Sunday, December 1, 2013

John Friend vs. Mike Delaney & Scott Roberts

Do you really still believe "hijacked airplanes" crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11? Do you really still believe the video footage - both the live news network footage and subsequent amateur footage - on 9/11 is authentic? Really?
I "debated" Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts on Prothink Radio this evening. We discussed a number of subjects relating to 9/11. You can download the mp3 file here.

This "debate" turned out to be an utter disaster for the most part. The only thing it really demonstrated is how immature, dishonest (about this subject specifically), unprofessional, and egotistical Mike Delaney truly is, and how ignorant both Mike and Scott Roberts are when it comes to the research September Clues has presented.

A main point I was trying to emphasize in this program is that the 9/11 PSYOP essentially follows the same template as the fake "Holocaust" PSYOP. Both involve extreme psychological trauma. The fake footage of "hijacked commercial airliners" filled with "innocent American passengers" smashing into the WTC towers, Pentagon, and Shanksville, followed by the dramatic pulverization of the WTC towers broadcast to an unsuspecting and traumatized audience in the case of 9/11. Extremely emotional "Holocaust survivor" and other "eye witnesses to 'Nazi' atrocities" testimony, coupled with distorted or fabricated photographic and video imagery of "death camps", emaciated "prisoners", and piles of dead corpses (which turned out to be German victims of Allied firebombing campaigns) in the case of the fake "Holocaust" narrative.

The psychological trauma induced by the fabricated imagery and propaganda associated with both 9/11 and the fake "Holocaust" story produces fear, confusion, and disassociation in the target audience, which leads to vulnerability and susceptibility to preconceived agendas and narratives, and, ultimately, control and an acceptance of a false reality.

9/11 and the fake "Holocaust" narrative can be properly understood from a psychological perspective as trauma-induced, fear-based mind control operations. Here is a basic diagram to help explain this concept (Lenon Honor deserves the credit for this, by the way - I have merely reformulated his original research and applied it to the fake "Holocaust" narrative in addition to 9/11):
  1. Psychologically traumatizing event, imagery, propaganda produces...
  2. Fear, confusion, disassociation which leads to...
  3. Extreme vulnerability and susceptibility of traumatized audience which ultimately produces...
  4. Control of target audience and their acceptance of a false reality - no matter how absurd that false reality truly is. 
This basic trauma-induced, fear-based mind control program paradigm explains the psychological aspects of 9/11 and the fake "Holocaust" story, in my opinion. Of course, the mind control program and false reality is constantly reintroduced, reinforced, and perpetuated by propaganda, mass media programming, educational system, and the government.

I hope this all makes sense. Let me know what you thought of the "debate". This coming Monday, I will be hosting a follow up discussion on this "debate" on The Realist Report, and hope to have Simon Shack and other guests on to analyze what took place during this radio program.

83 comments:

  1. .The 9/11 psyop trauma was needed to insert the Bin Laden and 19 Muslims narrative into shocked and horrified American minds, where it found fertile ground to take hold, to let the JEW cement its hold over our minds, pocketbooks, and our nation.

    Similar conditioning to the holocau$t programming, except years and years of Hollywood JEW movies, singing sad, sad songs about that con, was needed to insert the narrative into gullible American minds, where it still is working its black magic today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. which should bring the whole
    "who prints the currency thingy"
    into focus for even
    the most recalcitrant "JEW" worshipper.

    then there is the who owns the media thingy"...too.

    it would be a really great deprogramming show if you could have Allison on and
    retrace the breadcrumb trail...for the "Jew" worshippers to discover how the KIKESTERS {Ashkenazim Proselytes}..got into the Old Testament...

    and you know..."who" was Jesus talking to in John 8:33,

    http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/painting-horns-and-moustaches/

    when "THEY" say that they....

