Friday, January 31, 2014

Jim Fetzer and John Friend vs. Michael Collins Piper

The second Sandy Hook debate     Final (corrected) poll:


  1. Since the polls were corrected -- and they both appear to be appropriate to the exchanges that took place -- Dave Gahary, who hosted them both, has determined that the polls turn out to have been easy to manipulate. So listen to our exchanges and decide for yourself who won or lost.

    1. I have two articles on the debates.

      On the first,

      "The Ugly Truth about Michael Collins Piper, Cass Sunstein and Sandy Hook"

      On the second,

      "After two defeats over Sandy Hook, AFP editor declines a third debate"

    2. You comment below about how Piper hadn't read the 10 reasons and was unprepared.

      A person who is more upset by the suggestion of outright silliness (they think) does not tend to do absolutely thorough or sometimes even close-to-thorough research beforehand.

      They do not take the other side seriously enough to do that. They are there more to complain that the other is not making sense (to them).

      Unless this were a school assignment, which could be looked over by a teacher ahead of time, making sure that BOTH COVER THE MATERIAL PROPERLY first and carefully:

      -- the student who got the supposedly "crazy" side (you)


      -- the student who got the "oh my god, I have to debate about something so stupid" side (Piper).

    3. Clare, why do you ALWAYS feel the need to try to explain the actions and motivations of people?

      It is not needed and quite frankly, you shouldn't do it. People are intelligent enough to judge these things for themselves without you trying to explain it.

      You've done it with Judy Wood, OBF, Simon Shack, and now it's Michael Piper.

      Stop trying to explain the mindset of these people, it's arrogant of you to think you know what that mindset is and it obfuscates things.

      Let people judge Piper for themselves, don't try to explain him or his actions, you're doing more harm than good by doing so, same as you did more harm than good by trying to explain obf and shack.

    4. I have every right to comment on the outrage Piper shows; you tend to "explain" him and his actions as "shill"; I hear a very upset person who thinks (as did Prager) that Sandy Hook is legitimate but being used (maybe) to make conspiracy theorists -- a technical term as I use it, not a disparagement -- seem strange for others, so that others won't listen to other "more credible" cases they have in mind.

      I am not obfuscating; I do not do that. You hear obfuscation because simple humanity of emotional positions does not seem to figure into your assumptions about people.

      Everything I've said about OBF, Simon Shack and Piper can be supported in their emotional stances.

  2. Jim, any way you can have Andreas Antonopolous on? He's major! The key topic is a new invention that is poised to revolutionize hierarchical anything.

    I am sure that you have heard of the Cryptocurrency Bitcoin by now. Most think of it as just a currency but as he says, decentralized internet money is just the first application.

    Potentially much more important is the decentralized, consensus driven technology that underlies it.

    We may very well be witnessing the emergence of a major new paradigm in how the world works...i.e. the masses doing away with hierarchies that aren't working for them: Banks, governments, etc., etc.

    Here is his most recent talk. Very well spoken and knowledgeable. He has loads more.

  3. Jim, any way you can have Andreas Antonopolous on?
    Topic is decentralized, consensus driven technology that could do away with hierarchies that aren't working for us.

  4. I'm still hoping you will someday find a really good guest on the subject of Amerithrax.

  5. Something won't let this file download/play past the introduction: (

    1. I see it. I will ask my producer to fix it. Thanks.

    2. Until the show is posted here, you can go to "Date with a Debate" (there are two) and, if you scroll down to the ARCHIVES, you can listen to the shows there (both are archived).

    3. It's fixed. It was a partial-uploading problem.

  6. I think the poll numbers look fair - Piper was pathetic and you and John did a fine job considering what you had to work with. Besides not following the rules, not being a gentleman and all the extraneous noises from Piper's side, he had nothing to say of any worth. If I were you, I would not have another debate with him, on this topic, at least.

    1. It was unbelievable how unprepared he was. It was as though he thought that, simply by showing up, he would prevail. He even admitted about half-way through that he had not read "Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax", which was the basis for the first debate. It was actually embarrassing.

    2. I don't think they care about their debate performance. They figure they've got the Zionazi Talmud Vision Networks on their side so your victories - for the most part - only get seen by those of us who already know what's up.
      After all, the true believers have been suckered by multiple hoaxes since "The Hook" and most don't even realize the official story is in question.
      They string you along while setting you up on "dates" with these compromised dorks - wasting your time that probably could not have been used better anyway because the ZTVN won't give you any exposure.
      It must be in their playbook because they do this with all important controversial issues.
      Like O'Reilly interviewing Obama ostensibly at odds with each other - while proving they are on the same team.
      O'Reilly could have driven the stake through the Vampire's heart with the fraudulent Selective Service Reg. paperwork and the COB - But, why bother? Fox makes bank while slagging Obama. Meanwhile, Obama has been a war mongering Neocon's best friend.
      Credit for "Talmud Vision" goes to Dennis Cimino.

  7. That Piper guy sounded like Ian sometimes.

  8. {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
    {\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 ArialMT;}

    \f0\fs26 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
    \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 I dont know if it was on this show or the one he did preceeding it where he was railing against you and brought up that he was friends with bo gritz. Really?! Bo gritz admitted himself that he was an undercover fed in the patriot movement long ago, this guy is so out of touch. What i would really love to see is a debate with tom bittman. Piper actually did make some good points about how this could be manipulated against us, and did expose some weak points: i agree, who the fuck IS mike powers? How do we know hes a ballistics expert? We know nothing about him and he just disappeared. The superbowl thing is intriguing but it isnt proof of anything. Making massive assumptions like noone died is just silly. Wouldnt it be better to just say we have seen no proof? To concentrate on all the inconsistencies that can be proven? Bringing up stuff like the kids clothes being out of style, it means nothing. The cover up, the massive amounts of money generated, the giant inconsistencies, these are things that are proven.}

  9. The most convincing evidence that this thing was a hoax is the bizarre behavior of the Sandy Hook players. Here are some of the best YOUTUBE vids exposing this aspect of the case below -

    "Sandy Hook HOAX:Hello Francine LOBIS-Wheeler"

    "Sandy Hook HOAX:Hello Nick(PART 2)"

    Watch the mother of Catherine Hubbard beam and smile one month after the alleged shooting -

    "Sandy Hook HOAX:This INFURIATES Me!"

    Mother of Grace McDonnell laughs and flirts with Anderson Cooper during CNN interview -

    "Sandy Hook HOAX:McDonnell's Happy Hour Interview"

    Alexis Haller (Jewish Vatican lawyer who helped write key gun control bill) uncle of Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, looks as if he is about to burst into laughter as he describes the toll the shooting had on Pozner family -

    "Noah Pozner's Uncle: 'Absolutely Devastating'"

    "Sandy Hook shooting - Noah Pozner's mother's lack of emotion"

    "Gene Rosen Keeps Repeating Himself - Sandy Hook False Flag"

    A must watch -
    "Sandy Hook Hoax - David and Francine Wheeler's Elite Connections"

    1. This is the kind of foolery im talking about. Their behavior is not "evidence"!

    2. No larry, this is probably not "evidence". But when the reported victims parents, as a gang, can behave in such a non credible way, we simply cannot believe their story and what they say. No credible parents=no credible victims. No victims=no case.

