Monday, December 22, 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:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
December
(14)
- Jim Lanthier / Phil Nelson, JFK Show #42
- Dennis Cimino / William Shanley & James Tracy
- Ole Dammegard
- John Stokes / Phil Nelson
- Dennis Cimino
- Jan Irvin
- Jim Fetzer / The New JFK Show #40
- Jim Mariano / William Shanley
- Jim Fetzer / Frank Salter
- Meria Heller / On the road with Dr. Fetzer
- Stew Webb, Preston James, Nick Kollerstrom
- Jim Fetzer
- L.J. Delsa / The New JFK Show #38
- Jim Fetzer
-
▼
December
(14)
Didn't listen to it yet but could someone give me the over/under on how many F-bombs he uses this show? Under 10?
ReplyDeleteF*Bombs? What is this kindergarten? Teacher, Johnny said a bad word!
ReplyDeleteYeah, buddy, you look real professional and are really going to persuade people who disagree with you if you can't even use professional language (I didn't think that was that hard to do).
DeleteAnonymous, Dennis comments about your odd post (which I also thought was curious):
Delete"Where are the F-bombs in this show? You know you're floating a canard here, to poison the well like all of you trolls like to do, using an around the back implied 'ad hom' to denigrate me for profanity that isn't in the show...meaning your lazy ass didn't even listen to it..your goal specifically was to come in and poison the well and detract from the comments with garbage.
"You zio trolls are pretty transparent with your crap, there is only one show that Jim Fetzer taped that was done as just a conversation he later opted to broadcast, where I used profane language because it was not intended to be broadcast and I am sure he posted about that, stating that he later asked my permission to use it as a show and I had consented if he edited out some of the stuff people might object to. He more or less let it be and then jerk off's like yourself had conniptions like you never heard profane language before.
"In the context the show was recorded, it's wholly legitimate, given the fact it wasn't done as a broadcast at all but because of what we discussed, he opted to use it as one.
"Khazars like yourself who come in and whine about my 'wrong' theory about Khazars (we know which turd you are) then hide behind your anonymity so you can 'ad hom' to your heart's content and not use your regular posting moniker where you rail against my allegedly WRONG theory which is FACT about the truth about your tribe having never come from the holy land at all, per more than one jewish scholar now (three at least in the past 50 years).
"When you can actually comment about the show, then come back, but otherwise, why don't you find something better to do than come in hear and do your typical zioturd well poisoning schtick you like to do, eh?"
I didn't state that there were F-bombs in this specific show, but based on past performance I was asking how many there were so I could judge whether or not it was worth the effort to listen to two hours of it.
DeleteI like much of what you usually have to say, but I was a little taken aback by the excess profanity in that one show which I have now learned wasn't specifically recorded for broadcast. But since this one apparently is better in that regard I will certainly listen.
Dennis responds to Anonymous:
Delete"you have good cause to not like the profane language, Anon, but as I had stated, the conversation was just a conversation that
Jim was recording the whole time, I had no idea till later in the game he was probably recording it, then when he knew I had figure dit out, he asked if I had any problem with using it and I said; "uh, you'll have to clean it up a bit.." and that was that. I think for effect he decided to leave the profanity in there. Not to arbitrarily excuse profanity in everyday discussions, when the situation is this bleak, and dire, you really cannot with any degree of sanity, keep that stiff upper british lip and not swear now and then during the discussion with a friend. I don't usually use the 'F' bomb as you call it in normal circumstances, but when I truly emote about the situation, yeah, you bet I will do it, especially amongst friends and colleagues for sure. Does this mean I am likely to use a lot on radio shows? Perhaps. Let's put it this way, this subject material is not really for children. IF for chance someone elects to have a child under the age of 18 listen to this, without having a good long chat about the grave situation in the aftermath, you are setting the child up for ulcers and a curtailed truncated childhood beyond what the scum who did this shit have caused when they decided to load MOX fuel into those Mk1 reactors in Japan, and '27' locations in the USSA too.
'The probability of a US based FUKUSHIMA is so great that in my professional opinion, as a professional who has 40 years of very heavy duty scientific research work behind him, is that in the next two years or less we will have our own Fukushima here somewhere in the USSA, and the one we have in Japan is already an ELE, or extinction level event. As time goes by, the government will lose control once the population of the USSA and other nations figure out how egregiously lied to and screwed, blued and tatooed they all are.
'When this happens, Katy bar the frigging door then, it's over, control wise. That day will come. It is coming. May god help the powers that be when that day does arrive...they will rue the day they were born...but that won't be enough retribution for what they have done by their incompetence, lying, and inaction about an event that will likely destroy all living things on this planet except organisms that can incorporate radiation into their food cycles as a form of energy pump or ION mover.
"So, thank you for clarifying. I'm sorry I bit your head off. but profanity is warranted now and then, but not appropriate for most discussions about things. In this case, I'm not mad at Jim at all for leaving it in the show. But I had hoped it would have been explained in the course of the show how we did that one. With so much time, he had no choice but to leave it in or truncate the show and kill some of the content for no real valid reason other than civility. But I do share your concerns about it. We're past the 'extend pinkie finger' point in taking our tea now, I am afraid to say. In the end, people will be a lot more angry than I am about this. And god help the powers that be when that comes."
