's called 'soft news'...
DeleteIn my opinion, most of the major news stories are fake.
DeleteI disagree, it's far more effective to report the actual news but practice selectivity in what you omit.
DeleteYou dont watch US news, so you'd hardly know.
DeleteI worked in TV for several years so think I'm fairly well informed about how TV journalism works.
Delete'It's all fake' is way too simplistic thinking, it's much more complicated than that.
The battles between reporters and editors as to what gets reported can be furious and often are. The pressure comes from higher up and there are many, many cases of reporters resigning due to not being able to report all the details they think the public should know.
The fakery that is going on is staggering, in my opinion. The Boston Globe and The New York Times just won Pulitzer prizes for fake news stories. So not only is fakery happening it is also being rewarded. Im sure the decisions on fake news stories are being taken way above the level your TV job was at. Its unlikely that they consult everyone who works in TV before going ahead with a hoax.
DeleteMore info on Sandy Hook is posted here: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65846-new-shooting-Newtown-Conn-details-breaking/page130
ReplyDeleteAlso, here's a new article on how SHES was abandoned long before the staged event: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/04/11/was-sandy-hook-elementary-school-already-abandoned-before-the-massacre/
Also, fyi, it looks like Keith Johnson is continuing to promote the MSM version of Sandy Hook: http://grizzom.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-spotlight-with-keith-johnson-4102014.html
A few observations re this 2 hour, 3-way Shill-A-Thon (KJ, Delphi-Deanna, & the anonymous "Wade"):
Deletehttp://tinyurl.com/pohagkc
I think Deanna said it all to Pete ShamShilli on Mar 31, ref:
http://tinyurl.com/ofw939x
2:20 PS: So, you've said you read the reports, and, I'm not even going by the conspiracy theories. How do we know that we're to trust those reports? Can we?
2:33 DS: I think that, yes, I think you can.
http://i.imgur.com/XLTJQbd.jpg
Keep up the good work Pat, I admire your tracking of the Spingola farce and your documenting the salient points for us.
DeleteSpingolas latest attempt with wade to prove sandy hook was real was pathetic. Its in the report, have you not read it? seems to be the answer to most of the questions. They look to that report, the way a christian looks to the bible. It was shockingly bad, johnson just rambled on about how people who dont believe the report are mental with spingola laughing along, though it certainly beats the crying.
DeleteHow is it that Spingola (and the rest) trust the official report on Sandy Hook, but deny the official report on 911?
DeleteI had been a long time fan of DeAnna's... until I listened to several of her shows regarding Sandy Hook and the way she addressed various people that are researching it. She acted very unbecoming and totally out of her normal character.
So much so, that now I cannot listen to her shows, no matter what the subject.
I heard her once compare how stoic she was towards a friend that killed her cat (she didn't cry) as if somehow the cat and a child is the same (commenting on how the players at SH didn't shed tears).
Duh!
Something is amiss.
Its a laugh. Deanna asks a question, one of the other 2 reads a bit from the report then they say thats that debunked, next question. Johnson says there are problems with helicopters, apparently sometimes they are just to noisy. Its hard to take anyone seriously who would cite a government report as irrefutable.
DeleteJ.Fetzer said : "I have refuted his nonsense again and again....... A fool lacks the capacity to recognize that he is a fool, which is why he continues to make a fool of himself, over and over and over again."
ReplyDeleteYeah, right, Mr Fetzer. I'm a fool. Whatever- if you say so.
As well as myself, persons such as Simon Shack, Andy Tyne, Joan Edwards, Bob Bobson, PShea etc , who would all probably ask the exact same questions as the ones I posed in my previous post concerning the USGS and DOE studies, and not just swallow them "hook, line and sinker as irrefutable evidence.....
...... who would all , like myself, also make serious attempts to _individually_ validate any/all alleged 911 video sequences or photos - instead of just blithely assuming that they all must be genuine because they all , allegedly," hang together" [which they don't, BTW]...
.... and who would all also make serious efforts to try to authenticate any/all alleged eyewitness testimony instead of just blithely and conveniently assuming, with no real proof, that some of them must be telling "the truth" because their testimony supports your 911 theory....
....are all, just like myself, fools whose "nonsense" you have refuted "again and again".
Your intellectual arrogance continues to astound- but keep on dreaming/pontificating- after all, it's your revealed nature.
Sweet dreams :-) obf.
I love the Fetz.. But you are 100% accurate. Peace to all parties.we are all on the same team. We should act like it.
DeleteI can picture turd blossom Karl rove reading the posts here laughing at our destruct able diss function.
Jim, is there any way you could make your podcast available in iTunes so we could download and keep the shows for offline listening?
ReplyDeleteRight click and save target as will download it for offline listening
ReplyDelete