      We are watching a Soap Opera on live news, larry.

    3. Hey, i absolutely agree, their behavior was the thing that set off loud warning bells for me, but am i going to bring that to a formal debate, much less a court of law? If i was trying to persuade someone i would surely bring it up, but otherwise no.

    4. Of course their behavior in relation to the loss of a child is EVIDENCE. I don't understand why some here don't understand the concept.

      Evidence is anything (physical, photographic, testimonial, behavioral) whose presence or absence (or truth or falsity) makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the matter at hand.

      It is not "conclusive proof", of course, but it is relevant and available. Their behavior is not at all what we would expect of parents who ACTUALLY LOST A CHILD. So I think that Brian has it right and Larry is wrong.

    5. In my opinion some of the best evidence is the terrible acting job by the dude who was smiling before coming out the podium, putting his game-face on and then failing to display the necessary physiological reactions to the emotions he was feigning.

    6. Stooy:

      My boyfriend didn't see anything weird in Parker's reactions (the "dude who was smiling before"). Nor did Piper or Johnson.

      If a person does not have an emotional openness to the idea of a hoax (drill spun into a live lie), these other things will not "add up".

      Same with looking/ listening to Paul/Sir Paul, for example.

      Yes, Parker is pushing emotions out; but it's a subtle thing to DESCRIBE EXACTLY; most people just "get it or don't". That's the problem with impressions of what's happening. It's evidence -- if a persons "sees it" in the first place.

    7. Okay, it is evidence of a sort, i guess what i am trying to say is that it can be brushed off in a debate situation, what they usually try to do is say that one parents reaction doesnt constitute suspicious behavior, what i come back with is that when they ALL do it, it does. What i am saying is there are other arguments, the extra legal cover up of evidence, foia, preplanning, that would be much more solid points to hammer on, not that you didnt jim. Ive just been going over how to argue this for a long time and have put alot of thoight into it.

    8. Agreed, Larry: it is a potential, or weaker piece of evidence as far as it can verbally be explained; it is so hard to argue formally, though it can be. It is subtle in how to argue it -- and then those who don't want to listen through subtlety (say, as with Ian on some things), or those who don't have the same impression at all (many people) will simply dismiss the arguments as flights of wording or mere psychologizing (an uncareful term to use, since psychologizing can be highly accurate if done right).

      Agreed, therefore, there are other things to emphasize, but for those who do notice there are few tears or calmer upsets, fatigue, etc., it can be added to the list of "maybes" (evidence, but I'm using the term not as final sure evidence, just suggested evidential material before its case is accepted as the right side of truth).

    9. The funny thing is it is not a few tears; there have been literally ZERO TEARS! No tears in all the interviews ive gone over even though they are sobbing. I agree it is very compelling. I guess in all my research i have really been zeroing in on some hard evidence of legal manipulation, bribes, cover up, preplanning, coercion, extortion, blackmail, fraud, even threatening and possible disappearance of witnesses. I guess i do get a bit frustrated when the only guys really on the forefront of this (and i do have alot of respect for jim and have for along time) get caught up in debates with drunken hacks like piper from highly suspect publications lie afp. If the general public goes and listens to this debate and then takes a look at afp they are going to see this group totally hung up on jews and immediately get turned off. I think afp is more likely to be some sunstein plot to discredit conspiracy theorists than anything else. James tracy vs tom bittman, that would be the debate on sandy hook for all time. Its about getting the public on our side at this point, not pissing matches between conspiracy egos. I am doing my part on this but after 100 videos i only have 500 subscribers, which is cool, but at this point i would really like to see not just the same guys commenting all the time, i would like to wake some people.

  10. JIM,

    heard both your debates, was not impressed with anyone ... I know Hook is a giant hoax (you were down with your pal, Jeff Prager, for a long time saying he was not a shill, but he is 100% POS) but was quite surprised you would not reveal your sources on the 3 Mossad shooters, that made you look like too small a man to admit you were wrong and/or that you did not even remember where you got the info and then failed to follow up on it etc .... also on the other debate with Johnson, he def did some research and made you look very bad at times UNLESS you can prove he was lying ... i.e. I will give you one example, the blood story?? why don't you poke around and see if his answer was correct or a lie, bc on that you looked very ill prepared and foolish.

    Just thought you were not a representative to defend this position, and that you ad hom far too often.

    1. Well, Jeff Prager and I had a falling out over Sandy Hook long since, so you are not up-to-speed about that. Since when do journalists REVEAL THEIR SOURCES? I am afraid you haven't given this much thought.

      If you listened to both debates, then you know I acknowledged several times that I had been wrong with my first article. How many times do I have to explain that? You have the right to your opinion, but you don't seem to have good reasons to support it.

    2. I reviewed both debates very carefully and Jim didn't make a single ad hominem attack. He received quite a few, especially from Piper, but didn't make any himself.

    3. You could learn something there Ian.

    4. then you and heard diff interviews

    5. Give us an example of an ad hominem made by Jim and bear in mind I have transcripts of both debates.

    6. I am with Ian, Colin. You have done a great job of trashing me, but you have offered very little in the way of proof. How about some examples of my committing ad hominems? That is one of your key claims. So where is the proof? I would hate to conclude that you are all bluster and no beef.

  11. Of course debates like this are very useful. We need to demonstrate that Sandy Hook was a hoax, we need to demonstrate that 911 was an inside job, we need to demonstrate that Oswald did not kill Kennedy, we need to demonstrate that man did not go to the moon...

    But, we also need to consider the sorts of social networks that would be required to pull off these various operations.

    Another example is chemtrails. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of social structure would be required for this phenomenon to be taking place?

    For Sandy Hook, we need a secretive network of actors, police, medical examiners, politicians, media personnel and others.

    For the vast numbers of chemtrails taking place we would need thousands of pilots, plane mechanics, air traffic controllers, politicians, military personnel, media personnel, and others.

    The number of people required for these and other operations is staggering, and yet, ALL of them seem to be able to keep their mouths shut!!! No one involved has spilled the beans on chemtrails, for example. And again, thousands of people must be in on this for it to be taking place on such a vast scale.

    So, how can we explain this?

    Clearly we do have on this planet huge and very secretive networks of people. Call them Illuminati, or whatever you want. Freemasons? I do not know the extent of this vast conspiracy. But it is truly monstrous.

    How could so many people keep their mouths shut? Humans by nature tend to blab. I walk by Parliament Hill in Ottawa twice a day. Sometimes I run into politicians and begin to speak to them. I have more than once used the opportunity to point into the sky and ask them about the chemtrails that are currently being sprayed. They look, but never answer.

    But I think we need to do more thinking about this. The famous speech of Kennedy mentioning this secret conspiracy is a wonderful historical document.