Now that I think about it, I think Jim actually did warn his audience about the language in that conversation he recorded with you and that it was very blunt. But sometimes, you are right, the situation is so dire that there is no better way to describe it. Us folks under 30 are the ones that are going to have to live long through this nightmare.
DeleteDennis replies to Anonymous:
Delete"One thing people don't know about me, is that as I had driven so many miles all over the USSA, more than 65k in a short period of time, less than six months actually, that in all of this travel I see the faces of people from that truck cab. I have seen fellow truck drivers begging for money at truck stops, young girls prostituting themselves for money while their boyfriends played 'pimp' for them, and I have seen city after city after city in such abject poverty that one afternoon outside of Memphis at a laundromat, a young black girl who was taking care of the place came up to me with a soap container and scoop and offered to put soap into my machine, it was 'free soap wednesday' there.. and I looked at her and said; "how very kind of you" and though I had my own, I let her put it in there because she must have interpreted my tired face and my wrinkled clothes I had on as a sign I was perhaps another local down on my luck when in fact the dark blue tractor outside was my home for the time being.
"I saw so much of the nation and saw so many people in bad shape, THAT was perhaps the most depressing part of being a driver over the road. I was in Ferguson, just outside St. Louis, and saw the poverty there and in many many communities all over the U.S. from these trucks. At one point I sat in the cab behind the wheel and saw young children crossing in front of me, and I thought; "they have no future here, monsters have stolen that.." and then I silently began to weep as I waited for them to clear the intersection so that I could make my turn and get on my way there.
"That took a toll on me, seeing so many people hurting, so few people helping, and having cops in Oakland pull guns on me for having the audacity to be in my truck parked in front of a jewish center there where the bitch clearly with her body language, absolutely was the reason they came and accused me of being 'illegally parked' whtn the truck was in fact parked legally.
"Having policemen pointing guns at me, an honorably discharged veteran from the Vietnam era, I had wondered how close I came that day to being shot and killed for having the audacity to try to get some sleep because it was illegal for me to drive.
"This nation is in very very bad shape, not just from Fukushima, but from the outrageous looting going on here. You said you are under the age of thirty years, I owe you and every single one of you under that age a huge apology for what my generation has handed to you due to it's blatant lack of caring or paying attention. We didn't just get here, it took decades to get to this nightmare. I am so very very sorry that my peers did not do their part to try to stop this nightmare from becoming your future, or lack thereof.
"I am so very very sorry....but I can tell you that I did everything in my power as a whistle blower most of my career, to set it right. And I paid a huge price for that, regardless of what some assholes here have intimated.
"Yeah, I am a truck driver, but I am a combat systems engineer, an integration engineer, an environmental test lab engineer, and a commercial airman with thousands of hours of flight time in a bunch of machines including rotorcraft...and my proudest credential is that I am indeed a whistle blower who's been blacklisted and retaliated against for doing the right thing.
"However, that apparently was not enough to save too many of you from the nightmare you'll now be living in longer than myself."
Wow, really, wow, Dennis.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of Dennis and I always look forward to his next appearance. I listened to the the John B Wells episode 129 that D is referring to live. The episode is still available in the archives at CTM and the truncated version is widely available on the net. CTM's policy is to
ReplyDeletegive the subscribers the full version and use the other as a marketing ploy. So Dennis, I'm quite surprised to hear you attack Wells. Also, I am dissapointed. To win this batlle we don't need infighting and backstabbing.
Dennis has asked me to post this reply:
Delete"My show wasn't to attack John Wells, John Dough, it was to point out the fact that my show was pulled from the facebook site, and the commentsalso were pulled..so why that show was expunged from their facebook site and for that matter, easy reference on the CTM website itself, is a puzzle to us and for me, it makes me wonder why this one and others in the sequence are still really easy to see.
"If you are stating that it is prominently visible on CTM's own site, it was not a couple of weeks ago when I looked for it extensively and then had Jim Fetzer try to get to the bottom of this with Mr. Rubini, the producer. I have not in any way taken any potshots at John Wells in this show, what I have done is wonder why the show was for at least some time, not visible on the facebook page, and why it apparently had been skipped over or hidden on the CTM website itself.
"If that has been corrected, which may be the case, not verified by myself at all, then of course there is no 'foul' being cried here,
but if that is not the case, then it's clear that at the minimum, someone took the steps to suppress it's visibility on both the facebook and the CTM site.
"If it's still hard to find unless you really root around, it is still possible it was accidentally done, but the explanation received when we initiated the inquiry is a bit on the less than forthcoming side and that may just be the way it is.
"I was very happy to do the show with John Wells, and it was my pleasure to do it, but I am far from attacking him in this show here. It is not uncommon for key information about what happened on 9/11/2001 to be surreptitiously and craftily hidden or withheld after the fact, and I have screen shots of the comments on the facebook page, and then screen shots of that information being 'gone' later.
"And as I stated, it is John Wells prerogative to do what he chooses with his show, I am not his producer or his financiers either. I am just a bit puzzled as to 'why' this particular episode was removed and comments to it removed, in a very visible way. Mr. Wells knows as well as I do that back in January when he did that one Coast To Coast show about the Rothschilds banksters, this got him 'removed' from the Coast To Coast roster.
