Sandy Hook w/Dan Lefkowitz / New JFK Show #10
We begin with our first "Evidence Of Revision Show" when we were so rudely interrupted by a four part unprovoked attack on us by CTKA, thus the fourth segment of this show we declare war on the JFK pretenders.
Spingola has zero credibility left, quite obviously she is a paid shill.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteDo you really believe that our owners - who control our main stream media - would give that power up to the alternative media?
Of course not.
The alternative media is loaded with controlled opposition.
Leading the opposition to control it worked great for Uncle Joe Stalin...who killed more people than Time's Man of 2 Years - Adolph.
Adolf was a nice guy compared to murderous uncle Joe.
DeleteSpingola, well, she has done some good work in the past but today, she has completely jumped to the dark side. She now works for the AFP which is just another black mark, they are a cointepro op employing shills like Mark Glenn and Mike Piper.
As you rightly say, the alternative media is very heavily infiltrated, sadly.
That woman was such an ignoramus that I'm glad they rested and chose to speak with Jeff Rense instead. (I couldn't listen to that Deanna woman after the ad hominem remarks about Jeff's hair - totally unprofessional) And I say ignoramus because she didn't have a clue about the 'Open Books' policies concerning charities (?) like the United Way. And she bashed Sofia. No Like!
DeleteSome comments on the JFK portion of the show - the Mauser rifle was made in many calibres, but the German service versions were all in 7.92x57, not 7.65 as the old news reports mentioned. The Mannlicher-Carcano should properly be called a Carcano. It was in two calibres - originally the anemic 6.5x53 and later in 7.3x51. The 'JFK' rifle was in 6.5x53 and was purportedly purchased by mail order from Lenin's sporting goods:
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/KleinsAd1963.jpg
Note the Carcano is third from the top on the left and was 19.98 with scope. Oswald could have purchased the vastly superior sporterised war surplus Enfield in .303 British with scope for a few bucks more or a war surplus US Springfield 1917 (Mauser action) in .30-06 for ten bucks more. Oswald, being a former marine, would surely have known the Enfield and Springfield were much better weapons.
I wonder what they would have done if the rain hadn't stopped in time and the plastic top was put on the limo? I expect they would have aborted the Dealey Plaza plan and gone with another plan, most likely to assassinate him later that day at his speaking engagement.
Of course, I meant Klein's sporting Goods, Lenin is a typo!
DeleteKlein...Lenin...whatever. It's always those damn Jews!
DeleteWho could be surprised? I mean, after sinking the Titanic - what wouldn't they do?
Iceberg....Goldberg.... What's the difference?
I'm sure they all died before their wives because they wanted to.
(This message would have been approved by Henny Youngman - since I'm giving him credit for it.)
HERE'S THE SANDY HOOK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING WHICH JIM FETZER AND WOLFGANG HALBIG ADDRESSED--MUST WATCH!
ReplyDelete? Sandy Hook School Board Meeting with Wolfgang Halbig, Jim Fetzer, and Others (05/06/2014) - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy_3U-eYLqM
Sandy Hook: Free Homes and “Big Bucks” Incentives for Leaders and Players
ReplyDeleteSubmitted by JO4RP on Mon, 02/17/2014
These incentives include real estate transactions, wherebyvaluable homes were deeded to Newtown’s three Selectmen and to other participants for the sale price of $0 dollars on 25 December 2009, which may be the only real estate transactions on Christmas in the nation day, where they constituted very special and high-value-at-no-cost “Christmas presents”. The “survivors” have already raked in $27 million in donations to split. And now we have a new report that 200 Connecticut State Police are going to be rewarded for essentially “doing nothing”.
http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/02/17/sandy-hook-free-homes-a...
SANDY HOOK IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP THE LIES
ReplyDeletehttp://rense.com/general96/sandy.html
So what was Sandy Hook about?
Are the Newtown Selectmen going to move to make real estate records immune from public disclosure, just as the Newtown Clerk moved to keep children’s death certificates out of the public domain? Just how dumb are we supposed to be? As I explained in an earlier article, “Fusion and Fear in America: The Non-Existent Domestic Terrorist Threat”, on the basis of an extensive study by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there appears to be no domestic terrorist threat, which may account for why we are subjected to contrived events, such as Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing:
Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax | Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/07/top-ten-reasons-sandy-hook-was-an-elaborate-hoax/
Joan Edwards wrote.
ReplyDeleteHERE'S THE SANDY HOOK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING WHICH JIM FETZER AND WOLFGANG HALBIG ADDRESSED--MUST WATCH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy_3U-eYLqM
Dear Joan,
At 2:13 into that video, I can hear Wolfgang Halbig say :
"I'm not offensive to any parent that lost a child that day..."
So wait a minute: does Wolfgang believe that kids were actually shot dead in Sandy Hook - for real?
Does Jim Fetzer believe that kids were actually shot dead in Sandy Hook - for real?
