Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Dennis Cimino / Ole Dammegard / Phil Nelson

Gun control / Bilderberg 2014 / New JFK Show #13 Gary King features banned by Black Op Radio researcher Phil Nelson. These radio show are titled, "The Black Op Radio interviews that never were."


  1. well that was quick.

    Thanks for having Cimino again so soon Jim. I would have given Denis the 45mins and Dammegard 15mins instead.

  2. Don't miss Dr. Fetzer's latest at VT: "Sandy Hook Redux: Obama officials confirm that it was a drill and no children died"

    It's the S.Smallstorm interview with Paul Preston transcribed, with relevant youtubes added at appropriate places.

    My criticism however, is what's conspicuously absent from the article: Preston needs to poop out WHO those Obama officials are, and those officials need to go public. Tall order, as said officials would be forfeiting their careers/pensions/etc, on top of being tarred/feathered in the joozmedia (imagining they cover the development at all). But without that happening, Preston's claims will remain hearsay, vapor-ware, like Sorcha Faal with his seekrit Kremlin sources; and just be discarded by the wayside.

    1. Any real Fakologist will immediately notice that they didn’t utter a word on the medias complicity in this operation. It is almost as if they are protecting the Weapon of Mass Deception itself. Without medias involvement in these operations, they wouldn’t have been able to pull off any of them. The is the common denominator in all these operations.

      The most valuable tools they have are these media news anchor actors like Diane Sawyer, Erin Burnett, Megyn Kelly, Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper et al – these are members of the team for Special Operations, and are well paid and PROMOTED to the top because they can pull off a scripted interview with another actor and make it look credible,. They are as controlled as fighter pilots – they will simply do as they are told.

      The gang who control the MSM also have TOTAL CONTROL on the election process, and are always able to pull up their controllable puppet to the top and hand him the keys to the White Hose. Then they can get access for their other agents wherever they want or need in the Gov.

      So don’t talk about the Weapon of Mass Deception but launch a huge pile of info from a movie script and discuss it forever?

      This Sandy Hook Hoax shouldn’t be any complicated operation to debunk at all. Just watch the totally not credible interviews with the parents actors the first few days after the operation. You have to be on crack if you can make yourself believe these are authentic victims parents:

      The Sandy Hook Actors PART 1, 2, 3:

      When you understand that the victims parents aren’t genuine, but actors, you should also understand there cannot be any real victims. You should also understand that the rest of the story is just a silly movie script and a virtual reality, and really doesn’t matter at all. Any real Fakologist will understand this – for sure.

    2. It turns my stomach when a shill like you pretends to be a 'real fakeologist'.

  3. Great article, Pat Colo. Thanks.

    I agree with your criticism. We need to know who these Obama officials are.

    1. Thx Joan. The transcriber of that article, "Jeannon" and I are having a dialog about it at

      ^ where Jeannon posts as "Dachsie". In reply #4 above from me, I share my prediction:

      [...] That, and want complete control over "the set(s)" of their hoaxed dramas. I predict their next "improvement" will be, everything being filmed in advance, edited where debacles like Rosen are left on the cutting room floor, the supposed victims long off to their new life/identities in Patagonia/wherever; and then a polished, tidy "blockbuster drama" package delivered to the joozmedia for worldwide propagation at the optimum prescheduled time, to be presented as BREAKING/LIVE. The requisite post-event "interviews with victim's survivors" will be part of the package, though presented as if "LIVE" in the joozmedia, thereby eliminating the tearless-mourner & obvious green-screen FAILS we saw over & over with S.Hoax.


  4. Thanks, Pat. These rascals will never admit to anything. Too much policy and investments are built upon the premise of these hoaxes. I predict soon "they" will not have to show any video but just report a nuclear device was dropped somewhere or a chemical plant was blown up by terrorists in order to get us to obey their wishes.
    Could be archaic commercial sites will be blown up in false flags by "terrorists" and rebuilt by the government instead of being abandoned. They could do it with infrastructure like old bridges as well.