    "HAVE NEVER BEEN IN BONDAGE"....
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_williamson.html
    kinda like "cast lead" at the IRON BOWL

    lots and lots can happen in ONE SECOND...

    sincerely

    Davy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi John,
    I have yet to listen to this discussion, but to just make a few comments first:
    I hope you guys can smooth over whatever issues you may have and not let it become personal in a way that sows discord that Jews can exploit.
    second: the basic flaw I see John in the 9/11 PSYOP as being like the Holocaust PSYOP is that the contention that there were no planes of ANY KIND and that ALL footage is garbage that is not a real visual recording of what happened and that there were NO 3000 people murdered in the twin towers on 9/11 by the Jews who pull our societies strings is not really parallel to the Holocaust PSYOP because Holo-deniers, I don't mind saying it because I do deny that there was any Jew holocaust, don't say that the footage itself is not a real recording of something real though YES the false explanation and implied explanation for the viewer are often grossly inaccurate and manipulative using even the footage and photos are starving and murdered Germans, Ukrainians and Russians. Stalin's Torchmen is also an example of PSYOP-ing during WWII BUT John we Holo-deniers, do not deny that that are real records and real murders taking place! Stalin's torchmen did kill innocent people and it was not just a series of phony photos and film footage. The Germans did have concentration camps and towards the end of the war those interred, very often the Jews made up only a fraction of the total ethnic groups interred, did die by disease and starvation in large numbers though this was largely due to the massive destruction caused by Allied bombing and the ground assault.
    AND JOHN the biggest problem for me is Rabbi Dov Zakheim and the connection to the technology that allows a person on the ground to fly a plane from a computer. Rabbi Zakheim is the biggest snake after Chertoff in my opinion. And still what makes no sense to me is WHY do we even care if the Jews did this if they didn't kill anybody on 9/11? YES I understand that it is upsetting and that it is what propelled the U.S. do war but really John if the Jews are that powerful to totally imprison us all in a false reality to where we can never know for sure what footage is real, what news is real, and we have Government-Corporate-Media-Jewocracy that is practically imnipotent what is the point? how do you know right now I am not an AI computer program that is one of many the Jews are manipulating to manipulate anyone reading this?
    The point is that even IF there were no planes, and no 3000 you have to focus on what you can know and prove and focus on that rather than allowing yourself to chase the bogeymen who you can never find or single out as individuals because we can't ever believe or trust that any recording or document that we get is real!
    BUT JOHN,
    I will try to be humble and admit I have crossed the line and implied things to you proabably falsely. But it relates to basic epistemology: What principles are we applying and operating upon to determine what is real and what is false? If we are applying different epistemological principles in one scenario or series of event/s and applying a differing set to another what jusification is there for that? and that in itself is telling of not having realized a truly consistent worldview. True we study ancient history and archaeology differently using different means for discovery BUT the principles are still the same.
    Anyway, Hope I didn't piss you off and step too far over the line.
    You're a good man John and there are too few in this world who also are doing what you do and working as hard as you are and have for me to want do that. And you clearly are the kind of man who when he is on your side or a leader will be faithful til the very end! A great comrade in arms or commander in arms!
    Take care John, and on a lighter note, the Hawks finally beat the Cornhuskers!
    Just couldn't help myself! That hasn't ever happened during either of our lives!
    Keep Fighting John!
    In ICXC
    Konrad
    14/88

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, yeah my Cornhuskers played like crap the other day! Unfortunately, that's becoming all too typical... :(

      Your comment is very similar to all of the comments made my Mike and Scott. None of you guys are addressing any of the research September Clues has brought to light. In the documentary, they literally analyze all of the news media coverage of 9/11, and the subsequent amateur footage. And guess what? There are major problems with ALL of it. It's fraudulent man. Have you seen the documentary or checked out the website? Honestly, answer that question please.

      Regarding the alleged victims - I am NOT saying that "no one died on 9/11" (although I think Simon Shack would say that). I am NOT saying that the Jews are afraid to murder people in their operations. I AM saying that there are many problems with many of the alleged victims we were told died on 9/11, and Simon Shack and September Clues have thoroughly documented all of this. Have you looked into this information?

      There are many fraudulent videos and photographs purporting to show "German atrocities" and the "Holocaust". Are you denying this?