"In light of that, it's pretty clear to me that he would be ever so cognizant of the probability he would be retaliated against if indeed any of the backers of his show currently wear yarmulkes, as very well could be the case.."
"Take care and always will look forward to your comments. It's my honor to host you here for your level headed and reasonable contributions, and it will always be my pleasure to see your comments. I thank you and wish you a very very nice holiday, and hope all of those who like yourself come here not to spew bullshit, also have a very peaceful and tranquil New Year as our world swirls in a volcano of lies, which many of you decry as I do.."
DeleteThe above three posts were a response from Dennis to CoincidenceSkeptc.
DeleteI don't understand why the radar data for the supposed Flight 77 into the Pentagon was delayed by over 20 seconds. Why not fake the radar data without delay?
ReplyDeleteI believe they simply used explosives to blow up parts of the Pentagon. No plane or missile needed. What I wonder is if the Pentagon is rigged beforehand with explosives like that in the case of an enemy taking it over. In the case of an invasion they can then blow up parts of the Pentagon to destroy sensitive information and prevent the enemy from getting their hands on it.
Dennis responds to Anders:
ReplyDelete"Anders, how do you surmise they just 'fake' radar data for the whole entire Northeast Air Defense Sector'? When you come up with a good one on that, then maybe also humor me for a moment and tell me 'why' an enemy would need to be deterred from seeing Pentagon documents when they are invading and holding that ground in Washington? What purpose would that serve to plant explosives in the building for such a contingency?
"Something is missing in your logic and reasoning here, Anders...and it's lost on me how you can surmise these things without an alternative that is reasonable, not mere conjecture as you have proposed without any possible proof or reason for these two counter arguments of yours here."
Dennis, as I understand it you agree that there never was any real Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. And I believe nothing hit the Pentagon. They simply detonated explosives in that part of the building and brought in some smoke machines and/or started fires. So they had to fake the radar data.
DeleteMy idea of pre-planted explosives in the Pentagon is that it could be a safety measure in the case of an invasion of the building. Just a guess. I don't know enough about that. Or maybe they had planned to blow up that part of the Pentagon anyway to hide the information about the missing 2 something trillion dollars.
Anders, even with nothing hitting the Pentagon, they would not have to fake radar data. There was at least one, if not two flyovers (the dropping of debris later could have come from the right per the official story of the "impact" plane, while the original flyby to mimic the impact plane idea could have come from the left in front of the hole as per the Citgo witnesses).
Delete@Clare Wasn't Flight 77 supposed to have done some incredible maneuvers? They would have needed to do the same with another plane in order for the radar data to appear genuine. Seems like a difficult thing to do. Easier to just fake a couple of radar recordings.
DeleteDennis replies to an earlier post by Anders:
Delete"I believe that no plane hit, but that an AGM-65 'J' model, DU penetrator equipped Maverick missile hit the building to punch thru the heavily kevlar reinforced wall. there is evidence of this in the blown out columns on the ground floor, per the article Jim Fetzer and I did about revisiting the Pentagon in Photos (put in the link if you can reply to him).
"Otherwise, I don't think the Pentagon would install explosives to prevent hostile takeover.
"The 6,000 nuclear warheads on subs and in revetments to be loaded on B-52's, B-2's, and F-22's, is more than enough deterrent for anyone to think about a ground invasion of the Pentagon, and if they did actually get to the Pentagon, don't you think blowing it up is a bit 'late' by then? So, no, we do partially agree but only in that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
"And no aircraft known as N644AA impacted anywhere else either, and it remained in the registry for years after the date when it would have been stricken from the registry after positive ID at the crash location.
"The mere fact that the NTSB failed to try to reconstruct these crashes in any hangar as is normal procedure, is very very very indicative of FRAUD and FAKE."
Dennis, what about the risk of another part of the U.S. military attacking the Pentagon? Kind of like in the movie Dr. Strangelove.The enemy doesn't have to be foreign. And having all sections of the building rigged with explosives would then be a security measure in the case of any kind of compromise of the facility.
DeleteDennis replies to Anders:
Delete"Well, Anders, that is precisely what happened on 9/11/2001, more or less. Many people who work in the Pentagram as I call it, like me, work in the belly of the beast because they are on board with the mass murder the U.S. Murder Incorporated has become globally, but because they need a job and that's about all there is in the area, is DoD or government stuff.
"The Pentagram was attacked by its own on 9/11/2001, and if I were a government employee, I'd have to have come to the conclusion that the 'employer' can and will 'murder' anyone in that building to put forth a war making posture for their zionist masters who engineered the TREASON that day.."
"I'm sure if you spoke with April Gallop, at length, you'd find her to be personable and nice and not deserving of nearly having been murdered by her employer that day in 2001. Take your idea one step further and expand it out to the Murrah Building where women who worked there saw the charges being put into the building by mossad agents supervised by military personnel, and when they reported that to Washington, D.C. they were told it was a 'drill' and not to worry.
"Ironically most of the civil servants in that building who worked for DEPT OF JUST US were told not to go in that day. Forewarned about what was coming, and hence, like the Odigo message recipients supposedly, much more likely a mass evacuation order had been given to so minimize the population of people in Lower Manhattan, people were again forewarned that the movie set was rigged for the demolition show to come on 9/11/2001.