Please beam me up - as I may be missing something here. Thanks.
Simon Shack
Neither of them believe kids died that day, Wolfgang was just being courteous.
DeleteYet again, your attempt to attack Jim is untenable.
Honestly Simon, you are pathetic.
Wolf does not speak in subjunctives, but what he meant was that none of the questions I am asking should be offensive to anyone, even to those who (officially) lost children that day. He and I both believe it was a complete scam. Did you listen to the interview with Paul Preston I recently played? He has run these drills before and has contacts with the Dept. of Education, who confirmed it was a hoax to support gun control. That right from the Obama admin.
DeleteMUCH MORE ON SANDY HOOK FAKERY BY SOFIA SMALLSTORM: IT TELLS THE WHOLE STORY.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the public’s acceptance of Sandy Hook fakery, in spite of a mountain of evidence that proves it, has been the question of motivation: What could possibly have induced so many to have lied so much about a matter of such immense significance, which has been parlayed into greater restrictions on gun control and new “mental health criteria” that entitle your physician to ask you about gun ownership? The answer, alas, should be obvious to everyone: free homes and free money from playing the American people for suckers.
Don’t say no one ever told you, because we just did."
YouTube – Veterans Today -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yfJDCMU64
Norwegian wrote:
ReplyDelete"So wait a minute: does Wolfgang believe that kids were actually shot dead in Sandy Hook - for real?
"Does Jim Fetzer believe that kids were actually shot dead in Sandy Hook - for real?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really think Fetzer and associates have done a great job on Sandy Hook. Fetzer doesn't believe anyone died at Sandy Hook. I doubt if Halbig does either. I don't see how anyone could after this expose.
Joan Edwards wrote:
ReplyDelete"Fetzer doesn't believe anyone died at Sandy Hook. I doubt if Halbig does either. I don't see how anyone could after this expose."
Thanks for clearing this up for me, Joan. Let us hope this may finally lead Fetzer to inquire into the alleged 9/11 casualty toll - and to use his logical skills to question whether anyone was killed at all on that day. In any case, I'm glad Fetzer doesn't claim that Adam Lanza was a hologram - or that the Sandy hook classroom was nuked.
Ian Greenhalgh wrote:
"Yet again, your attempt to attack Jim is untenable."
Ian dear, you must suffer from severe paranoia. I only asked a question. For you to call it "an attempt to attack" only goes to show what a tiresome, yapping and snarling sock-puppy you are. Calm down, Fido.
Mr. Shackelstein,
DeleteThe big difference between Sandy Hook and 9/11 is DEAD BODIES! Ground Zero workers were picking up tiny pieces of bodies and putting them in bags. There were no bodies at SH. Is this too difficult of a concept for you to grasp?
"At 2:13 into that video, I can hear Wolfgang Halbig say :
ReplyDelete"I'm not offensive to any parent that lost a child that day..."
That was a true statement by Wolfgang Halbig.
Wolfgang Halbig could not possibly be offensive to "any parent that lost a child that day" because no parent lost a child that day.
Good to see Jim finally kicking some asses, be it only planted stooges. They deserve no less. No snipers nests at Sandy Hook? The local book depository comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with norwegian here. That mans speak and what to think of it was as clear as mud whatever he was talking about. Perhaps he is not sure, or lost in complexity. It happens.
I want to know more about Jackies shapely backside on top of the limo chasing JFK brains
"Fetzer doesn't believe anyone died at Sandy Hook. I doubt if Halbig does either. I don't see how anyone could after this expose."
ReplyDeleteSimon Shack wrote:
"Thanks for clearing this up for me, Joan. Let us hope this may finally lead Fetzer to inquire into the alleged 9/11 casualty toll - and to use his logical skills to question whether anyone was killed at all on that day. In any case, I'm glad Fetzer doesn't claim that Adam Lanza was a hologram - or that the Sandy hook classroom was nuked."
LOL, Simon. You missed your true calling as a satirist! Right now, I wish you and your team would write a response to the really poorly written argument by Fetzer and company which appeared in Veterans Today some months ago.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
Now that we know the huge extent of the fakery at Sandy Hook, we cannot ignore what has to be the biggest use of lies, actors and video tape of them all--9/11. The pictures of volcano-like eruptions of the twin towers need to be exposed immediately as fakes along with other video trick photography these amateur sleuths think is real evidence.
Joan, you talk such a lot of rubbish, and now you're siding with Shack, it really does look like you are deliberately trying to spread disinfo. Anyone who supports Shack has to be considered as one of two categorie:
DeleteA. A total idiot
B. A shill/disinfo agent
So which are you Joan?
all you need to know about sandy hook and 911 is that ken feinberg cut the checks. they ain't hiding anything from us.
DeleteI wrote al about Ken Feinberg and his handling of the compensation money for many false flag events in this article:
Deletehttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
like i said, they ain't hiding it; even ian has heard of him.