      Delete
    2. Dear John,
      I started writing a reply but I will just state simply:
      Years ago I watched parts of September Clues and what Mike said about Trajectory trickery is one good point along with the many the credibility of Simon Shack being easily called into question, like one statement I heard in the clip about being in Manhattan and that Wall-Street doesn't open until 10. WTF?!!! You expect me to believe a guy who claims he has been to Manhattan and then expects you to believe what HE HAS TO KNOW IS A LIE! Most who trade, purchase, and sell on the markets are going to work between 6 and 8 on the East Coast and though the NYSE Opening Bell is at 9:30 AM the NASDAQ pre-trading begins at 7 AM and the majority of people working in Manhattan would definitely have been going to work at the time of the first Demolition. More than that Shack is doing what a cult leader does which is to take away from his followers any trust in any normative means of discovery and inquiry into the bigger and more troubling issues of our reality and give them a false reality all the while convincing his followers that he is saving them from those trying to scare them with lies.
      John I am probably not ever going to look anymore into the No Plane and TV-Media Fakery arguments because I don't really need it to expose the Jew and I would rather use the free time I have for to learn more in other practical areas such as simply learning more about technology for survival in an emergency, improvised weapons/explosives, and many basic skills I have yet to really familiarize myself with for building literally for what we will likely inherit in the coming apocalyptic times which will be a devastated planet.
      But in the interest of Justice or at least exposing one of the Rats who we should all hope to see at the end of a rope: Dov Zakheim and Chertoff and Systems Planning Corporation. You can easily look into these two and conclude that yes planes more than likely were remotely controlled-slammed into the towers which were then demolished "pull-it' Silverstein" comes to mind, and I just conclude that when you have a real even to document and play back over and over why the hell would you fake any of it? It really does not make sense because people already in general have a mistrust of the media but playing real footage is far far better to terrify and traumatize than CGI and Media fakery.
      I really don't want to debate or argue this I just wanted to explain as quickly as I thought necessary where I am coming from and why. And seriously even if I am wrong I just am not the guy to look more into this. I am more the guy exposing the Jews from pre-modern history, their ideology/supersitions, and the guy who tries to remind people to read Volume II of Mein Kampf when they start claiming to be National Socialists.
      I basically came to the conclusion before I watched Missing Links that we really don't need to know much and the masses really only need to be convinced of a little to solve this Jewish Problem we have. Why go on and on about vampirism and the shadows they hide in when we know where they are and who they are and we need to put a stake through their heart but we are busy fighting about whether they are shape-shifting or immortal or about how and why they became vamps etc. . . . Just find the damn coffin and stake'em!
      I hope my lack of interest in arguing this is not perceived as weakness or an unwillingness to engage in confrontation. I just don't see the point of it and yes, I admit, I have not really looked much into the No Planes or TV/Media Fakery arguments. Still John, can we at least agree Zakheim and Chertoff are Jews who need to be publicly dispatched with? Throw in Lloyd Blankfein for measure along with many more of course!
      Sorry Man!
      I'm a Rambling Ranter as usual!

      Delete
  4. Good to hear Tom take exception with anyone, including Simon Shack, making the absolute statement, without 100% proof, that no one died on 9/11.

    While it seems that the evidence points to many, if not most, of the victims being fake, the consequences of being wrong with such an absolute statement of no one having died on 9/11 is so great as to discredit 100% provable statements about 9/11, and those beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I don't remember Simon ever saying that he doesn't think that satellites exist, as Mike and Scott referred to. It was Abirato who expressed that opinion during one or more interviews with Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I will remain in Anthony Lawson's camp.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unfortunately, the “debate” was not a debate at all. It had no formal structure and no enforced rules. Basically, it was a contentious argument between a defendant and two plaintiffs with no judge and no rules.

    I was not introduced into the conversation during the first hour or so – so I listened to both sides. When I finally joined the conversation, I thought it would be best to emphasize where I was in agreement and not simply turn the conversation into a major confrontation over the points where I was in disagreement.

    Come to find out – apparently a few listeners misinterpreted my stance based on my demeanor and effort to have a constructive discourse rather than a yelling match.

    I want to make a few things very clear:

    1. The jewish media was central to the 911 event.
    2. The official 911 narrative is simply untrue.
    3. ALL of the video and assorted 911 related imagery is unreliable.