"The truth is, the 'enemy' has always been 'within' here in this country, and I presume you probably are in the U.K. where your own MI-5 and MI-6 are the predecessors to the CIA here in the USSA, and have always been an 'internal' threat that has carried out the 7/7 attacks that my good friend and colleague, Nick Kollerstrom, has written about so extensively. It's pretty clear to me that the clear and present danger to the United States has been inside the beltway, not waiting to attack us from caves using box cutters, which on it's face is so preposterous it's not even funny, as you well know.
"In summary, my point is that the powers that be will kill innocent American's and innocent Britons, and innocent Canadians as well as innocent Aussies and New Zealanders in their dank and pathetic attempt to try to push their Global War on Terror when no such thing exists. It's a GLADIO HOAX war being waged to keep the sheeple very uneasy and in that mode where they are easily stampeded over the cliff like the lemmings they apparently love to be."
Jerry, you are some new breed of scum who has no idea what he is talking about. I published ASSASSINATION SCIENCE in 1998, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA in 2000, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX in 2003.
ReplyDeleteI founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005, organized its first national conference in Madison in 2007 and its first international conference in Vancouver in 2012. And I published its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, in 2007.
There is a whole lot more, but it's clear you have no interest in what I have done or the contributions I have made. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, who appears to be here to harass and belittle. If you have no more than this to contribute, your presence here will be short-lived.
Dennis asked me to post the following for Jerry:
ReplyDelete"To my knowledge, Fetzer has never lied to anyone about what I currently do as a new profession, due to the fact that aerospace jobs are off-shored so extensively in the 'new amerika' that about the only job left is transport of goods.
"I just joined the ranks of truck drivers after more than 4 decades as a systems engineer and commercial aviator, so your weak and sad 'ad hom' won't fly here, Bolduc..
"Furthermore, you attack Fetzer and Duff and others as 'shills' yet you exhibit only zio shill character assassination in your pissy and sad rebuttals here, no doubt you posted as 'anonymous' till I ferreted your slimy zio ass out of the woodwork with my rebuttal to you about my alleged foul mouth.
"Jerry, go get some more gulf sea food, or maybe better yet, go to Chernobyl where you asserted is a thriving and wonderful wildlife refuge, you zio crank smoking fag, and eat up!!! someday you zioturds will have shit in your own bed to the extent you won't be able to hide from your own wrongdoing and mendacious and criminal behaviors across the globe."
I had high hopes for Wells - he does give good interviews....I've listened to over 100 of them.
DeleteHowever, I was put off by the manner in which he opened two shows he did over a period of approximately one week.
He started by blasting writers of emails that urged him to address the crimes of Zionists and Israel's genocidal agenda against Palestinians.
Well's response was straight out of Fox News - placing all blame on the Palestinians - while accusing the authors of said emails of "knowing nothing."
Now, you might recognize me as having commented here before and identifying myself as being Jewish and anti Zionist.
Actually knowing history - that should be the default stance on Zionism for all Jews...since Zionists have thrown us under the bus more than once. Their recent atrocities can only lead to a repeat of the past.
Zionist/Israel apologists like Wells are doing us no favors.
If one is afraid of the Zionist / Hasbara attack trolls - I can understand... but, attacking listeners for bringing up the issue is probably more than just fear or ignorance.
If Wells wanted to interview a Jew who will tell him the truth about Israel, he should try Norman Finkelstein or Miko Peled....their testimonies are bullet proof.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJerry, I did not see your comment nor do I wish to see it. All I know is, you have just had your zio butt handed to you on a kosher platter.
ReplyDeleteThe pen is indeed more mightier than the sword!
I don't know how you can get Sandy Hook so right and 9/11 so wrong. Both events were done by the same people--the same mentality and therefore the same modus operandi--all CGI.
ReplyDeleteI had ignored the Pentagon in favor of working out how they did the WTC. I went over to SC to see their take on the Pentagon, and it's amazing how obvious the animation is and how easily the media is able to manipulate the masses with some really bad graphics.
http://www.septemberclues.info/pentagon_shanksville.shtml
SeptemberClues.info | The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11
THE "MELTING" PENTAGON
This is a (speeded up) scene from CBS: What on Earth is going here? No Pentagon windows are visible, the water spray seems to 'melt' the façade - everything is wrong here. I will not dwell too much on this: It only goes to show that computer graphics were also used to simulate the Pentagon "attack".
Correction: :All CGI AND actors as victims, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they use actual missiles when they can show pictures of holes in walls that LOOK LIKE they were made by missiles?
ReplyDeleteThe Pentagon was the main target on 9/11. The attack on the Pentagon justified the "War on Terror" giving the US carte blanch to attack Israel's enemies wherever they may be. I think the WTC was thrown into the mix to allow the Zionists to unload the white elephant Twin Towers. The Port Authority determined that to either repair or safely dismantle the Towers would have cost enormous sums of cash and tied up traffic in Lower Manhattan for years. Nukes and RDX are relatively cheap in comparison. Of course they had to pay off the families but that money came out of the US Treasury. Silverstein got a huge windfall from the insurance companies. Bear in mind that a large chunk of the insurance money ended up going to Israel.