DeleteIan Greenhalgh wrote: "Anyone who supports Shack has to be considered as one of two categorie:
ReplyDeleteA. A total idiot
B. A shill/disinfo agent "
********************
Yawn, Ian. Every regular contributor here can hardly have failed to notice that you are of the B category - which alas, also puts you into the A category. In the months I have been following / contributing to this blogspot, I have reluctantly (yet patiently) read perhaps up to 100 comments of yours and, on the top of my head and conservatively speaking, I'd say that roughly 75 % of your comments have been rude / rabid / childish / hysterical / unsubstantiated attacks on my persona and research. In fact, your life and livelihood seems to depend on the tonnage of dung you are able to throw my way on a monthly basis.
Keep it up. Your antics are transparently telling.
Simon Shack
Why, thanks Ian! Just what I was hoping for! :-)
ReplyDelete"Joan, you talk such a lot of rubbish, and now you're siding with Shack, it really does look like you are deliberately trying to spread disinfo. Anyone who supports Shack has to be considered as one of two categories: A. A total idiot, B. A shill/disinfo agent."
ReplyDeleteIan, stop being such a cry baby. I, unlike you, don't "support" personalities. Rather, I support ideas and fact. You are one of the authors of this amateurish piece on 9/11:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
It's time you took another look at it, given the tv fakery that went down at Sandy Hook and Boston. You need to re-evaluate your defense of those ridiculous 9/11 videos. Frankly, I doubt if you have even so much as glanced at the archived footage broadcast in real time.
Do you have a mind of your own, Ian, or are you just a lap dog for Fetzer? Why he tolerates your constant ad hominem attacks, is beyond me. Your posts are nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and insults. Opinions are not evidence. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.
You call people shills because they disagree with your opinions. Well, what IS your definition of a shill? Traditionally, it is one who supports the government's theory or cover story. So stop misusing that word unless you aim it at yourself. Seriously, we are tired of your constant sniping and name calling.
Is this the piece you are talking about writing about Feinberg, Ian? I didn't get to Feinberg because what you wrote below is too funny to be real. Are you kidding us?
ReplyDelete"THEY WERE STANDING AND THEN THEY WERE GONE"......Ian Greenhaigh
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
Simon Shack and onebornfree, alas, have hinted that they think we should have seen a classic, bottom-up “controlled demolition”, had we had access to authentic footage. But there are many other kinds of evidence which goes far beyond the visual evidence they fixate upon:
(1) They were standing, then they were gone.
(2) It happened in a very brief period of time.
(3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.
(4) They were destroyed below ground level.
(5) We have the so-called “toasted cars”
(6) And massive parts blown great distances
(7) There were videos and there were photos.
(8) There were many witnesses observing.
(9) We have cancer rates among responders.
(10) We have USGS dust samples.
(11) We have seismic readings.
(12) We have acoustical recordings.
The evidence derived from these sources can be used to sort out various alternative possibilities:
(h1) natural causes (earthquake, tornado,…)
(h2) collapse due to plane crashes and fires.
(h3) classic controlled demolitions (a pair).
(h4) non-conventional mode of destruction;
(h4a) lasers, masers or plasmoids;
(h4b) directed energy weaponry;
(h4c) nukes (large/small/micro/mini/)
So far the evidence most strongly supports (h4c), which we have explained repeatedly in a series of articles beginning with “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”.
That's Jim Fetzer's writing, I wrote the Feinberg section, so if you want to mock that passage, then be aware it is Jim you are mocking, not me.
DeleteThose were points I was making about how we can tell that the destruction footage is not fake, even if some of the airplane footage is not real.
DeleteBelow is the September Clues version of what most likely happened on 9/11. I agree with this assessment having come to this conclusion independently.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the article by Fetzer, Fox and Greehaigh is a lot of gossip--guilt by association fallacy.
Now that Sandy Hook and Boston have been solved, it's time to look once more at 9/11.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors
by Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh and Jim Fetzer
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
According to posts on their forum, the Twin Towers were actually destroyed from the bottom up by conventional explosive charges. Nobody saw this as the television audience was shown fabricated movie footage prepared in advance of the event. A top-down, near free fall “collapse” of the Twin Towers is impossible to their minds, which means any and all videos and pictures depicting such occurrences have to be fake.
I have never seen a witness report the events as having happened that way. All of the witness reports I have read depict the events as having happened as the available videos and pictures show it. There is a huge gap between the September Clues version of 9/11 and the version that the rest of the world accepts. Here is a summation of the September Clues Forum’s positions:
Joan, Thanks for this clarification. Of course, the appeal to a classic controlled demolition is not consistent with the evidence. There was a stack of pancakes 5.5 floors high from the 47 story WTC-7. For the Twin Towers, it should have been around 12-13 floors high, but they were destroyed to ground level or even below.