    So again, it is all well and good to be demonstrating that Sandy Hook was a hoax, that 911 was an inside job, and so on. But I think we need to avoid getting caught up in analyzing these things to an almost infinite degree, and that we need to spend more time considering, investigating and exposing the sorts of social networks that must exist for these events to be possible, and indeed actual in the first place.

  12. Well Keith Johnson just appeared on Deanna spingola's show - and discussed your article Top 10 reasons etc as well as othe SH issues- they were critical - you may want to listen for yourself, as i think you need to respond.

    Personally I though you won both debates, but Keith seems to have stuff to say on Spingola that he didnt in the debate.

    Frankly I dont believe this kind of topic is best served by debate but rather sharingof information and sifting/questioning and critical thinkinking - but that doesnt make for good listening.

    1. I was told about it and actually called in to rebut some of his claims, but she cut me off and would not allow me to make any case before thanking me for the call and going to the next caller.

      I was surprised about 30 minutes later to get a call at home from someone who had listened to both debates and was shocked by how she (Spingola) had handled it.

      I now learn that she is a member of the Judy Wood cult, so that may explain some of this bizarre behavior from her.

    2. I heard Judy Wood on some weird podcast, and the host of the cast gave Richard D Hall as one of the most reliable 911 researchers. LOL. I repeat myself, Judy Wood, Richard D Hall, Pete Santilly, Dallas Goldbug they are all CLEARLY - NO DOUBT disinfo agents and probably gov. funded-(Sunstein). If Spingola is part of that psy-op, well maybe we should ignore her.

    3. Judy Wood relies on Hutchinson's work to prove the possibility that such weapons exist. Yet, Hutchinson has never been able to recreate his experiments publicly.
      Goldbug exposed Springola more than a year ago.
      Alt media figures that go out of their way to attack Goldbug are all frauds. Alt media frauds bait you with some good info salted with bad.
      Goldbug may very well be a fraud. But, his work exposing Columbine, Giffords, Sandy Hook, Aurora and many others - plus the whole DHS/FEMA Active Shooter Drills, the name tags on lanyards, the evaluators with clipboards, Pima County SD and Sheriff Dupnic, Crisis Actors, and what I call the Zionazi Greenberg-Rockefeller-Strong Disinfotainment Clan should not be discounted. Also, his videos showing camera angle and lighting effects as used to disguise these fraudsters is consistent with the experience I gained from years of working in Hollywood.
      Greg Bradford - another favorite target - has done excellent and humorous work revealing the "Clan's" use of CGI to mask these characters. The Singing Rabbi of Sandy Hook played by Bob Goldthwait being the most obvious. I've met Goldthwait and seen him perform live in Comedy Clubs around Los Angeles many times. It is obvious that he is the Singing Rabbi with teeth removed by CGI in every frame but one...a common glitch with CGI. Such glitches also cause anomalies like eyes that do not match in color on intermittent frames (seen during the Wheeler's Interview) and noses that jump up and down (seen during Soto's sister's interview) while the subject talks. These glitches occur whenever the computer cannot keep up with the frame rate.
      Goldbug may be a fraud. But, let me ask you this. When you eat chicken or fish and you find a bone, do you remove the bone or throw out the fish?
      At the very least Goldbug's and Bradford's work are original. And they are catching flak from the fraudsters for a reason. As a bonus, Bradford's work is entertaining.
      If we are going to throw out the baby with the bath water, why waste time bathing the baby?

    4. Either you are an idiot or you are a fraud coincidencesceptic. But you may serve a purpouse, Fed CIArini, aka Dallas Goldbug, is a great example, the most blatant ive come across of the sunstein disinfo scheme in action.
      Make truthseekers look ridiulous and insane- Ask yourselves, who is funding him?
      He is playing with a face recognition webcrawler and produces ridiculous posts of insane garbage, well produced and with lots of time and money invested in deceiving people. Why? Who is paying? Who is helping him? Best friends with Pete Santilli!
      Yep, check out a gov funded psyop, this is what it looks like:

  13. The strange manner in which all these people acted is indeed evidence in my opinion. Laughing, smiling and fake crying. Give me a break. Everyone can see it.

    1. Oh yes brian. After watching the totally not credible interviews with the reported victims parents December 16, 17 and 18, it was clear that the rest of the story was just a bad soap opera script too.

      The Sandy Hook Actors PART 1
      Part 2:
      Part 3:

      I watch all these interviews on the news networks channels, and was there even worse than in this compilation.

      These scripted soap opera tragedies on live new aren't necessary illegal if no one was killed, etc. The gang who control the media can air as many and much of this as they want, legally.

    2. Obviously, you are unaware of the latest fads sweeping New England. The most popular being Lacrimalectomy - or removal of the tear glands.
      Early attempts at such "Bio-enhancements" failed do to the human eye's need to remain moist at the surface. .. evaporation led to blindness.
      Advancements in laboratory grown tissue technology and tissue rejection suppression has allowed doctors to install a third eyelid.
      Realizing that rabbits do not need to blink due to a third clear eyelid - doctors seized on another opportunity to make money performing these optional procedures.
      Obama requested this for himself prior to visiting Sandy Hook as can be seen in his tearless performance.
      The info I've exposed here regarding rabbits is true. If you believe the rest, I've got some beachfront property in Fukashima to sell you.
      Hey...sun burn - radiation burn...what's the difference?
      Piper is not stupid. He's been compromised. Either by coercion or cash. It matters not.
      What does matter is, compromised by whom and why.
      Where Piper goes and what he does from here will tell you. But, it may be years before we notice changes such as promotion, popularity, releasing of supposedly confidential info, or acceptance by the main stream - similar to the Snowden fraud - except that Snowden has always been a fraud. Piper probably was not. Then again, I have never looked at his past work and have no interest in doing so. He's not on "our" team now.

  14. Check this shit out! From the AFP website...
    It was uncovered today, 2/4/14, that the polling software used for the debates was entirely unreliable and manipulable and has been removed. We are in the process of deciding how to best serve listeners who wish to vote.
    Well, now we know why they don't bother preparing for debates. They just don't report their losses. What a bunch of limp dicks - obviously not interested in the truth and certainly not in tune with the tremendous number of people that ain't buying this hoax.
    I would say that they are carrying someone's water and can no longer (if ever before) be trusted. All their previous work should be revisited and re-evaluated with a very skeptical eye.
    I would not call Sandy Hook an elaborate hoax. All they did was spin a drill - leaving no verifiable evidence.
    I have no questions about it - why would I bother fishing for facts about a weak, made for TV story. A fantasy.
    And to top it off, Piper's attitude sucked. What a pompous nut gobbling jerk.
    Balls on your chin, Piper!

    1. I agree, the behaviour of Mike Piper, Keith Johnson and Chris Petherick has cast a lot of doubt on the AFP's credibility and honesty.

    2. People who act overly confident are usually hiding some feeling of inadequacy or compensating for the weakness of the attacks they launch from shaky ground.