ReplyDeleteTo have alleged "truthers" like AE911 refuse to research what happened at the Pentagon shows us that they are merely a limited hangout. Of course they have been trying to convince us for years that a non-explosive (nanothermite) was responsible for all of the explosions in NYC on 9/11.
The Pentagon like the WTC buildings was nuked on 9/11. Geiger counter readings were off the charts 12 miles away from the Pentagon! We see toasted cars at the Pentagon just like we saw in Lower Manhattan. I've also heard reports of cement "flowing like lava" at the Pentagon which is also what happened in Building 6 in NYC. A building that they found tritium in 11 days after 9/11. No doubt that Building 6 was nuked. Neither is there any doubt that the Pentagon was nuked.
The pentagon was a simple missle.. I doubt Rumsfeld would have been out front dancing in the radiation. He's waaaay too much of a chickenhawk to get his hands dirty.
DeleteHow does a simple missile explain the toasted cars and the Geiger counter readings?
DeleteThis was another great show by Dennis. His appearances usually get the shills to come out of the woodwork and this one is no exception. Joan is back with her "everything is fake" nonsense again.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there are some emails floating around at ADL headquarters every time Dennis does a show encouraging the shills like obf and Joan (Compass) to get in here and start posting BS to muddy the waters.
Keep giving them hell Dennis!!
"To have alleged "truthers" like AE911 refuse to research what happened at the Pentagon shows us that they are merely a limited hangout."
ReplyDeleteCould the same be said about Fetzer and You for Refusing to do video analysis of the tower's destruction?
We've analyzed the videos. Shills such as yourself just don't like our analysis.
DeleteDon Fox Said:
ReplyDelete'This was another great show by Dennis. His appearances usually get the shills to come out of the woodwork and this one is no exception. Joan is back with her "everything is fake" nonsense again.
'I'm sure there are some emails floating around at ADL headquarters every time Dennis does a show encouraging the shills like obf and Joan (Compass) to get in here and start posting BS to muddy the waters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, Don, you were doing so well in your earlier post. You were professional and polite. You made your case without getting personal. Why did you spoil everything with this sleazy ad hominem attack on me and other critics of your theory? It really makes you and your whole group look bad.
The problem with your theory is that you've shown us not one shred of evidence to support it. All we are asking is for you to show us the evidence.
We've thrown mountains of evidence at you Joan. Tell your handlers to get you some better material.
DeleteI think there is a misunderstanding here. There is no nefarious reason why the Dennis portion of the show is truncated. That show is based on a paywall system much like Kevin Barrett has now or Red Ice, but they like people to hear pieces of the show to sometimes the first hour. You rarely get to gear the second hour.
ReplyDeleteUnless you cannot find the showcases paying subscriber I don't think John Wells is censoring you. There have been plenty of shows I was into on YouTube that just cut off since they only post one hour as a teaser. So he was not putting interview on as a public service announcement but as a part if his show. And if others posted the show, it would be infringing on his show, that is giving content his subscribers pay for away for free, even though people do this sometimes anyway. It's nice if you are broke but I can understand the problem from both sides. If I started a show and went with a subscription model to make money, I would not want my exclusive content reposted all over utah. People do this with Coast to Coast all the time.
So I really hope that whole demonization of that John Wells show was just because the second half is reserved for subscribers.
However, if you want to make a case against Wells, it would be tgis: he like Akex Jones, won't go near the J issue, and he has a kind off right wing naive world view. Don't expect depth. He often unwittingly has disinformation guests on who clearly spin a story and Jim doesn't seem to notice.
He doesn't do nuance well.? But censoring your show, unless there is more evidence, I think a misunderstanding has happened.
Maybe you should apologize to keep things cool. But maybe you have other data ppoints I don't know about.
Every other show is listed there but for #129, which is VERY PECULIAR. Go to the CTM web site. It's not on the list. All the other shows are there except for this one. So one of us may be mistaken, but it's not Dennis and me.
DeleteTaken from the CTM site on 12/28 14:00
ReplyDeleteEp. 129 – Joining us today is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jim Fetzer, alongside Naval Combat Weapons Specialist Dennis Cimino. We will not forget.
http://caravantomidnight.com/show-archives/C2M-129-A-Fetzer_Cimino-9-11-14.mp3
http://caravantomidnight.com/caravan-midnight-episode-129-jim-fetzer-dennis-cimino/
(video)
WHAT DON FOX CONSIDERS TO BE EVIDENCE:
ReplyDeletehttps://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/dwain-deets-a-boeing-757-hit-the-pentagon-on-911/
"Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke believed that a missile struck the Pentagon and depleted uranium was involved.
In light of what we know happened in New York to the World Trade Center buildings (at least four were nuked)
it appears that enriched uranium was involved in the Pentagon attack.
The toasted cars at the Pentagon are eerily similar to what we saw in Lower Manhattan leading me to believe that the Pentagon was neutron nuked.
Some Pentagon researchers believe that a bomb was planted inside the Pentagon. That appears to be more likely than a missile with a nuclear warhead hitting the Pentagon.
If that is true then whatever happened on the outside of the building was just scenery for the public."
Simple question, Don. How do you know the photographs you display on your website above were taken at the Pentagon? Were you on location at the Pentagon? Do you know who took the photos?