    Now, regarding September Clues. I have studied the film closely and based upon my own investigation into the 911 event – I believe the basic premise of September Clues is sound in that the 911 event involved major exploitation of manipulated imagery broadcast as “news”.

    Can we make the statement that “nobody died”? No, we can’t.
    Can we say definitively that “no planes hit the towers”? No, we can’t say that. Here ‘s why. Something could, in fact, have hit the towers – but if something did, whatever it was – was not depicted in the 911 broadcast news imagery.

    We are completely satisfied that imagery of the planes striking the towers was not an unaltered direct camera capture and is therefore unreliable and should be rejected.

    Some people seem to still think that the video of the planes striking the towers was reliable and that the images of planes were of real planes.

    They were not and we can prove it.

    The points I wanted to make were these:

    1. 911 was a deception operation.
    2. All deceptions are goal based.
    3. CGI imagery and faked audio are frequently used.

    By the way, Anthony Lawson is wrong and we can clearly show he's wrong and why he's wrong.

    I simply wanted to explain exactly what we know for sure about the alleged planes issue and exactly how we applied Structured Methods to figure it out.

    It is very important to understand that 911 was a PsyWar operation and the jewish media was absolutely central to the event.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was a disaster! John really didn't get a fair shack. The chat was at times childish.At the end I said to Mike that he was right when he said he didn't want to do this show. All it did was turn good people against each other.I don't get Tom,he won't tell us where he coming from, he thinks we can't handle the truth. No body wins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "debate" turned into a redirection from what we should have been talking about (which is the fact that 911 involved the use of sophisticated Psychological and Information warfare techniques) into a focus on a few things Simon Shack said.

      Simon Shack has done fantastic work in his deconstruction and identification of the faked and altered video.

      To maintain my own credibility, I agreed that we cannot say that absolutely no person died. The numbers were probably inflated, but we can't say that either zero died or that 3000 died. That is a false dichotomy.

      In retrospect, once it became clear that the "debt" was simply going to be an argument - I probably should not have wasted my time.

      I thought I was being clear as to where I am coming from. John Friend is correct about 911. The premise of September Clues is correct about 911. The core issue with 911 is that it was a Psychological Operation that relied mainly on transmitting fake imagery through the media.

      It is very obvious that many people have a lot of difficulty understanding that looking at the TV is not the same thing as looking at the real world. My comment about not discussing this was aimed at Mike and Scott as a suggestion not to spread a confused message until we are all pretty much on the same page. That message was obviously lost.

      As you know, Illusion Science depends on tricking and confusing the senses. That is central to the 911 operation. I tried to explain in simple terms how we know that they used Illusion Science in the construction of the 911 illusion that was transmitted over the TV.

      Based upon the available evidence, we do not believe that aircraft were hijacked. Although it is theoretically possible that aircraft were hijacked, hijackings were not necessary if the core deception event was a staged media transmitted narrative.

      Based on the available evidence, we know that the video we were shown depicting planes hitting the towers was fake. This means that the video was fake. Something could have hit the towers - but it was not necessary to have anything really hit the towers to maintain the illusion that something hit the towers. This is why we don't think that anything did hit the towers. It wasn't necessary. If you were watching TV you were given the strong impression that something did hit the towers.

      Tom

      Delete
    2. As stated earlier, it was not necessary to actually have something hit the towers to create the illusion to a TV watching public that something did hit the towers.

      To illustrate this concept, lets say you live on the water where there are frequent offshore sailboat races distantly in view through your window at home. You look out your window and see what appears to be a sailboat race in the distance.

      You can’t see very well so you elect to turn on the television to get a better view of the race. On TV you see a blue sailboat crossing the finish line ahead of the other boats.

      Then, on TV, all of a sudden you see the winning blue sailboat accelerate to 300 mph, take off and fly a short path and strike a nearby house.

      Almost immediately, you hear a big boom both transmitted through the TV and heard in real life in your waterside home.