  15. The first person to expose Giffords, Sandy Hook, and Columbine, among many other hiaxes, was - and I know I'll get attacked for it - Ed Chiarini. Ed has proven that Sheriff Dupnic is involved along with the Pima County SD.
    Dennis Cimino mentioned Dupnic on his last appearance - in what context I'm not sure - but not in a positive light.
    As for Mossad involvement, Michael Greenberg was identified at the Sandy Hook fire house.
    Greenberg is rumored to be a Mossad agent. I have not bothered to try proving that. Prove it and there's your Mossad connection,
    Amazing that such a non event is the center of such heated debate regarding who did what and how, when the real debate is - did anything happen at all.
    The Wheelers are low end actors. Google it and you can watch their previous performances.
    You cannot prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on those insisting a crime was committed. Until that can be done - and I'm confident it won't - Sandy Hook is no more real than a daily dose of General Hospital.

  16. Listened to JFetz call into Deanna show 2/5 and again Johnson made him look foolish on the mike powers thing; that is exactly the shoddy research JF did on his debate not even looking into Powers being a shill, and if he wasn't why can't JF prove he is legit?

    anyhow, we need to stay with things that don't make sense and not wild ass red herrings that sucker pawns like F E T Z into biting into .... obviously Johnson and Spingola are shills but Fetz can't be an expert on every topic and his spreading himself too thin Achilles is glowing neon here ... he loses his cool way too often and sounds angry thus losing validity... let others debate this in a more intelligent way, and if Sofia is a shill and was sued for using "sound effects" on her doc, then shame on her, and if she is legit, let JF show otherwise.

    this entire "truth movement" has become a charade and it's curious if Fetz is a useful tool, no one can be so unprepared with his gaggle of sheepskins.

    Fetz, ask KJ why no breath on a 30 degree day or people not wearing coats? ask him to get one parent to come fwd and explain their motivations not to rush the school when their children lied in blood for 14 hours, and if the parents milled around the school all day until the bodies were whisked in the dead of night.

    ask simple shit, Fetz, not things you have been too lazy to research extensively while regurgitating others sloppy work.

    1. The Power thing is another example of attacking the messenger. Based on my background as a former Marine Corps officer, everything he said made sense. You are allowing yourself to be taken in by fallacies I taught freshmen to avoid.\

      Sofia is anything but a shill. They are going out of their way to attempt to dredge up dirt on everyone, which again is another ad hominem attack. The situation with Rick Siegle is VERY COMPLICATED. Her film, "9/11 Mysteries", is widely regarded as the best early film on 9/11.

      You cannot have read or listened to many of my presentations on Sandy Hook, because I have emphasized that, not only was there no rush of EMTs into the building to get those little bodies to hospitals where they could be declared to be dead or alive, but no parent would have allowed their child's body to remain with a pile of other little bodies at the crime scene until it was removed in the dead of night.

      It is certainly true that sometimes I am pissed by what phonies and shills like Keith Johnson, Michael Collins Piper and Deanna Spingola says on the air, especially when they attack good people like Sofia. So thanks for reminding me that I need to keep my anger under control--regardless of the provocation.

    2. Jim,

      what's funny is I am ostensibly on your side IF you are on the side that Hook was faked and not just into it to murk things up, that is unclear to many at the moment.

      The thing you don't address concerning Powers is: he is a complete frigging shill with shaky b.g. credentials, we cant quote OJ on spousal excellence. You cant drop your left and let KJ reign haymakers--the case is pretty simple if left simple. And IF Powers is legit then dammit do some research and counter with FACTS proving it.

      I have heard all your shows on Hook. In fact Kelly in Tulsa and I talk a lot, I understand what's up. I know you've stated the children lying in blood not being believable (Hell, it's the first thing I said Day 1, congrats). But, please pour more fuel into it to shills like KJ and badger him until he replies.

      Both so called debates were poorly run, just awful. It should be one question for one answer, then reverse roles. You guys ranted a half dozen things each time and often answered nothing. Both your debates were huge wastes of time IMHO.

    3. Colin, I am doing what I can. Dealing with liars, frauds and cheats is a thankless task. If after all my work on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and the NSA, you STILL have doubts about me, then you must be cognitively impaired. Since I dealt with this in the Piper interview, I have some doubts of my own about you. You seem like a smart guy, but this is STUPID.

  17. how do we download the piper fetzer debate,on fetzers veterans site i only see the keith johnson debate and the debate here is only 3 mins long

  18. "Date With a Debate"

    Scroll down to "Archives"

  19. John Friend send me this note he has sent to Spingola:

    Hi Deanna, I'm really looking forward to your interview with Dr. Fetzer.

    I know you're busy preparing a critique of Sofia Smallstorm's excellent Unravelling Sandy Hook video, which I'm also very much looking forward to hearing, but could you please explain in what way Dr. Fetzer and I attacked MCP?

    When MCP backed out of the scheduled debate on my program for health reasons, Dr. Fetzer and I proceeded to critique Piper's position on Sandy Hook, demonstrating that his primary thesis about Sandy Hook as laid out in his book False Flags is completely unfounded and totally untenable. MCP admitted as much during the AFP debate I participated in with Dr. Fetzer. He has literally no evidence to support his thesis that Cass Sunstein and his operatives inserted the "Sandy Hook Hoax" meme into the alternative media in order to discredit the truth movement - ZERO evidence for this thesis.

    Dr. Fetzer and I read excerpts from an article MCP wrote for AFP about Sandy Hook, and read numerous excerpts from his book False Flags, showing how untenable his stance is on this very important topic. We did not attack his character at any point, and I even defended the man repeatedly throughout the broadcast. Go back and listen.

    Piper's stance on Sandy Hook was totally debunked during that radio program, and no personal attacks were leveled against him by me (or Dr. Fetzer from what I remember).

    So if by attack, you mean critique and debunk, then you're right. But Dr. Fetzer and I in no way attacked MCP personally. Maybe you could explain why you think we attacked him? Or provide a quote or excerpt of the radio broadcast demonstrating our alleged attacks against MCP?

    I'm sure you're aware that Carolyn Yeager recently dedicated two of her radio broadcasts to criticizing me. During one of those broadcasts, she stated that you, Deanna Spingola, wrote an email to her saying that you think I am a Jew, and that Dr. Jim Fetzer is CIA and is working as my "handler". I emailed you about this, and never received a response from you. I really don't think Carolyn Yeager would make something like this up, so I'm asking you publicly to comment on this.

    Did you, Deanna Spingola, tell Carolyn Yeager that you think I'm a Jew and that Dr. Jim Fetzer is my CIA "handler"?

    If you did in fact say this to Carolyn Yeager, do you consider this an attack on my character? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I am a Jew or that Dr. Fetzer is CIA?

    1. P.S. I have no plans for an interview with Deanna, so I have no idea where that came from. And her actions in cutting me off at the earliest opportunity when I called in do not suggest that she is open minded about any of this, though I am told in the past she has been extremely skeptical of the official account.