DeleteIt is fair to say the September Clues research has established these 4 main points:
ReplyDelete1- The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of ‘eye-witnesses’ or ‘firefighters’, staged ‘running crowds’, 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The ’9/11 movie’ was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as ‘newscasts’. The few clips featuring ‘airplanes’ (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images – all of which in stark conflict with each other, as now comprehensively demonstrated in every imaginable manner, angle and method.
2- No commercial airliners were hijacked or Рmuch less Рcrashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for : their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC fa̤ades defy the laws of mechanics and physics Рand the absence of visible wake vortexes in the WTC impact imagery also defies the laws of aerodynamics.
3- The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives. No image-analyses of the tower collapses can help determine just what type of explosives were employed – since the videos are 3D animations and do not represent the real-life events. In reality, as they collapsed, the WTC complex was most likely enveloped by military-grade smoke obscurants. No real/private imagery exists of the morning’s events – ‘thanks’ to electromagnetic countermeasures.
4- No “3000″ people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. Only one thing was more important to the perps than avoiding a mass murder of 3000 US citizens : to sell the notion that “bogeyman Bin Laden” killed 3000 US citizens. We have renamed the ‘victims’ of these psy-operations “VICSIMS” (SIMulated VICtims). In fact, our research has seen the same pattern emerge in all the so-called “Al-Qaeda Terror Attacks” around the world (LONDON 7/7, MADRID 11, BALI, MUMBAI, etc…). In all logic, the very last aggravation the plotters behind these false-flag operations wish to have, are scores of real families hounding them forever with real questions and real class actions. Hence: NO real terror victims = Logical PsyOp rationale.
9/11 is but a giant – and still ongoing – money-making scam. It rotates around the most well-funded and profitable hoax of modern history. Everyone involved in the scheme is reaping a sizable return from their ‘investment bond’ which, naturally, has “SILENCE” printed all over it. For anyone to ‘speak out’ would be both ruinous and suicidal – a most distasteful option. To be sure, ‘suicidal heroics’ only exist in journalistic fairy-tales such as the outlandish news media’s narrative of 9/11 and its “nineteen religious fanatics”. The skeptics objecting that “too many people would have had to be in on this” fail to account for the most fundamental aspect of human nature: our survival instinct.
The master plan of 9/11 was to demolish the redundant, asbestos-filled WTC complex in Lower Manhattan – 9 buildings in all. The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions – not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme – just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda. The military (and its various intelligence affiliates) would manage the ground logistics, such as securing the area, raising smokescreens to hide the proceedings from public view, and last but not least, electromagnetic countermeasures to keep any private cameras from filming the mayhem. The WTC complex was thus ‘safely’ destroyed in bright daylight. It was a magician’s trick, pulled off by sleight of hand to fool the few (the NY onlookers) – and with computer graphics to fool the world (the TV viewers).
You cannot "establish" what is not true. So 1 does not cut it. But I agree with 2, 3 and 4, unless I am missing the fine print. I have published a lot about all four of the crash sites having been faked and that no passengers died in crashes that did not take place--nor were there any hijackers aboard who caused them to crash! Which means the whole "war on terror" is founded on a fabrication. It is disgusting.
DeletePS. I don't agree with the sarcastic tone of the above clips from the article. Let's not forget they have not proven how the gashes were made, the fireballs, fires, smoke and how 3,000 people got trapped when no planes hit the buildings.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely an up-scale community that cares about appearance and no doubt is overwhelmingly in favor of gun control. I don't know why Dave would have said that. My description is accurate.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think 3,000 people were trapped. And I have discussed the pre-positioning of fuel to create fireballs and the use of nanothermite to create the gashes. I think you need to watch "The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", Part 2.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer said: "Joan, Thanks for this clarification. Of course, the appeal to a classic controlled demolition is not consistent with the evidence. There was a stack of pancakes 5.5 floors high from the 47 story WTC-7. For the Twin Towers, it should have been around 12-13 floors high, but they were destroyed to ground level or even below."
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim, I used to believe exactly the same thing mainly because of Judy Wood's work and Hufschmid's book of photos, "Painful Deceptions" and the pictures of the really low rubble piles. Also, what happened to all the furniture, fixtures, etc. if it had been a pancake collapse as claimed in the NIST report. It is only recently I woke up to the possibility the "after" photos were misrepresented.
What concerns me is that the WTC towers were mostly all steel. The entire facades were pre-fabricated steel columns and spandrels. The floor pans were steel with only 4" of concrete and there were 47 core columns. That's lots of steel. This was no masonry/concrete rebar building. So where did the dust come from?
I don't see the planners of 9/11 throwing away all that steel which could be sold. Flat bed trucks were seen leaving the site with 30 foot pieces of core columns. There are details about the junkyards in New Jersey to which steel was allegedly sold.
Also, there is the problem of whether a standard demolition would have taken down such a steel building. I have been thinking the rubble pile might have been higher than normal and that the steel was quickly removed and salvaged.