  5. ole, they wanted your name so they could get you, a living soul, to represent the crown copyright dead legal corporate fiction, and thus have jurisdiction over you, as the dead have no standing. they themselves, having names, are dead by consent , are false impersonators, and work for a dead corporation (i.e. the state).
    the name fraud has been exposed. babylon is fallen.

    pat; there were no 'amateur errors' in the sandyhook production. everything we saw, we were meant to see. you've got to then figure out the whys and the wherefores.
    sandyhook was designed to be seen through. most say for bad reasons. I myself say differently.

    1. pshea, I would appreciate your expanding on why you think Sandy Hook was "designed to be seen through", because I am rather think the opposite.

  6. THIS is what will happen if you invite "Tim" Fetzer to talk on your own radio show :

    Ole did well (at 9:22 into the show) to encourage his eminent guest to keep on talking. That's what radio hosts are for, you know?

    However, I will have to echo El Buggo's concerns regarding the total absence (in this Jim Fetzer 30min+ monologue) of ANY reference to the all-important Weapon Mass of Deception : the MSM.

    None of the hoaxes we are all discussing here - from JFK, to the Moon landings and all the way to Sandy Hook - could possibly have happened without the total complicity of the Mainstream Media. When is Professor Fetzer going to realize this?

    Simon Shack

    1. Egad! I talk about it all the time and quote William Colby and others for the agencies control of the main stream media. This is an unwarranted and very selective criticism. What else should I expect!

  7. Simon Shack said:
    "None of the hoaxes we are all discussing here - from JFK, to the Moon landings and all the way to Sandy Hook - could possibly have happened without the total complicity of the Mainstream Media."

    The mainstream media always support and publicize the official government narrative. As long as Jim Fetzer and Simon Shack continue to avoid placing the blame for these hoaxes on the government, the research community will simply continue to go around in circles.

    Jim is stuck without an explanation of how the WTC was demolished. He has no proof for his nuke theory or that the videos were filmed in real time. He also believes thousands of people were killed.

    Simon's theory stops with a military grade smoke screen. He also believes 3,000 were probably not killed. As far as I know, Simon has offered no theory why the towers were not filled with workers or why and how the contents of the towers were or were not removed which is standard for demolitions. How were onlookers kept out and how did "witnesses" get in and not get killed by collapsing buildings?

    I've listened to Simon's theories on JFK and do not agree with his "template" theory linking JFK to the other hoaxes. As Weisbecker (sp?) said, "cui bono"? Just how did "they" (Lyndon and the boys) approach JFK with the proposition that he fake his own death? "We don't want you to be president anymore, so go along with the act and we'll let you live"? Assassinations do take place all the time, you know, and most are carried out by the American Gestapo, the FBI/CIA. Are you proposing that MLK also did not die?

    I'm sorry to say this, but Dr. Fetzer is sounding like a broken record. He doesn't miss a beat in this rehearsed speech on his credentials and narrative of events. I wish he would get past the glitch in his 9/11 theory. If there were no planes, three thousand people could not have been trapped in the towers. It is unrealistic to think "they" (CDI) would demolish buildings so unprofessionally, jeopardizing the success of the demolition.

    Please, gentlemen, get over the hump. You are so close it would be a shame to drop the ball now.

    1. "Jim is stuck without an explanation of how the WTC was demolished. He has no proof for his nuke theory"

      What utter rubbish! The towers were destroyed by mini-nukes, re-manufactured W54 warheads from the Davy Crockett system that were passed illegally and secretly to Israel and then re-manufactured into neutron bombs. We have enough evidence of both nuclear fission and fusion to constitute proof, Jim has listed this evidence on very many occasions, it includes the presence of the complete chain of trace elements in the dust samples, the tritiated water found in WTC6 basement, the burning of vehicles, the very high instance of rare cancers among responders and New Yorkers; in order to have missed Jim's repeated presentation of this information you must have failed to listen to his shows or read any of his articles on the subject!

      " If there were no planes, three thousand people could not have been trapped in the towers. It is unrealistic to think "they" (CDI) would demolish buildings so unprofessionally, jeopardizing the success of the demolition."

      More rubbish, there is no possible logical link between the existence or not of the planes and the deaths or not of the people in the towers. No planes does not mean no deaths within the towers.