    2. Springola is not who she says she is. She is a fraud like the majority of the alternative media. If you were one of these fraudsters Jim, you would know that.
      Many alt media sources put forth much good info as bait for the "guppies" salted with disinfo.

    3. Listening to Spingola interview Keith Johnson was listening to along diatribe against Fetzer.

      Here are some notes from the interview I made. Please forgive the grammar.

      6:52 - 827
      The number of people involved in the hoax would be unfathomable.

      8:27 - 9:40
      Why would the government people carry out a drill in a elementary school scaring all these kids to death.

      11:07 - 13:26
      Crisis Actors - The Real People Knowing them coming forward. Why hasn't that happened?

      13:27 - 15:55
      Jim Fetzer's Ten Top Reason Intro, no references or link when most needed.

      15:55 - 17:06
      She looked at the top 10 reasons. Sloppy research. Subjects Debunked like the blood waste.

      Fetzer provides link to Kelley from Tulsa interview & the CT Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988

      17:08 - 19 :15 KJ is not supporting govt story. Hoaxers say the Event was met to promote gun control legislature.

      Game theor y. Computer modeling of events and the expected outcomes from such events.
      Govt staged events -Pearl Habor, 9/11 to advance a political agenda that succeeded.

      Sandy Hook much more elaborate event than 9/11!

      20:45 - 21:08 Fetzer's shabby research, she would have failed him.

      21:09 - 30:33
      Sandy Hook failed completely with the gun control issue.
      Govt makes a lot money in excise taxes from guns.
      Govt want people to own guns to make better soldiers. War ready people.
      Feeds people into the prison system. 25% of prisoners in the world are in USA.
      Sandy Hoax crowd is taking the away of subjects that really matter.
      Discrediting real researcher looking at real subjects.
      Focus on parents of dead children and live children.
      Sandy Hoax crowd are child molesters.
      It is Hoax on the truth movement.
      A Govt op to discredit the truth movement.

    4. KJ
      32:35 -34:40
      Fudging The Polls
      Polling software attacks where hundreds of votes suddenly show up for Fetzer.
      KJ's Microsoft Word kept freezing up and he could not access his notes.
      Fetzer blamed him of not being prepared.
      DS, sighs, She felt sorry for him. She knew that he had worked so hard on that.

      34:41 - 39:36
      If there is hoax. It is against the people in the trut h movement.
      People, like KJ, tr ying to legit researc h on conspiracies.
      Cointel Pro. Cass Sunstein goal was to insert False conspiracy theories to undermine real conspiracy.
      Cognitive Behavior behavior science.
      Challenge to Fetzer to take KJ to court. If you do not take this challenge.
      Fetzer will be betraying the truth movement.

      Challenge to Sofia Smallstorm with multiple aliases Monica Smallstorm, Sofia Shawat (?), Sofia Shacoot (?), Sofia Shabolt (?).
      Laughs, Reiterates she has multi alias.
      She was sued by Rick Siegel ( 911 Eyewitness),
      She doctors the Siegel's footage with audio effects and added explosions. To create something that exactly did not occur.

      39:41 - 40:40
      Points out 911 Mysteries Demolitions (produced by Sofia Smallstorm)

      I noticed DS voice shaking at this point.

      SS took from the offical version of 9/11. Dan Rather said "Oh, Controlled demolition." Then she references Dan Rather, (Dallas local newscaster) and the JFK assassination. And DR said "Oh, we saw his head go violently forward. And those who were there saw the head go violently backwards. People's lying eyes accepted what he said. So SS actually took from the actual broadcast on 9/11 and went with it.".

      DS seems to me, that she does have cognizance of what she is actually articulating.

    5. KJ
      42:16 - 44:09
      Sofia Smallstorm privacy vs Sandy Hook family member exposures.
      Sofia deserves privacy. However, the victims of Sandy Hook do not deserve their privacy.

      Interesting isn't Deanna.


      44:11 - 44:24
      The fact that we know the govt is involve in cognitive infiltration. They have a history of this. We, we, we need to have our antennas up and we to vest these people.


      They need forth rite in way they are here and what they are doing. So anyway.

      44:40 - 46:07
      People like Fetzer & Smallstorm said "Oh, you are just accepting the govt version of things and the medias version of things. I know from my research that as far back as 1977 there 400 people in media; Who worked for the CIA. So we know that the media is comprised. And yet it is OK for them accept Dan Rather's opinion and and we know that his is comprised. He, he served their purposes in Dallas. He was moved up in a national position. And on that day 9/11, he kept saying controlled demolition. And And so when they went with that agreement. When they decided.
      Yes, it was controlled demolition and then Smallstorm makes a film ... and she did borrow Rick Siegel's film. And added explosions and that is according to the court papers. So how can they turn around and say. How those people believe what the media says? When in fact they have done the same thing. Right?

      46:08 - 47:18
      Exactly. We have to remember because of the internet today. Anyone can be a journalist. More people are tuning out of the MSM and tuning into the alternative press. Looking at the history of the MSM, we know that the alternative press is also being comprised. We need to keep our eyes open to these things and not shallow everything.

      If you watch Sofia Smallstorm's Unraveling Sandy Hook makes a convincing argument. Unless you start dissecting it. Looking at the claims she makes and the source she uses. It all starts to fall apart. It is one of the most ridiculous things. I have ever seen. But so many people seem think. We need to get this out. We need to make this viral. I know there has been attempts to take down on youtube.
      And they simply won't do it. What does that tell you Deanna?


      It is getting hundred of thousand views.

      I am doing a critique of her film. I am going to release it sometime.

      It is complete nonsense. You will have to invite me back. So we can talk about that.
      So about Fetzer's piece, He starts his top ten complaining where is the autopsies photos were redacted. Gibberish about a report release to the public and Fetzer changing the 4th paragraph. In the 46 page report they do not list the names, age, and sex of the victims. Which is pretty much a moot point because the names of the victims were released the day after the event occurred. Their names and their dates of birth. If you take th ose names and dates of births. They get their information from the social security administration, but you also get their social security numbers.
      So these kids did exist. So what Fetzer is doing. Is framing the argument here, This really matters. Their names, their ages and sexes were a distraction if anything else. As far as the 52 autopsies photos. 26 of the major states have laws about releasing crime scene photos and autopsies photos. 3 of the major states that do not allow the disclosure o autopsies photos California, Georgia, & Florida. They have strict rules as far as the release of au topsies photos. Just because the autopsies photos in this case are not released .., is not unprecedented.

      More diatribe about making issues out of the photographs.

      KJ brings up the fact JF is a no planer. Eluding to JF thinking 9/11 was a fake event.

      They started taking phone calls at this point.

      It was a learning experience for sure.

  20. Mike Power is not a shill, but extremely well-informed on these issues, in general, even if he does not get every aspect or detail right. I was going to observe that Keith Johnson was reiterating claims that Piper had made that I had already rebutted (refuted, actually) during my opening statement in the debate with him. So while Keith Johnson can SOUND knowledgeable and take in some of his audience, ON THE FACTS he is not very good and frequently wrong--as when he did his research on Kelley from Tulsa but misspelled her name, which led her to write to him and explain that he needed to try again. THAT, of course, is what this with Spingola was all about--TRYING AGAIN, since he did not fare well during the actual debate.