      As a result of viewing broadcast footage of a blue boat crossing the finish line ahead of the other boats – you are convinced that a blue sailboat won the race - and that it took off like a plane and crashed into a house. You grab your binoculars and look out to where you heard the explosion come from and you see a big smoking hole in the side of a house in the distance.

      But in reality, a red boat won the race - no blue boat was ever in the race and the alleged blue boat didn't take off and defy the laws of physics and nothing crashed into the house. How could this be?

      Easy. Fake imagery on TV.

      As a result, many people actually think that a sailboat took off like a plane. Others, knowing this is impossible speculate that maybe a missile hit the house.

      Arguments result.

      Somebody makes a great documentary showing the imagery was faked. Certain people attack his character.

      Get it?

      Tom

      Delete
    3. Excellent analogy, Tom. When I first heard about the "no planes theory" in, I guess, 2007 and realized it made sense, what people would say when I mentioned it was "Oh, that's impossible-- thousands of people saw the planes hit."

      Well, I am a trained actress, and it is instinctive for me to put myself in the place of a person standing there, and of course I would have had no reason to look up at the second tower until AFTER there was an explosion there, at which point I would naturally have believed a plane had hit it if I had been told that and shown TV footage of a plane hitting it.

      Delete
  8. I don't understand the comparison between no one dying in the Holocaust and no one dying on 911. Is that supposed to make us feel comfortable that the Jews didn't kill 3000 people? Even if no one died on 911, the Jews would murder 3000 of us in a heartbeat, like stepping on an ant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben, that is not the comparison I am making. I am saying, although I don't think I was able to elaborate on this during the "debate", is that the alleged victims in both the 9/11 PSYOP and the "Holocaust" PSYOP are central to the deception and exploitation of human emotions and psychology.

      And I am NOT saying that "no one died on 9/11" or that Jews are afraid or hesitant to actually really kill people - I am saying that September Clues and others have raised some very real issues with the alleged 9/11 "victims", and many of them do indeed appear to be fraudulent or manufactured identities.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand the difference if it was 1 or 3000 victims though. Unless nobody died, which you said you are not claiming, then it was still an incredibly shocking event. The Holocaust story was created to demonize the Nazis, and needs to be debunked for obvious reasons. 911 was Jews killing gentiles so what difference does the exact number of victims make?

      Delete
    3. Very excellent point!

      It is a huge difference whether no one was killed, or one or more. That would have gotten everyone involved in a conspiracy to murder, with no statute of limitation. The recruitment to the operation would become much harder if it included a conspiracy to murder. The national news reporters and the producers at Fox would certainly not have enjoyed that! What about a real FBI murder investigation? And the 911 operation management could risk fights with angry bankers families in court, with access to uptown lawyers, and would maybe never let go. Wouldn't look so good with real and fake victims family members side by side.

      Much better and simpler just to fake it ALL. No one involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statute of limitations (all other potential crimes have now expired). Better control on the message when ALL victims families can regurgitate the script as needed. No risk for an real FBI murder investigation. No hassle with any real victims family member in court. They could put the money in the Victim Compensation Found in their own pocket. Lots and lots of advantages with faking it all.

      Anyone seen any tears (or 1?) from any of the REPORTED victims family members?

      The reason you believe the official victim part of the story is because they aired the REPORTS A MILLION TIMES! The Big Lie was told to everyone, all at ones, until people perpetuate the lie themselves. The power of "everyone knows" is HUGE.

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't that still make everyone involved guilty in the subsequent murder of millions in the wars that followed?

      Delete
    5. i like you el buggo, especially your youtube page, but people died on 911, simon doesnt have say over a lot of things. i live in new york, unfortunately lots of people died, and we are pissed about it. Dave Mansfield

      Delete
    6. Not guilty according to the law. Free speech doesn't mean that the speech has to be true. Same goes for politicians. Had to hit Iraq before they hit us with their WMD, you know. Quite legal (and stupid) process.

      When the media people get busted, all they risk is their reputation. They probably have recruited the most prostituted kind, so they don't care too much anyway. Except if they got involved in a conspiracy to murder with no statute of limitation of course. That could be serious.