      Joan, your criticism is absolutely pathetic, unfounded, untenable, just nonsense, the sort of rubbish we expect from lowlife shills like Simon Shack, so when you spout such rubbish, we have to strongly suspect you are also a lowlife shill!

    2. No one has a problem with mini nukes. Davy Crocket always been suspicious man for me and his dolphin shaped suitcase with micro warheads

      I'll try another tack. I think Jim has to come out with the Victim report or something and counter the slanderous piece of garbage that no one died. For starters how about a show dedicated to the victims. Names of those who MUST have perished, the reason or reasons why they died, who did it, and so on. Details would be nice. In fact anything would be nice. Shack has worth of a small library dedicated to just that.

  8. Jim, before you bash me for the above criticism, I just want to add that the broadcasts are so much better when you relax and have a dialogue with the guest as opposed to making long speeches. They are so repetitious we know them by heart. You are good when you respond to questions as you frame the answers in a different way. (Just a thought--trying to be constructive here.)

    1. His is the final word, haven't you learned his theories are flawless and yours are "absolutely pathetic" ,while mine, are just plain pathetic?
      I haven't been suspected of being a lowlife shill though, I guess I should try harder to get at the real truth to receive that accolade.

  9. Joan, You are probably right. I treat each interview/show as though it were independent for a new audience that is unfamiliar with the background necessary to follow it all.

    But I am puzzled about your claims regarding the use of nukes at the Twin Towers. Do you know that I have published a dozen articles re this on Veterans Today?

    The gross observable features, USGS dust evidence and the first responders who have incurred unusual cancers associated with radiation exposure are key.

    Don Fox has been a major contributor to this effort at exposing how it was done. You might start with "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II". Get back.

  10. Joan, You have been making so many interesting posts here for so long I would like to feature you on the show. Just write to me at and we'll work it out.

  11. Jim Fetzer said:
    ".....I am puzzled about your claims regarding the use of nukes at the Twin Towers. Do you know that I have published a dozen articles re this on Veterans Today?
    It is not the method of demolition that concerns me,
    It may well have been done with nukes, but why would it be if a standard CD could have done the job?
    What concerns me is the ignoring of the evidence in the archived, uncut footage of the tapes aired that morning.

    What should concern everyone is that the images on those tapes from all the five networks are not the same though filmed from the same vantage point.

    Of the five networks broadcasting, the plane broadcast by CBS, dubbed the "dive bomber," is different from the images of the plane shown on NBC, ABC, CNN and FOX. Those stations show a plane flying in from the west and banking to make a left turn into the south tower. The "dive bomber" is taking the true path of UA175 as shown to us on the radar pictures on a northern path across New Jersey and the Hudson River to hit the south tower without making a turn.

    Now, it seems to me, this is real evidence of television fakery to which millions of Americans were witness on 9/11 LIVE in their homes compared to a few witnesses who claim to have seen a plane disappear into the south tower.

    Since we know no planes hit the towers on 9/11, there could have been no fires nor billowing smoke and most of all, no Wily Coyote cut outs of planes on the buildings. Most likely, the area had been cordoned off much earlier before the televised alerts and a smoke screen was in full force obscuring any view of the towers by would be witnesses. The people who were shown looking up and gaping were looking at the huge television images in Times Square.

    1. This nonsense of the Simon Shack type.

      'standard CD' could NOT have done the job, no way, the energy required to vapourise 40% of the steel and concrete is immense and there are many other reasons why the destruction of the twin towers was not a controlled demolition in any conventional sense. Jim has covered this many times and written several articles about it.

      TV faery is way, way down the list of important things to learn about 9/11. The two most important things tolearn about 9/11 are:

      1. Israel nuked NYC
      2. The Neocons and Zionists in the US govt were complicit as they covered up this horrific crime

      I think Joan is making it obvious that she is one of Simon Shack's shills now because she is pushing Shack's untenable nonsense theory of 9/11 - that the twin towers were demolished by conventional explosives behind a smokescreen.