    Spingola and he also wandered off the reservation by taking on 9/11 and JFK. They attacked Dan Rather, who had watched the Zapruder film on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and reported that JFK had slumped FORWARD, while the extant film shows him moving forcefully back-and-to-the-left. But Rather was talking about the ORIGINAL, before it was massively edited, where, after the driver, William Greer, pulled the limo to the left and to a half, he was hit TWICE in the head, once from behind (and he fell forward), then Jackie eased him back up and was looking him in the face when he was hit in the right temple (and slumped to the left). See, "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why", where I discuss this point in detail.

    They don't know enough about the film to get it right, because when they revised the film in Rochester, they merged the two shots and took out too many frames, which made his slump to the left look almost violent. In relation to 9/11, moreover, when Dan Rather observed that the destruction of the Twin Towers looked like "a controlled demolition", he also go that right, but they do not seem to know enough (again) to appreciate that fact. See, "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", Part 2, where I discuss this in detail.

    1. Well, Jim, as you've explained, it's likely that Dan Rather saw an also slightly edited, but not completely fake-end result (doctored frames) film.

    2. Unlikely. Rather was a reporter in Dallas and it is probable that what he saw was the original, film. The altered film was created later at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY.

      You would need an edit deck to edit the film an i doubt one was available, remember they had to get a store owner to open his store to get a projector to view the film.

      Who would have had time to edit the film between it being developed in the afternoon or early evening of the 22nd and Rather viewing it the next day?

      You don't edit the original, you make a dupe of it and edit the dupe.

      It could have been done, they could have worked through the night to produce an edited dupe, but I strongly doubt that happened, I suspect Rather saw the original (or a dupe of it) and there was nothing done to the film until it arrived in Rochester. A simple edit of the film would look strange, it would have been obvious it was edited, so whoever you showed it to would have spotted it, meaning Rather and whoever else viewed it would have to be 'in' on the conspiracy.

      When did they put the original on a plane? If it went out early on the 23rd, then they might have shown Rather a dupe because the original was already en route to Rochester, but he may just have been shown the in-camera original, it all depends on the timings of events.

  21. I do not believe that events like Sandy Hook are designed at least in part as a means of advocating gun control. This is in my opinion a ruse, a lie. It seems to me that part of the reason for events like Sandy Hook is to INCREASE the numbers of guns in circulation. And of course, this is certainly one of the effects of such events.

    If the maniacs running the show really wanted gun control, they would not perpetrate any such events as Sandy Hook, they would do all they could to keep the society peaceable and then use this as an argument to the effect that guns were no longer necessary in peaceful and loving American society.

    But they do the opposite. Obviously they want Americans armed to the teeth. To suggest that the intent of Sandy Hook and other such events was in part to induce gun control, but that it was an intent that backfired (pun intended) makes no sense. These people are maniacs, yes, bu they are not this stupid. They did not honestly perpetrate these events hoping that they would lead to greater gun control only to be surprised that the reverse effect took place.

    No, they clearly want American society to possess more and more guns. The bizarre suggestion that the intent is to try to bring about greater gun control is absurd, absolutely irrational and nonsensical.

    Obama and the others say we need gun control after events like Sandy Hook, yes. And you believe that he is being sincere? When the obviously predictable consequences are just the opposite?

    Please get a grip. :)

    1. Connecticut is home to America's largest gun makers.

    2. Stooy44 doesn't seem to get even the basics of an event like this. OF COURSE it was meant to promote gun control--and has been used again and again toward that end.

      Ironically, most Americans are not fools and millions have armed-up because they see the handwriting on the wall. Now the USPS has ordered billions of rounds of ammo. He ought to be asking, "Why are they doing that?"

    3. The reason they are doing that is simple, Jim. You and I both know that the military sharp-shooters are no match for the fabulous precision of guys like Adam Lanza.

      Now, you like to mention the epistemological maxim of inference to the most likely explanation.

      Well, from the fact that Obama and others blather off about gun control each time one of these staged events take place, you infer that he is being honest and that gun control is in fact a part of the motivation behind these events.

      I, based upon the fact that gun sales actually increase as a result of these staged events, and with the belief that these people know damn well that gun sales will increase every time they do it, infer the opposite to what you do.

      Reasonable people can draw differing inferences from the same set of facts.

      Your suggestion that I do not seem to get even the basics of an event like this is making you sound very much like our beloved damsel Clare.

      Egad, please get a grip. :)

    4. Why are they buying so much ammunition?

      Personally I am not convinced that they are. Certainly they have "leaked" information suggesting that they are. And so certainly they want us to believe it. And it is clear that you do believe it. And of course, maybe it is true.

      But these maniacs tell lots of lies in the hope that we believe them to be true. They want us to be in fear, paranoid, scared of them and so on. They want to make themselves appear far more powerful than they really are.

      So, maybe they do have this ammunition, maybe not.

      Now, to be sure, if they really do have all of this ammunition then it is possible that their plan is to bring about a huge shooting match.

      You yourself have often stated that if they come to take your guns the time has come to use them.

      I hope guys like Adam Lanza are on your side and not theirs.

    5. I'm starting to wonder if Sandy Hook was about gun control. That does seem the obvious answer - that they want to ban military type assault rifles like the bushmaster xm-15. However, gun and ammo sales went absolutely through the roof, was that really an unintended consequence? With the event having taken place in Connecticut and all the gun manufacturing in that state, maybe the obvious answer is not the right one? If it wasn't about gun control, then what was it? Probably the subsequent legislation enacted will tell us, and as far as I know, tat has been a slew of gun laws in various states, which does point to gun control having been the objective.

    6. Sophia Smallstorm points out the way the actors pretending to be parents conduct themselves, and offers a theory. No anger, just love and peace and so on, seems odd does it not? And Jim has pointed out the one who almost flirted with Anderson Cooper.

      This is certainly psychological conditioning of the masses. They are telling the masses that this is how they should react when psychopaths shoot their kids. They are training the masses to be docile, to not fight back. It is a huge psy-op.

      They are doing the opposite of the famous Peter Finch line, "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." They are replacing this line with "My angel is in heaven now, I love and forgive the shooter, all is well..."

      Also, the event was completely faked. They are testing the stupidity of the masses to see what they can get away with. And of course, they are also monitoring guys like Jim Fetzer to see how many people figure out what they are up to.

      Probably they are also testing the loyalty of the people in on the ruse, to see who can be used for what later in time.

      This event had nothing to do with gun control. in my opinion.

    7. Good points stooy. Especially the psy-op one, conditioning people through these sort of events is surely part of the agenda. It is probably necessary to view Sandy Hook in light of the other false flag events like Boston, the Navy Yard etc and then we might get a clearer picture as I suspect they are all conditioning steps in the same psy-op. Boston conditioned us not to react to a total lockdown by paramilitary police, Sandy Hook conditioned us not to react when relatives are gunned down. It seems to be a logical progression where they are conditioning people for a future where such events are rather commonplace.