ReplyDeleteThere are a few there that look like drawings.
The big hole in the wall--did a missile really make that and if so, where are the remains? The wall isn't even singed. How do you get a missile to stop at a certain place and also how was the missile launched?
Joan the bomb was planted INSIDE the Pentagon. It was a shaped charge neutron mini-nuke.
DeleteWhen you think about it would be insane for the perps to shoot a nuclear missile at the Pentagon. If something went wrong and it missed or exploded too soon it would have been a dead giveaway.
The photo in question looks legit to me. If you can prove it's fake please show us your detailed analysis that proves it's a fake.
Don Fox said: "When you think about it would be insane for the perps to shoot a nuclear missile at the Pentagon. If something went wrong and it missed or exploded too soon it would have been a dead giveaway."
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Didn't you say a missile hit the Pentagon? A plane couldn't have made that round hole in the photo, but a missile could according to you Now, you've changed your story saying it was a bomb.
Do bombs make round holes in walls? That picture looks like Shawshank II. Maybe Andy made the hole with a larger rock hammer. Was there supposed to have been an explosion there?
The point is that since Sandy Hook, we know the news media can show pictures of a drill and rooms in an empty, unmaintained building and pass these off as a mass shooting in a functioning school to an unsuspecting public.
PS. I would be very suspicious of any news photographs. It is too easy these days to mislead the public. You must check the provonance of ALL video and still photography.
ReplyDeleteFantastic interview - I'm on my fourth listening of this christmas weekend. Cimono is a great speaker. These D.C. criminals need to be prosecuted. How to do it? I'm just an individual and they are well organized. Francis Boyle went after Bush and Blair for crimes against humanity.Bruce Fein has offered his asistance with impeachment of Barry. It'd be great to put an org together and start prosecuting these swine - Holder, Chertov for DHS and TSA, Rahm Emanuel. Maybe the real deal could do a show on how to fight back. My congressmen and women don't listen to me anymore, if they ever did.
ReplyDeleteCompass said :" I would be very suspicious of any news photographs. It is too easy these days to mislead the public. You must check the provonance of ALL video and still photography."
ReplyDeleteNah! I say "provenance schmovenance"!
Any photo that confirms what you already believe must be genuine -stands to "reason":-) .
Therefor, all "real" 9/11 investigators should start from the assumption that all of the footage and photos is genuine [except for any photos that contradict their own pet theory- those "must" be fake , obviously :-)] .
Provenance, who needs it? [Answer: nobody in the 9/11 "truth" movement!]
See: "9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof" :
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/10/911-scams-911-truth-movement-versus.html
..and : "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method ":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html
regards, onebornfree.
Just yesterday I blew OBF out of the water on another discussion thread. Any doubts that he is on the level should by now have been resolved:
DeleteSome blunders are being committed here. Occam implies you should accept the simplest theory that explains the evidence among the alternatives that can explain the evidence--where that means "can explain ALL of the evidence". There is no good reason to doubt the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers, as I have explained to OBF many times over. Indeed, if we were to doubt every photo and film of the destruction of the WTC, we would be rendered incapable of investigating the event.
We have to distinguish "reality" as everything that is the case (or as what would be described by the totality of true sentences) and criteria for determining what is the case. A photo or film reflects or represents reality in this case if it accurately displays what happened at that place and time. But to determine whether photos or films reflect or represent reality, we have to rely upon the coherence of evidence as the criterion that what we are watching or viewing is what was taking place at the time:
(1) the buildings were there (before), then they were gone--damaged, destroyed (after)
(2) videos and photos show the towers blowing apart in every direction from the top down
(3) they are shown to be being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust
(4) when its over, they are destroyed to ground level w/ no pile of debris in their footprints
(5) the city is covered with at least an inch of very fine dust and lots and lots of paper
(6) we have video and photos from near and far, from on the ground and from the air
(7) all of them hang together and show what appears to be a single sequence of events
(8) that is the case whether they are high-resolution or low, taken from near or from far
(9) no one has ever come forth to claim that what they saw differed from what they show
When we use "correspondence to reality" as our definition of truth and "coherence of the evidence" as our criterion for what we should take to be true, the videos and films we have available satisfy the appropriate epistemic standard for accepting them as authentic in the tentative and fallible fashion of science, where new evidence or new hypotheses might require us to revise our conclusions, where there appears to be no good reason to question the authenticity of photos/videos of their destruction.
What disturbs me is that OBF and others persist in maintaining that I and others are somehow being "unscientific" or otherwise irresponsible in taking these photos and films to be authentic. But the data we are discussing satisfies the appropriate epistemic criteria for acceptance as authentic, where he and others have no case: there is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the videos and films of the destruction of the WTC, which properly serves as evidence for investigations of the events of 9/11.
so the philosopher of science who claims that the planes are fake, yet the footage is real; and who uses a theory of "mini-nukes" to account for the sui generis nature of the collapse footage we were shown on television is going all lex parsimonae on us now. that's rich.
Deleteyou can't "blow somebody out of the water" with a heuristic jim, especially when you're busy hiding behind it.