  12. Ian said:
    TV fa[k]ery is way, way down the list of important things to learn about 9/11.

    When you solve crimes, Ian, do you use actual evidence or do you just make up stuff to support your case? Don't you realize that the archived footage is what was broadcast to the world as happening in real time? When you have the alleged UA175 approaching WTC2 from different directions at the same time, don't you think that is a problem? Also, it should be a problem that there are planes in the videos at all. Before you blame someone for a crime, don't you think you ought to get the evidence straight?

  13. Ian, why don't you do some research into 9/11 instead of talking so much about something you know nothing about?

    September 11 Television Archive : Free Movies : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
    This collection contains television news programs recorded live from around September 11, 2001 by the non-profit Television Archive to help patrons research this important part of United States history. These materials were available on the site from October 11, 2001 through 2003.

  14. Oh Joan, this is so old ht, yesterday's news and has been superceded by far more substantial and important research, anyone who has been following Jim's show and writing for a while would know that.

    The only people still harping on about TV fakery are Simon Shack and his acolytes.

    As I stated, we know fll well that the US neocons covered up the crime and the media were fully compliant in that coverup.

    However, that's of far less importance than who carried out the crime and how.

    The reason why Shack and his cronies stick to their nonsense untenable throery f conventional controlled deolition behind a military grade smokescreen while fake footage was broadcast is because they are performing gatekeeping duties and don't want people to look beyond the media fakery and realise what really happened, that nuclear fission and fusion took place and the towers were blown to smithereens and partly vapourised.

    It's not gone unnoticed that Joan turned up here after all Shack's other shills were debunked and made to look like fools, seems to me she's just the latest attempt to infiltrate and debase this blog.

    Different shill but same old nonsense about TV fakery and denial of nukes. It's so predictable and still utter nonsense.

  15. The real evidence of what happened on 9/11 which millions of Americans were witnesses to LIVE in their homes or places of work is what they saw on television. The archived footage from each network has been available to the public for some time now under the FOIA, yet Dr. Fetzer has yet to examine it or explain the anomalies and incongruities. It concerns me that he would ignore this information and dwell only on the demolition.

    1. Joan, are you a complete nitwit? "Live" footage has a 17 second delay, which allows for adding additional images, as Ace Baker has explained.

      The most important facts about 9/11 are (a) that the Twin Towers were nuked, (b) that none of the airplanes crashed and (c) that it was a CIA-Neo-Con-Mossad op.

      I am VERY TROUBLED by this post, Joan. Is Ian right? Are you another Simon Shack shill? I would find that VERY disappointing, but you seem to be making the case yourself.

    2. For the record, I would, in this case, be happy to be wrong.

  16. And there you have it - almost word for word the same old shit that onebornfree and Simon Shack have written many times before.

    The game's up Joan, you've completely exposed yourself now as the Shack shill you are.

  17. "Nitwit," "Simon Shack shill"? Good God but you people are insecure. "Disappointed," "troubled" because I'm saying that you haven't solved 9/11? Who are you people "shills" for and how does one get to be a "shill"?

    I am very "troubled" that you, Jim, of all people, with your credentials in logic and philosophy would be so touchy and irrational when there is even a hint of criticism of your work. If a person is a friend, they will tell you when you are off the mark especially in this field of research.

    I am troubled about the contempt you and that disgusting lap dog of yours, Ian, have for Simon Shack and OBF. Both are gentlemen and respectful when they post here or elsewhere. I find Shack's research on 9/11 excellent--perfect, actually and interestingly, came to that conclusion independently not having been a reader of the SC forum. That doesn't mean I agree on everything he writes. If promoting truth where I see it makes me a shill to narrow minds like yours, so be it.

    1. The point is, the criticism is completely invalid and your viewpoints untenable.

      As you are espousing exactly the same viewpoints as lowlife scum like obf and shack then you can't expect us to have any higher opinion of you than we have of them.

      If you really do find Shack's work excellent, then you're either a complete idiot or are a shill who likes it because it is untenable nonsense, nothing but disinfo.

      Bottom line Joan, you maybe polite and pretend to be well-informed but it's blatantly obvious that you're cut from exactly the same cloth as people like shack and obf who hav disgusted us so thoroughly in the past that we have zero patience and tolerance for more of the same, no matter who it comes from and how politely it is presented it is still shit and still smells and disgusts.