All this needs to be investigated before any assumptions are made. Though still photos and videos are technically evidence, they could still be faked or simulated to mislead.
Just as television stations broadcasted a tape of a drill during the Sandy Hook event, 9/11 could so easily have been a 103 minute made for tv movie complete with actors.
Oh come on, get real, they didn't give a toss about the steel. How much is a load of scrap steel worth? A miniscule drop in the ocean compared to the billions they made from the insurance payouts and the further billions they made profiteering from the wars they were able to start as a result of 9-11. Honestly, a few million dollars worth a scrap steel is not even going to enter into the heads of these people, it's utterly ludicrous to think it would. Besides, the steel was sold, it was sold to China and quickly shipped off there.
ReplyDeleteAs for where the dust came from, it's obvious - from the concrete and the contents of the buildings. Apart from some paper, everything in those towers was destroyed, half of it being dustified, that's a lot of office furniture, fixtures, fittings etc.
I notice you are now pushing the Sept Clues version of events. This is a clear indicator that you're not on the level at all, which I suspected all along. No wonder you so stridently defended Zionist CIA stooge Mark Lane and his AFP cointelpro op.
Joan Edwards said...
ReplyDelete"I don't see the planners of 9/11 throwing away all that steel which could be sold. Flat bed trucks were seen leaving the site with 30 foot pieces of core columns. There are details about the junkyards in New Jersey to which steel was allegedly sold.
Also, there is the problem of whether a standard demolition would have taken down such a steel building. I have been thinking the rubble pile might have been higher than normal and that the steel was quickly removed and salvaged. "
Dr. Judy Wood claims strongly to this day that she has seen zero evidence for steel from the buildings being sold to China. She holds to her theory that the steel was mainly dustified.
Yes, still photos and videos can be faked and so can paper records of steel salvage sales, so we do not know how much steel remained or what was done with it and why. And certainly hearsay "were seen" stories are of little value.
Ian said...
"Besides, the steel was sold, it was sold to China and quickly shipped off there."
I thought Ian fully subscribes to the nuke theory and I thought Don and Dr. Fetzer have said that nukes can destroy steel so I do not know why Ian thinks remaining steel was sold to China. Again and as always, no solid evidence exists for anything about remaining steel at Ground Zero.
It does now appear now that Joan Edwards is fully in the Simon Shack corner,and that corner includes the religious omission of any mention of Zionist involvement in 9-11.
When I studied Mark Lane's connections to AFP and how Mark Glenn, Michael Collins Piper, Deanna Spingola and several other AFP-affiliated persons jumped the shark on Sandy Hook, I too came much closer to seeing AFP as a "conintelpro op."
Christopher Bollyn wrote much about Lane's connections to AFP stating that Lane is basically the owner of AFP though paychecks to AFP writers from AFP come from several "mysterious" entities connected on paper to AFP. Very difficult to follow the money trail on AFP.
Here is Lane's Amazon page...
http://www.amazon.com/Mark-Lane/e/B000ARBDXG/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1401203765&sr=1-2-ent
Lane was probably the very first cointelpro writer after the JFK assassination and Dr. Fetzer could probably share much on the quality of Lane's investigations on JFK.
P.S. (As stated and quoted Shack before, the Shacksters have abandoned their original proposition that a special device in use on 9-11 prevented the taking of live footage on 9-11. It was also originally stated that this device prevented the taking of still photos too. But now that has quietly slipped off their story line. Curiouser and Curiouser, Alice cried.
The existence of valid and real video footage and still photos has in no way been ruled out.
"It does now appear now that Joan Edwards is fully in the Simon Shack corner,and that corner includes the religious omission of any mention of Zionist involvement in 9-11."
Deletei'm not sure what qualifies one as a zionist; but whatever the standard, ken feinberg and his lovely wife, dede, must meet it.
here's a little bio of dede:
Diane (Dede) Feinberg is Chair of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA). She serves on the Board of Directors of the United Israel Appeal (UIA). Prior to that she served as Vice Chair of the UIA, and President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington. She is on the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington's Board of Directors and is a trustee of the United Jewish Endowment Fund where she most recently served as Chair of its Grants Committee. Ms. Feinberg has been a member of The Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors since 2000 and serves on its Executive Committee and as Deputy Chair of its Marketing & Communications Committee.
http://www.jewishagency.org/board-of-governors
by the way, did you know ken started out as an assistant attorney for the ny department of justice; "where he worked alongside former new york city mayor rudy guiliani and former us attorney general micael mukasey"?
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903547,00.html
go figure.
p.s. michael mukasey was the judge for the larry silverstein lawsuit with the insurance companies. i'm sure the trial was just another side show to confirm the occurrence of the main show; but it is pretty ziony if that's your thing.