      I also think you are probably right about Sandy Hook being a test of what they can get away with, which I think Boston was too.

      I think they are testing out methods that they will use again and again in future, when the news is totally manufactured, we are already quite a way along the road to the news being totally manufactured, the big step in that was the consolidation under Bill Clinton of the myriad media outlets into the ownership of just 6 big corporations.

      Another reason for doubting it was about gun control - I don't think they care to much about gun ownership anymore. Simply because handguns and rifles are not going to be much of an obstacle to them now they have thousands of military type armoured vehicles and drones with hellfire missiles. I seriously doubt gun ownership among civilians is a bar to progress in their agenda. The militia movement was destroyed after the Waco and Oklahoma events back in the 90s, so there really aren't any organised citizen's groups to oppose them anymore ad unorganised armed civilians are not much of a threat. Any attempt to organise into militias or resistance groups by civilians is scarcely possible now due to the heavy surveillance and the Patriot Act laws against 'domestic terrorists'.

    8. I think that all of what you suggest, Ian, must be true.

      I believe that we are simply in a holding pattern now, waiting for the next major operation. Of course, whatever comes will have to be bigger than 911.

      I have been telling friends for years that I suspect the next big one will have to be a nuke going off in an American city.

      Also, my suspicion has always been that it will be Chicago, that the official story will blame whoever the enemy of the month is, possibly Iran, and that it will be suggested that the bad guys got in on a boat from Canada so that they can use this as a pretext for a more complete grip upon my own country.

      Our Prime Minster, Stephen Harper, is certainly already bought and paid for.

      Remember that more far more than half of the world's fresh water supply is in Canada. We have the second-largest country on the planet, but with only 35 million people. We have huge amounts of oil, minerals, lumber and all other natural resources.

      When Rahm Emanuel suddenly decided to become the Mayor of Chicago my fears only intensified. This man is pure evil.

      These maniacs have America all set up for the final big one now. Exactly what will happen we can only guess, but I do not think we will have to wait long now.

      Of course, they are reading all of this now.

      My favourite scripture states that God will catch the wise in their own cunning. In other words, evil will always outsmart itself.

      These maniacs are going off and they know it. What they will try to do is to take everything else down with themselves when they go.

      And they will fail.

    9. I think it also has to do with gun control. Not to sideline any of the other reasons for it, but in fact this little "all the kids died" event is exactly what, every time there is a shooting, is referred to in the media and by average people, to advocate gun control.

      It couldn't create it in one fell swoop, but it will be the "defining event" for every push afterward.

      And the parent-claimants immediately started calling for gun control. Op, yes; fake, yes; but partly for gun control, yes.

    10. I agree, the next false flag is surely going to be bigger than 9/11 and nuclear in nature. A nuclear bomb in Charleston Harbour was mooted by one website a few months ago. Another theory, which sounds plausible to me would be a 'dirty bomb' using material they will try to claim was sourced from Iran. Netanyahu seems absolutely hall-bent on using the Iranian nuclear program as an excuse to attack them.

      I expect it will occur on one of the seaboards, leaving the midwest 'clean' for the elite to move to, the Ozarks and the Denver, CO area seem to b where they plan to go if there is a serious threat.

    11. C'est possible Clare, bien sur. Mais, ce soir les Screaming Eagles de l'Isle Cape Breton sont ici pour jouer contre les Olympiques. Et avant chaque match j'ecoute a Motorhead pour put on my game face!

      God bless Lemmy, et Go Hull Go!!!

  22. 911 votes for jim fetzer - laugh my fucking arse off!
    it's all a grand game coming to an absurd ending, as scripted (all for the sake of God's laughter!).

    from the ridiculous back to the sublime we go.

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lapped it up.

    (well most of us did anyways).

    1. Who knows about the actual numbers? I do not believe anyone who knows me would post fake votes. That is completely contemptible. But it looks like that is exactly what was done in both cases by the other side, where the poll results I have put up here looked about right: 2:1 with Johnson and 4:1 with Piper, where John did a great job. I don't claim to have done great, but Piper was god-awful. It was a disgrace having him there. The first debate had a lot more substance.

  23. agreed stooy44.
    my take is that we are being educated as to the modus operandi and mechanisms behind this and many other similar hoaxes of the past (9/11, 7/7, Oklahoma, columbine, dunblane, jfk etc. etc.).
    I believe there are 'good' forces now at the helm and behind the scenes the world has already turned.
    this is the year of jubilation, illumination, ascension etc. (50 years since the jfk hoax) and all that remains in doubt (for me) is the exact date when all is made abundantly clear to the masses.
    (the poster cindy(?) Crawford has a very different take on it over at VT, and one well worth a look at. maybe 4/20 or april 20 is the big day for us all.)

    when it comes to the media, I have come to believe that a 'black is white' approach always takes me nearer the true mark.
    if this is really the case, then the world is in great shape indeed as things have never been made look so bad.
    the dark is thickest just before the dawn.
    hang tough, my friends.

  24. pshea, I too expect some major transition event. Most of us knew, or at least believed in advance that December 21, 2012 was another hoax and that it would be a dud.

    I too believe that profoundly good forces will rise up and put the evil forces out of business, and that this day may be coming soon. I agree with you that it is already happening on a certain scale.

    But a vast explosion is on the horizon.

  25. Good grief. Debate must have a position statement, a single position which offers two distinct points of view, pro and con.

    "Was Sandy Hook, Real or Staged?" One position would be pro. Dr. Fetzer's argument would be "yes it was staged" and it would be buttressed by his ten points. Michael Piper's argument should have been "no, it wasn't staged."

    We were not witnesses to a lively debate, but to a petty squabble not worthy of the professional credentials of the participants.

    1. Joan, I agree. It wasn't much of a debate, not least because MCP had apparently done NO PREPARATION. He seemed to think he would prevail simply by showing up.

      That Friend could not be there for the first 30 minutes led me to suggest that I have the chance to respond to Piper's incredibly awful attack on me from the Saturday before.

      But I don't think it penetrated his mind that he had no idea what he was talking about and that he knew no more about me than he did about Sandy Hook. The first debate had much more substance.

  26. submitting my emails to Spingola on the John Friend situation ....

    dear Deanna,

    did you really make those
    scorching remarks about john
    friend being an agent and handled
    by Fetzer etc ... if not what did
    you say? I am curious your sources
    on this.

    Hello Colin,
    Have you ever heard me say anything like that on my program? I would never say anything about anyone without proof and even if I had proof, I would never say it. Where did you get that information? Merry Christmas!!!!
    Kindest Regards,

    Dear Deanna,

    never, that's why I asked ....

    he said it on his own show, claiming
    you shared that with Yeager on her
    show, who repeated it on air ...

    It really shocked me bc I would
    never believe you would say something
    like that.

    John said in his show he wrote you
    asking about it but you never replied.