  18. "Joan, are you a complete nitwit? "Live" footage has a 17 second delay, which allows for adding additional images, as Ace Baker has explained."

    ___You couldn't "add additional images" in 17 seconds. The 17 second delay is there to bleep objectionable words or images. It is technically possible to add images if the action is well prepared in advance--possible but unlikely. These tapes are as live as one can get.

    "The most important facts about 9/11 are (a) that the Twin Towers were nuked, (b) that none of the airplanes crashed and (c) that it was a CIA-Neo-Con-Mossad op."

    ___Where's your explanation for the billowing smoke, the fireballs and the Road Runner plane-shaped gashes? That was my original question which you have ignored for months now. I guess if we don't talk about something, it doesn't exist.

    ---Is it really your theory that the WTC was nuked in a surprise demolition killing thousands of WTC employees? Are you still holding that the jumpers were real despite the fact the images were out of scale with the buildings made obvious by the size of the background screen dot patterns not matching?

    ---There is so much to explain. One would think with the revelations about Sandy Hook and Boston, it would be obvious how easily a pre-taped scene of the WTC with photoshopped gashes, smoke, falling buildings could have made the 9/11 deception possible.

    "I am VERY TROUBLED by this post, Joan. Is Ian right? Are you another Simon Shack shill? I would find that VERY disappointing, but you seem to be making the case yourself."

    ___That's really very rude of you, Jim. If you require that posters agree with you, you should say so in the rules for posting. I don't even know what a "shill" is. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

    1. Dear God, you must think we are completely stupid to try to get away with this - spouting almost word for word the same untenable nonsense that has issued from Shack and his cronies multiple times before.

      If you were in the least familiar with the painstaking research carried out into 9/11 by honest, true researchers who follow the proper scientific method then you would utter nonsense like you do.

      Why should we backtrack and go over yet again the same explanations that have been given multiple times before just because yet another shill has turned up and spouted the same old invalid nonsense?

      A large part of the modus operandi of these lowlife shilling bastards is to bog us down and cause us to waste our time dealing with them and having to refute their nonsense over and over.

      I say let's not waste any more time on thm than the bare minimum and show them zero respect, zedro kindness and just call them out for what they are - utter scum that should disgust any rational, reasonable honest and true person who seeks the truth and calls for justice for the victims of these false flag crimes.


    Well, look what we have here. Ian says he doesn't know what made the gashes and that was less than two months ago. He says it's not important. All he wants is "justice" for the "victims" of 9/11. LOL.

    Ian GreenhalghMarch 30, 2014 at 7:56 PM
    Are you inferring that you know what made the gashes in the facade? Of course you don't know, neither do I, it's just another detail of 9/11 that is definitely different from the official narrative (plane strikes) but is still of unknown nature. Anyways, it doesn't matter whether the gashes were made by thermite cutting charges, conventional explosives or whatever, it's a detail that isn't important; what is important is getting somewhere with obtaining justice for the victims of 9/11 by establishing beyond doubt the culprits and their motives. Obsessing over details isn't going to achieve much of anything.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Dear Joan,

    it should now be obvious to you that the unspeakably rude and mind-numbing, ùber-childish manners of the military operatives running this blog are meant to wear you out - and to discourage you from entertaining your own thoughts or discuss them in any civil / sensible / intelligent fashion.

    The sooner you will realize this, the better - in my honest opinion. Having said that, I do admire your patience, staying-power and mettle. Let us never give up our valiant quest to restore sanity on this planet.

    warm regards

    Simon Shack

    1. Oh dear, again Shack accuses us of the exact same tactics that he and his shills are using. They seek to overload this blog with their inanities in order to drive away all the honest people.

      There is no attempt to discourage intelligent discussion here, but there is a negative response to the posting of bullshit that serves no other purpose than to spread disinfo and promulgate utterly untenable theories such as those of Simon Shack.

      How can any rational, honest person support someone like Shack who puts forward offensive nonsense such as:

      *Nuclear weapons don't exist
      * No-one died on 9-11
      * The WTC was demolished by dynamite behind a military grade smokescreen
      * Satellites don't exist
      * JFK's assassination was a hoax

      The 'Nuke Hoax' theory is a perfect example of the incredibly paper-thin and flawed 'analysis' work he purports to carry out. He looked at some pictures and videos of mushroom clouds, decided he could see some things that didn't look right to his warped mind and declared they must be fake, therefore nuclear weapons are fake. No attempt to study the issue further, no examination of any other form of evidence, just an absurd, untenable theory.