Oh yes, he can, seu bobo. The "lex parsimonae" (Occam's Razor) you mention is about orienting oneself in common sense. It means that if there are two options which explain all evidence, without glossing over any considerations, equally, the option which works in a more normal way (feels simpler) should be chosen.
DeleteThus, with video evidence which sometimes seems odd because of Shack & OBF's less physic knowledge, but which does also include footage easily explained as pre-set, preplanned, we most probably have a combination of real and fake, sometimes in the same image.
This is bolstered by the fact that perps outsource within their networks of front companies and military or other connected groups. Jobs get done in clever but often sloppy ways.
Shack, etc., have a great case for some "fake imagery" (lying images in different ways), but not for total fakery with no hope of knowing what happened. This has been discussed in other places & if you wish to work through the arguments, you may.
ok, show me how to blow somebody out of the water with a rule of thumb: tell me how you would use your "physic" knowledge and your thumbs to explain the sui generis nature of the collapse footage.
Deleteif you can maybe i would work thru some more of your arguments; but right now i'm busy taking down x ray crystallography and molecular biology.
maybe you can help me. can work thru wittenstein's nephew, and the founder of second order cybernetics, heinz von foerster's argument that science is a hustle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE
Is Don Fox twin brother of Ian, or is he Ian himself?Is Don Fox'es real name Don Kichote, the spanish equivalent of the Black Knight? Is Don Fox spanish?
ReplyDelete"Is Don Fox twin brother of Ian, or is he Ian himself?Is Don Fox'es real name Don Kichote, the spanish equivalent of the Black Knight? Is Don Fox spanish?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Don's real name is not Don Kichote.
Don's real name is Don Fox.
You are confusing Don Quixote
and his donkey with Simon Pimon
and his ass. That's Simón Putaman
in Spanish. ¿Habla español?
I'm Spanish, fight windmills, resent Mr. Pimoid's statements and stand with Don, Dennis and Jim. JBW should get better PR advice - I thought "integrity" was part of his brand and why he was booted from C2C. He could have communicated disagreement, even in post-production without censoring. He would be wise to clarify, correct things, and demonstrate that he's not full of shit (which is, what I thought, a big part of his appeal).
DeleteOff topic, but is Clare Kuehn single? She's kinda wacky, but cute.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks, Jose. I'm not very wacky, just dedicated. But I appreciate your Internet compliment re. cuteness. :)
Deleteseu bobo said : "so the philosopher of science who claims that the planes are fake, yet the footage is real; and who uses a theory of "mini-nukes" to account for the sui generis nature of the collapse footage we were shown on television is going all lex parsimonae on us now. that's rich. you can't "blow somebody out of the water" with a heuristic jim, especially when you're busy hiding behind it."
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, this man is entirely delusional to a fault, with logical fallacy piled on top of logical fallacy; a bombastic, arrogant loud-mouth in love with the sound of his own voice.
The only person he "blows out of the water" is himself, with his ongoing methodological hypocrisies .
He is either just an arrogant fool with zero interest in either the basic scientific method or the issue of provenance and related, or or his job is to protect the media by any means necessary.
Regards, onebornfree.
OBF, STFU. THX.
DeleteOBF
DeleteWhat about your "Falsus In Uno. Falsus In omnibus" crapola? Are you still pushing that falsies crock of sh1t? You got falsies on the brain!! It's time you got
your falsies off your chest, cobber!!
By the way, those fake birds in that video... were they legal eagles or maybe they were illegal Ozzie galahs or kookaburras? Which is it?
We need to know.
If you are a member of John Wells website, you can easily find and download Dennis Cimino's portion of the show.
ReplyDeleteRhonda, Dennis says "Thanks" and has me post this:
ReplyDelete"Yes, we found that the issue from weeks ago has been corrected more or less, the facebook deletion was allegedly done by a now no longer with them employee .. .. But today we did confirm that the show is there for download on the site, albeit all of the web links that pointed to it from other web venues for the most part are mostly gone.."
Good to hear Jim. I listened to the full show this afternoon, it was excellent.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Fetzer: "Occam implies you should accept the simplest theory that explains the evidence among the alternatives that can explain the evidence--where that means "can explain ALL of the evidence."
ReplyDelete"(1) the buildings were there (before), then they were gone--damaged, destroyed (after).
Joan: Agreed. The WTC Towers were standing and then they were not--most likely the result of a conventional controlled demolition--Occam's Razor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James: "There is no good reason to doubt the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers."
Joan: There is good reason to doubt the footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers since it can be proved the photos and videos were taken in advance of the demolition of the WTC, altered and shown in real time to the public as actual breaking news.
James: Indeed, if we were to doubt every photo and film of the destruction of the WTC, we would be rendered incapable of investigating the event.
Joan: You are making a false assumption the video footage was filmed in real time of an actual event. You are purposely ignoring the research of groups like September Clues, which have extensively proven the 9/11 video footage was fraudulent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCompass said : "You are making a false assumption the video footage was filmed in real time of an actual event. You are purposely ignoring the research of groups like September Clues, which have extensively proven the 9/11 video footage was fraudulent."
ReplyDeleteJoan, I hate to say it, but it more and more looks like Mr Fetzer, as S. Shack has long contended, is nothing more than a willful limited hangout gatekeeper whose only role is to , by any means necessary, deflect attention away from the media's culpability and the research of persons such as Simon Shack.