DeleteI do support the nuke theory, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some steel left after the destruction. If I remember correctly, the amount of material from the towers that was dustified was between 40 and 45%. Looking at the pictures of the aftermath, there is steel lying everywhere, mostly pieces of the facade and mostly it was blasted out away from the footprint of the towers, such as the large piece that landed on the atrium of the Winter Gardens.
DeleteSo yes, I subscribe to the nuke theory, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of steel left after the destruction.
Did the AFP not launch Wolfgang onto the scene. His interview on the AFP was very well publicised. Why would a cointelpro op like the AFP launch Wolfgang with such a well publicised interview? It Does not make any sense. What about the debate on the idea JFK was a staged event, is it coming along? I hope I have not missed it, I have not seen any talk about it for a while.
ReplyDeleteYes Norwegian blew up JFK. Jim hid his tail between his legs and run. This was to be expected.
DeleteWell Amanda, No one contacted me to set it up including yourself. Just let me know when your ready, or anyone else.... as usual, no one will show up to our debates. Please! Everyone who supports JFK being a staged event contact me, sirgaryking@gmail.com
DeleteI'm just a reader of other peoples theories. I do not publish theories or do radio shows. I would only be talking about the theories of other people and no one would want to hear that. I just expressed an interest in hearing Jim discuss theories on JFK that are different from his own, like he does with other subjects. If no one who believes them theories wants to talk to you and Jim then that will be the end of it. Maybe if you offered them a chance to discuss the theories instead of structuring it into a rigid debate format maybe you would get more takers. Thanks for trying to make it happen. Given the current climate of fakery, I would of found it interesting even if no one else would.
DeleteI do not know who did the first radio interview of Halbig but I do know that Dr. Fetzer was definitely one of the first.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that a part of AFP is functioning as controlled opposition to the Zionists. There are AFP people like Gahary and John Friend who seem to have the correct stance on the Zionists and the "false flag" events, but as we have observed over the years, the rabbit hole goes very deep and twisted and it is easy to arrange some very real appearing deceptions. As I have stated before AFP and others can do a splendid job of appearing "fair and balanced" and open to hearing and given all sides their "day in court" but are perhaps actually USING the "fair and balanced" routine as just another deception.
I personally have no idea what you are speaking about re. "debate on the idea of JFK was a staged event" but perhaps someone else does know what you mean and can reply to that.
Jim Fetzer wrote: ..... "the appeal to a classic controlled demolition is not consistent with the evidence."
ReplyDeleteThere was a stack of pancakes 5.5 floors high from the 47 story WTC-7.
For the Twin Towers, it should have been around 12-13 floors high, but they were destroyed to ground level or even below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point is that the video and other photographs of the aftermath of 9/11 are not authentic but were created in a studio as was the video footage of the so-called "attack on America."
It is my opinion after studying the archived footage of network news coverage, that these videos were made in a studio long before the event using real pictures of the towers and surrounding areas.
Separate cassettes must have been made for each network with enough variations to make them look dissimilar. Each tape had the same "set" which was a panorama of the WTC towers from a distance just behind the Empire State Building.
Prominent was the gash in the North Tower alleged to have been made by AA11. Then, we saw a tremendous amount of smoke being emitted from the tops of the towers. About 15 minutes later, a plane appeared and the photography implied it hit the second tower after a huge fireball was seen. The smoke continued for the entire 103 minutes until the towers disappeared from view followed by dust clouds. (SC analyzed the smoke and found it was "looped.")
The camera zoomed in and out every so often and was able to catch the incoming plane, from the east, BTW. The plane was the same in all the tapes except for one--the "dive bomber." Actually, that was the most accurate as the plane's path, according to the radar maps, was from the south going north across New Jersey. The other planes had to make a left turn in order to hit the south tower.
Judy Wood and Eric Hufschmid put together impressive pictures of the aftermath and rubble. On close examination, you will see contradictions especially in aerial views of buildings 5, and 6, We have no way of knowing how high or how low the rubble was. To claim to know that information is impossible. Close examination of the aerial view of the rubble, for example, shows much of it is a collage. The circular "drilled holes" in WTC 6 which Judy claims were special, were actually made with a heavy black marker.
There is much more, but I am not the researcher, only an onlooker and concerned citizen. I have no books to sell nor do I belong to any groups promoting one idea or another.
This is classical Shack-esque nonsene.
DeleteWhere is the evidence that the aftermath photos were 'created in a studio'?
What about bothering to look at the testimony of the very many eyewitnesses who were there on the ground and see if it refutes or supports this fakery theory?
Anyways, it's very clear now that Joan Edwards is not on the level, that she is spreading disinfo and has zero credibility. When she says ludicrous things like:
"The circular "drilled holes" in WTC 6 which Judy claims were special, were actually made with a heavy black marker."
We can safely conclude that she is talking out of her rear end and willfully spreading outright disinfo and lies.