      Because Shack has never made any attempt whatsoever to apply the proper scientific research method throughout his work then there are only two ways of viewing his true nature:

      A. He is hopelessly incompetent as a researcher and his arrogance prevents him from evolving his abilities and techniques into ones that would enable him to carry out valid and worthwhile research.

      B. He is deliberately ignoring the proper research methodology and is intentionally producing untenable, invalid hypotheses that are nothing more than disinfo. In short - he is a shill performing gatekeeping duties and producing and promoting disinfo.

      I strongly suspect that B is the correct answer because it is obvious that Shack is an intelligent person and would be capable of doing valid research work by following the correct method if that was his intention. In short, he possesses the ability but lacks the desire so it is clearly a conscious decision on his part to produce untenable hypotheses based on valid research work.



      Regardless of whether it is incompetence or it is his intention, Shack's work is invalid and anyone who persists in producing and promoting invalid work is the opposite of an asset to the truth movement and should not be considered as an ally by anyone who honestly seeks to be a useful part of the truth movement.

  22. Dear Simon,

    So good to hear from you. It was getting so boring on this site that I decided to get back to the question of 9/11 having some ideas about how they made the tapes and especially in view of Fetzer's recent good work on the fakeology of Sandy Hook.

    Little did I realize these people think in compartments, not seeing the big picture.

    It's truly shocking to be called names like "nitwit" and "shill" by the host of this forum. With his credentials, he should know better.

    Then there's his toady lap dog who never fails to act like a junkyard dog to defend his master.

    In my boredom here, I have ventured over to the fakeologist site where I have listened to most of the radio archives and must compliment you all on the informative and quality discussions you have. Ab Irato is quite interesting and a talented informal speaker. It's also fun when you and other SC people join the show.

    So keep up the good work and thanks for checking in here every now and then.


    1. to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it

    2. to act as a spokesperson or promoter

    3. A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

    Since I am this terrible shill and threat, shouldn't I be getting paid for it, Simon? (You know, people like Fetzer who claim to be truthful shouldn't have to police their websites for shills. Your work should speak for itself.)


  23. At last, I found answers to my all my questions to Dr. Fetzer about his 9/11 theory at Fakeologist's website. Greatest podcast ever. If you want some comic relief and education at the same time, tune into this:

    Simon Shack and OBF Answer Fetzer
    The threads bashing September Clues and over at the have been going strong, thanks to the tireless work of OBF and Simon as well.

    We will review this latest article from the Fetzer gang found here:

    Simon’s response:

    Hoi’s response to the article here:

    1. Well, you make it very plain for all to see Joan, by promoting Shack and his cronies you are either:

      A. A complete idiot

      B. Another shill

      We've been over this exact same ground several times before with previous shills so note one thing you are saying has not been said before by those other shills and it was a waste of our time to refute it then and is even more a waste of our time to refute it yet again.

      If you aren't a shill, but just an idiot, then you really should go hang out at Shack's forum instead of here because the level of scientific research and analysis that we promote here is going to be way over your head and you'll enjoy talking about the paper-thin theories based on squinting at a few pictures and youtube clips that attempts to masquerade as worthwhile research and analysis but is really nothing more than idiotic nonsense not worthy of consideration by serious people that is the stock-in-trade of Shack and his cronies.

    2. ...and that is how Ian protect and defend medias complicity in this operation.

      The control of the MSM is the common denominator in all these operations, and without this tool (or power) they wouldn't have gotten any of these operations in the air at all.

      What he is telling us here is; "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

  24. Seems like a week can't go by without a media hoax. Did you see the latest with the interview by Barbara Walters of the "father" of alleged shooter Elliot Rodgers? Is this story as fake to you as it is to me?

    Peter Rodger Interview: Father Discusses Son, Elliot Rodger's, Shooting Rampage Near UC-Santa Barbara | Video - ABC News