As I have tried to point out, Fetzer obviously has no interest in either standard scientific investigative methodology , nor in looking at basic provenance issues and related - but instead loud-mouths, bullies and browbeats persons without the ability to think for themselves into believing his pseudo-scientific, pseudo- logical b.s.
His deliberate, delaying, "circus ringmaster" tactics [previously employed in his JFK er, "investigations"] grow ever more tedious, transparent and obvious as he continues to orchestrate his 9/11 fake investigation charade both here and elsewhere.
Fetzers credibility is hanging by a thread, twisting in the wind, as far as I'm concerned.
Regards, onebornfree
Yes, but he said he has blown all of your "rubbish" "out of the water". :)
DeleteIt's painfully obvious Dr. Fetzer is part of the establishment along with Steven Jones's Scholars for 9/11. Pilots for, Architects and Engineers for, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way he and his associates will will publish the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You can't really blame him for wanting to keep his place in the movement and at the same time wanting to stay in the club where he can travel and hold symposiums in places like Teheran and publish articles and books..
I don't see the point of trying to convince these people how easy it would be to manufacture a video and show it in real time in order to mask a criminal event whether it be Sandy Hook, Boston or 9/11.
OBF, I think we should leave them to their own devices. I think the establishment has said it is okay to demonize Zionists and Jews as perps of 9/11 as long as they stay away from mentioning the NSA, FBI and CIA and other government agencies. Later, there will probably be legislation banning "hate speech" against Jews such as we hear on this board.
Best wishes to all for the new year.
JoanEdwards
Compass said :"It's painfully obvious Dr. Fetzer is part of the establishment along with Steven Jones's Scholars for 9/11. Pilots for, Architects and Engineers for, etc."
ReplyDeleteYes. And let's not forget J.Wood, M. Reynolds, A. Johnson, D. Khalezov, A.Lawson as well.
For right now I'm giving Ace Baker the benefit of the doubt, although I'm sorely tempted to put him in the exact same category as those already named here.
See: "Alexander "Ace" Baker Versus "Armageddon" ":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/12/911-scams-alexander-ace-baker-versus.html
And a Happy New Year to you too, Joan.
Regards, onebornfree
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with this guy, onebornfree, and with Joan.
ReplyDeleteJim, is it really that hard to understand that if the various films showing the WTC towers' destruction all contradict each other then it calls into question the authenticity of all of the videos? Some of them show the same tower beginning its collapse in different directions for heaven's sake. They’re phony.
You can easily see for yourself simply by going and looking.
Really Jim Fetzer. That took me all of 5 minutes to figure out once I understood. And I'm not an Emeritus Professor of Logic.
The point is - and I've followed this discussion for ages now: Dr Fetzer's role is to deliberately NOT UNDERSTAND this very simple fact. He’s gone to a hell of a lot of trouble to not understand it too.
It pains me to point this out but anyone who works at 'Veterans Today' as Jim does, a publication which proudly proclaims itself to be “for the clandestine community" has got to be as the slogan implies.
That is as now as clear as day.
there is not much of the clandestine left at Veterans Today to be a good show to anyone save for the rheumatologist. Jim prefers to look at the whole without diving into details. I think with the courtesy of the new year he may want to reconsider this vane approach.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that Simon Pimon. For an "old guy" Jim, and his team of helpers, are doing a grand job of herding people away from the 911 media fakery topic, while also, simultaneously leading the "Sandy Hook Truth" community to glorious defeat.
DeleteSimon Pimon wrote:
"Jim prefers to look at the whole without diving into details."
Really? I would have thought "details overkill" was Jim Fetzer's specialty, esp when he's trying to confuse you or obfuscate an issue.
Perhaps you don't listen very closely to his programme.
Lenny said: " Jim, is it really that hard to understand that if the various films showing the WTC towers' destruction all contradict each other then it calls into question the authenticity of all of the videos? Some of them show the same tower beginning its collapse in different directions for heaven's sake. They’re phony."
ReplyDeleteThey are only phony if you take the time and trouble to actually examine them.
Mr Fetzer seems to be religiously dedicated to avoiding such close examinations.
Not that it matters, in the big picture. If he and his accolytes are delusional enough to believe that they can effectively gate-keep/repress these issues in such a transparent manner, then they are all justl "pissing up a rope".
Meanwhile, his ever more frantic/frenetic and tedious dismissals/avoidance of the research of Simon Shack , both here and elsewhere, while on the one hand annoying,[ like a mosquito continually buzzing around one's face], are, on the other hand, highly amusing in their pretzel-like logical contortions; AbIrato [fakeologist] dubbed that "logical" process "Fetzel Logic".
So, I say: have fun with "fetzel logic". :-)
Regards, onebornfree
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt’s actually because of Jim that I heard about the "September Clues Addendum" (the key to the whole hoax imho) and that’s why I now reject Jim’s mini-nukes thing and accept the “media fakery” thesis.
ReplyDeleteSo, onebornfree, it’s an ill wind…
Lenny, I am baffled. OBF has contended that the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers are fake, but I have already rebutted it. Where do you find these versions that are inconsistent with one another? and how do you know that they are ones broadcast on 9/11? Fill me in.
ReplyDelete