Th photos of the hole in WTC6 are very clearly not drawn in with a black marker:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc6/wtc6-aerial-hole-hr.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc6/wtc6-hole.jpg
Also, there are multiple other sources of evidence about the damage to WTC6 that Joan has willfully ignored, another classic Shack-esque tactic - look at a few photos, dream up some BS theory and ignore all other evidence.
So, Joan Edwards, just the latest in a long line of disinfo scum that have sadly invaded Jim's blog.
Ian Greenhalgh wrote:
Delete"Where is the evidence that the aftermath photos were 'created in a studio'?"
Here it is, Ian:
FAKING THE RUBBLE:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489
THE "HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS":
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458
You're welcome.
Simon Shack
Ian says:
ReplyDeleteWhat about bothering to look at the testimony of the very many eyewitnesses who were there on the ground and see if it refutes or supports this fakery theory?
Who are these eyewitnesses? Are these the same eyewitnesses who have convinced Jim that the planes must be holograms? Were can you find all this eyewitness testimony? Can you and Jim not get your head round the idea that people who can fake 4 plane crashes can certainly come up with a load of people to pretend they are genuine eyewitnesses. You talk about eyewitnesses, yet you never provide anything to verify the credibility of any of these people. It seems yous will believe anything as long as an eyewitness says it.
Amanda, search for my interview with Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" and get back with some humble pie. I went to a lot of trouble to track down a witness whom I regarded as credible. I would be glad to feature others.
ReplyDeleteA trustworthy 911 witness, that's what I would call a good liar. One credible witness would make the rest equally credible, and the other way round. You are again pissing against the wind.
DeleteTell me Jim, why would the government want to kill 3000 people in a televised event? Were these people somewhat herded into the towers to be killed because they needed to be killed, or was it a ritual murder or they just happened to have been there?
The idea was to have roughly as many victims as Pearl Harbor, which was around 3,000. But I am convinced that none of the planes crashed on 9/11 and therefore no passengers died in crashes that did not occur.
DeleteI am open to the possibility that the number of those who died is also far less than has been claimed in New York. It has seemed to me that explaining how the towers were taken out is more pressing, but the vicsim issue, no doubt, deserves attention, too.
I do apologize, thats one that I missed. I will give it a listen and let you know how credible I think he is. Not all of the comments for the interview are convinced of his credibility. Is this one of the people whose testimony you believe is evidence of the use of holograms?
ReplyDeleteYes Amanda : Scott Forbes, the alleged Fiduciary Trust employee (who claims he worked in the South tower) is one of Fetzer's prime sources of "eyewitness accounts" - along with those of Willy "BOOM" Rodriguez, the alleged WTC janitor (and "whistleblower hero") received by Bush at the White House who now travels the world recounting to large audiences his story (of hearing multiple basement explosions) and who, before he took the WTC janitor job, was an apprentice magician with James Randi. Fetzer , apparently, once had dinner with Willy - and still supports his 'damning' stories (perhaps Fetzer can confirm - or deny this?).
ReplyDeletehttp://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2375911#p2375911
Incidentally, and only for linguistic amusement, please know that, in Italian, "fiducia" means "trust". Thus, to an Italian-English speaker "Fiduciary Trust" actually sounds a lot like "Trusty Trust". So hey, HOW could anyone possibly question the trustworthiness of a "Trusty Trust" employee? :-p
Simon Shack
If Shack wants to come on the show and talk about the issues that are of most concern to him, that's OK with me. He should simply write to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu and we can work it out.
DeleteSandy Hook Pt II?
ReplyDeletehttp://jaysanalysis.com/2014/05/25/santa-barbara-shooter-psy-op-the-first-mens-rights-false-flag/
Santa Barbara Shooter Psy Op the First “Men’s Rights” False Flag
Sandy Hook, Part II. Rated PG-13
The pattern that indicates the events are staged or planned are as follows, based on the past big media psy ops:
1. The killer/suspect is associated with the establishment in some relatively high level way. Loughner was a fan of, and had attended Giffords’ events. Breivik was associated with bizarre “Knights Templar” and masonic groups, Holmes was involved in advanced mind control programs, and Lanza’s father did have a connection to the Libor rigging scandal. Now, with Elliot Rodger, there is a connection to high level Hollywood. In any major media psy op of this nature the actor in the scenario is someone chosen from among the establishment’s own ranks or outer circles, often with some familial connection to military intelligence.
2. The event is ready-made to run on the mainstream media, on the spot, with the narrative already loaded into the teleprompters. Indeed, within hours, we have heard that the shooter visited men’s rights sites and was trying to work on his “game.” Since he had apparently failed at this, and at Hollywood, it logically follows that men and sexuality are the root of the evil. It’s never Hollywood and the culture of death itself or Prozac that are responsible, or course. Those are non-factors for the establishment media, though almost all the mass killers are on SSRI drugs.
The Brady Bunch…The Brady Bunch….