    You should get with John bc you are both
    good people and settle this ... I know it
    really bothered him.

    thanks and merry xmas to you,

    Hello Colin,

    I have not been on her program for well over a year. I am not going to participate in this ridiculous infighting which is distracting and takes the focus off of the real criminals. I had an email problem for about a week and that was after a battery problem which put my regular computer, the one that I use for email out of commission. I ordered a battery which did not solve the problem, then I figured out that it was the battery charger, ordered one of those and got it up and running. I am quite sure that I missed a lot of email. If John Friend is talking on his program about something that I supposedly said on Carolyn Yeager's program, then I don't know what to say. It all sounds a bit like high school to me. People need to focus on what is important.
    Kindest Regards,


    Okay, folks, I tried bc I thought Spingola was legit at one point, but obviously she's gone Rogue Vader.

    So, all you need to ask yourself is this: Who loses emails bc batteries don't work?

    caught be her own petard :)

  27. How can she say she is "not going to participate in the ridiculous infighting that is going on" when she featured Keith Johnson, who goes on a rampage attacking me on a host of exaggerated and unwarranted grounds? She is making claims that are contradicted by her actions on her own show. That is one more disgrace.

  28. The silence of your colleague, Kevin Barret, on the no-holds-barred, all out attack on yourself, Mr. Fetzer, by Mark Glenn is conspicuous. Where does he stand on the matter?

    1. Kevin and I are fine. We don't have to fight each others battles. We do plenty together all the time. Check out our "Dynamic Duo Weekly News", for example, which is archived here:

  29. I have yet to see any actual "debate" as I understand the definition, ever broadcast on this show. Ever.

    I don't blame Jim. Jim knows what a debate is, and how to conduct one. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to find a rational individual that can effectively debate Jim on just about any issue he takes a stance on... of the main reasons I listen to Jim. Its hard to debate him, because its hard to refute him, because he's mostly right about everything he stands behind.

  30. I just listened to the spingola johnson interview. My god, how have these people ever been taken seriously about anything. My advice is to just ignore them.

  31. I might buy the argument of a few people behaving strangely in the aftermath of such a tragedy, but not this many. Real grief simply does not look like this unless the person is an insane pysychopath, and they are all acting like this.

    Watch Erica Lafferty (dark haired girl on couch, second from the right), daughter of allegedly slain principal, Dawn Hochsprung, make a dogged effort to appear all distraught and grief stricken as the family gathers for a CNN interview. Again, you'll see more tears at a screening of E.T. The Extraterrestrial than in this interview - in fact there is not a single tear in the house. I don't buy any of this -

    "Family of slain principal speaks"

    More laughs and smiles than you would find at a Three Stooges film festival. This was only a few days after the alleged shooting -

    "Sandy Hook HOAX: The Soto Family Deception"

    Natalie Barden, sister of allegely slain Sandy Hook student Daniel Barden, wants to ask Obama to "pass some kind of legislation so that the only people that have guns are military and law enforcement" so says her father in a tear filled entreaty to establishment media propaganda queen Katie Couric. Oh wait, once again, not a single tear in the house, mere days after the horrific shooting death of six year old Daniel -

    "Sandy Hook Shooting Victim Daniel Barden's Brother And Sister Request To President Obama"

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

  33. Most Amerikkkans are deluded and conditioned to an extreme degree, especially those who listen to Fetzer's incredible nonsense. High IQ undoubtedly, sane and well balanced definitely not. The amount of misinformation pumped out by this suspect in unequalled by any other alternative media person possibly excepting Alex Jonestein the other high profile, puffed up, super egomaniac, blow hard, who I suppose Fetzer still does crap interviews with. No hard evidence has been brought forward for Sandy Hook or the Boston bombings being fake events, although in chosenite controlled Amerikkka it's highly likely that both were false flags of some sort. There were real deaths and injuries at both atrocities, and the fact that Boston was pinned on those patsy brothers is proof in itself that a undercover manipulation was in place. I am totally sick of Fetzer's bull shit and will not waste my time listening to any more of his garbage misinfo. Fetzer's desecration of the dead children's tragedy is a low degradation even for satanic Amerikkka's immoral society.

    1. Tim, we do not need hard or any evidence to demonstrate that these events are fake, the onus is on those that say they were real to prove it. All we do is discredit the evidence presented.

    2. Actually, yes, there is direct evidence that the Boston bombings were fake. The main evidence comes from the circumstances around the treatment of the bloodless legless guy.

      And all the rest of the evidence of drill and coverup (with Craft International's being there, the deaths of the other suspects and an FBI investigator, the demolition of the story of the "key hero" of the story, Arredondo, etc., etc.) make the wider case, though they are not forensically absolute in proving there were no live bombs within the provable drill.

    3. Also, for Sandy Hook, other than photo fakery evidence and discreditable evidence from the other side of the argument, there seems to be hard evidence of the lie in the SuperBowl Singer children from Sandy Hook, who, in large numbers, resemble some of the supposed dead but just a few years younger in the photos.

    4. Ah Clare, I have no doubt but that the other men on this forum are entirely envious of men such as myself insofar as I am completely surrounded by Canadian women. :)

    5. Clare, allow me to explain.

      Treatment of a bloodless, legless guy, and photos from a football game cannot in and of themselves be evidence that Boston and Sandy Hook did not happen as is suggested by the official stories unless they serve to discredit the evidence presented officially.

    6. Now Clare, I do not deny the possibility of evidence coming forth that is not simply a discrediting of official evidence. A whistleblower coming out and spilling the beans would be the sort of evidence that fits into this category.

      But again, what you have suggested as being a sort of new evidence is simply evidence to discredit already existing official evidence.

      My initial point remains perfectly correct. Please get a grip. :)

  34. Define 'hard evidence'. What about common sense? what about likelihood? If you have a whole lot of questionable / suspicious / unlikely observations coming together around different elements of the same event, as with both Sandy Hook and Boston Bombings, you're left with a very high likelihood that the official explanations are bogus. Sure it would be nice to have whistle blower come forward but just because one doesn't, doesn't mean you throw your other observations out the window.

  35. OK Tim - heh heh...whatever you say.

    Watch Boston bombing "victim", Adrianne Haslet, who is said to have lost a leg in the bombing, give an incredibly bad acting performance as a fireworks show takes place along Boston Harbor. Poor girl stands there and records herself with her cellphone camera as she has a flashback to the Boston incident. Ain't nuttin unusual bout none of dis huh?

    Boston Bombing HOAX:Worst ACTORS Ever

  36. seemed to spend more time on the love/hate thing than sandy hook. mike, like others have a pride issue. once he said kids died at sandy hook then he couldnt go back, his ego wouldnt let him. same with devvy kidd. i heard her once on an interview preying and crying about the victims. when i asked her wtf she got huffy, swore at me and blocked my email address. pathetic

  37. and for the record devvy kidd was getting all worked up about the victims of boston, not sandy hook. when i showed her evidence and videos about that boston was fake she blew up.