ReplyDelete3. The shooter’s “details” emerge, with a cartoonish, voluminous “Manifesto” that appears out of nowhere “online.” Laughably, the mainstream propaganda machine parrots endlessly how the innernetz is untrustworthy and cannot be used for gathering alternative news analysis, but when it comes to shooter/terrorist “Manifestos” shady internet sources are never wrong! They just appear – poof! Right after the event, prepackaged and politicized to demonize the target group the psy op was intended to attack. In this case, it was gun owners and masculinity. In all the previous cases, even though it was not true, the media immediately accused “gun owners,” “video games,” “men/masculinity” (identified and caricatured as misogyny), “conservatives,” “veterans,” “racism,” etc. Essentially, anyone who is not a gay Marxist or feminist is pure evil.
4. Ready-made gun control legislation was in the works to be immediately trotted out the following day. In this case, Senator Keen revives gun control legislation following the Elliot Rodger shooting. Surprise! – one of the victim’s fathers is ready father immediately pins the blame on guns! The Hollywood cult of conformity foams at the mouth to implement the utopian myth of total technocracy, oblivious to reality and nature, as if the inland empire of illusion will be able to mind control the entire populace into accepting the new world order. Never mind that a socialist technocracy will be an utter nightmare, the Leftist Cult of Mindlessness, run by corporate fascists above them, and international banks above them, never cease to give up their dreams of rewriting all of reality as if it were one of their screenplays.
5. The shooters are always conspicuously killed, suicided or nowhere to be found (aside from Breivik). There’s no talking to Holmes, Dorner, Cho, Rodgers, Lanza, etc., because they always shoot themselves or are shot. Holmes is still around, but you’ll not hear from him, as he was drugged out of his mind. Following a host of nonsensical, conflicting accounts of what transpired, we can always rest assured the killer will not be able to comment. Conflicting accounts of what guns were used, how many people were killed, and how it was pulled off, will be ignored and forgotten. The only thing that will remain in the mainstream media repeat cycle will be the killer’s fetishes and the need for gun control and removing all penises from the earth. It’s all the more ironic and synchronicitous, since I just wrote about Hollwood brainwashing a few days ago.
6. The mainstream media will revel in the bizarre use of twilight language, filled with double meanings, innuendos and clues that fly over the heads of the zombie public. In this case, there is a play on the title “Hunger Games killer,” given that he was hungry for sex and couldn’t attain it in the market, and lacked “Game,” as lifted from the men’s rights and pickup artist sites. His hunger was such that since he lacked game, he had to kill guys, even though his ridiculous, cartoonish “Manifesto” said he would kill blondes. In the twilight language, the killer will be likened to some film or pop culture figure they either did or did not (in reality) have a fascination with. Columbine boys were like Neo in the Matrix, Holmes was Batman/Joker, Lanza was in some video game, and Elliot Rodgers is now associated with Christian Bale from American Psycho. Why, it’s almost as if they are…actors following a script.
For a complete dismantling of Sandy Hook, check out Sofia’s documentary.
Since the comments seem to have evolved into noting common characteristics of these false-flag type events including the recent Santa Barbara / shooter Elliot Rodger event, another important common characteristic is the proselytizing of the parent(s) of victims or the attorneys/spokespersons of the shooter’s parent or of a victim.
ReplyDeleteHere is a statement by Alan Shifman, the attorney for Mr and Mrs. Peter Rodger, the parents of Elliot Rodger.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/10082150/Elliot-Rodgers-parents-warned-police-about-videos
“Shifman said the family were not ready to speak publicly at length but would co-operate with authorities and "any other person who feels that they need to help prevent these situations from ever occurring again".
"My client's mission in life will be to try to prevent any such tragedies from ever happening again," Shifman said.
"This country, this world, needs to address mental illness and the ramifications from not recognising these illnesses."
Shifman said the family is "staunchly" against guns and supported the push for gun-control laws. “
A child being used in the MK Ultra mind control program of the CIA from an early age must be part of the considerations of possible explanations of these mentally unbalanced appearing alleged perpetrators. At some point it becomes impossible to tell which came first: the trauma based mind control techniques producing mental illness or a mental illness treated with multiple psychotropic drugs producing much more severe mental illness with total break with reality.
I have read medical psychiatric records of some of the horrible things parents have done to a child that produces psychosis in the child, e.g., a child’s pet cat was split open alive over the child in bed and the vivisected dismembered cat’s body was thrown on the child’s bare body in the bed.
We are dealing with the Brotherhood of Darkness, read that Satanic evil, here and it has been operating in the USA at the highest levels for at least two centuries.
For the “Zionist” connections to all of these false-flag type events, please read this nicely hyperlinked article.
http://noahide.blogspot.com/2014/05/following-sons-mass-murder-spree-hunger.html
“It seems that some things could stand to be changed in this rotten society, but the ones doing the proselytizing are the ones most in need of changing.”