      They like to stay behind the curtain while the wizard (the TV) fools the people just as they need or want. They don't have to get any blood on their own hands. You do understand that the people who control the jewish media also have total control on the election process?

      The Talmud describes two realities. One is called Darkey Shalom or Peacfull Ways. That is a time for being nice or run into too much problems and progroms. The other reality is When Israel Is Mighty. Then they can follow the Talmud to the letter, and don't need to be nice to keep the peace. So what they will do depends on the reality they are in. More here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY

      Delete
    7. I can't believe I'm even responding to this but you don't really believe someone who willingly went along with a plot like this, even if no one was murdered, wouldn't be tried for criminal conspiracy do you?

      "You do understand that the people who control the jewish media also have total control on the election process?"

      What does this have to do with anything?

      Delete
    8. Ben G: tried for criminal conspiracy? Not sure what that is. If someone got close to that, the jewish media will take them out, one way or another. Even POTUS is one of their puppets. Cannot see any potential crimes committed 911 that haven't now expired, provided no one got killed in that operation. So no, cannot see what anyone could be tried for now. Maybe possible, but I am not able to see that.

      Re: the jewish media also have total control on the election process

      Well, they control a lot of the gang on Capitol Hill too, so if the really want to attack some countries, or what have you, they can get them do the job and get blood on their hands. Media, and the people who control the media, is totally "innocent" of course, as usual. That is the clever way to operate, in a lawful way, get someone else to do the job.

      Delete
    9. You don't know what a criminal conspiracy is? And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

      Delete
  9. I just deleted the comments from Scott Roberts and the Anonymous commenter attacking him. It has nothing to do with this "debate" and I don't want this drama on my website. I should never have approved those comments in the first place, my mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,

      I told you very long ago that the Prostink guy was not trustworthy, he sure as hell isn't the braintrust he appears to believe himself to be, he has an agenda that is not the same as yours or mine.

      I view Scott as a fairly smart guy, but one who has sidled up with a moron. It may be too late for him to come back to reality (and its a shame, for I have learned from some of his videos).

      The entire "debate" was a farce, with Delaney continually explaining to you that he has been doing this for so long that he KNOWS more than you about the subject of 9/11.

      (Puke)

      Jew, jew, jew, jew, jew, jew, jew, the jews did it.

      Well, no shit.

      Now, amazingly, on a few issues, I agree with them to an extent (I shared all of this with you in a personal email, which, oddly, you never replied to when I got to the nut-cuttin'). But, whenever I agree with Delaney on an issue, it causes me to seriously rethink my position, for I believe he is either a moron or a shill (his words).

      I have no problem with the plane footage being faked (Shank seems to have covered that very well in the video). But as far as the buildings demolition being faked, I don't think so. Perhaps enhanced (as Tom was mentioning, one can take actual footage and enhance it with digital).

      But no one explains how all the dust and rubble was seen for months, how heat was seen and measured in that rubble for months.

      I find it an impossibility that those buildings came down without SOMEONE seeing it... perhaps even thousands of people. Yet, no witnesses have been heard suggesting it was some sort of planned demolition. And I don't believe for a second that every witness is an actor. That every person who went to help is a fake. You might could pull that off in my little podunk town, but in a city of millions, not hardly.

      I seem to think that there was fakery used to meld the minds of Americans. I don't think that EVERYTHING was faked.

      I don't know what Delaney's motive is, but I know that I don't trust him in any way or form.

      Hopefully this has shown something of the same.

      BTW: I don't really trust the Shank guy for many of the reasons Delaney/Roberts suggest (the points I agree with them on). I am not convinced that truth is his motive after hearing him on your program and the fakeologist program (which is a Jew cover-up IMO).

      For whatever its worth.

      Delete
    2. Greetings B'Man,

      As you illustrated, there are many ways they could have performed the 911 illusion.

      As with any stage magic trick, if you want to deconstruct it you begin with viewpoint of the target audience. You examine exactly what they think they saw. Then you list different hypotheses consistent with the evidence that accounts for the perception of the target audience. You work the evidence and compare it to each possible scenario.

      Pretty soon, you will have narrowed it down quite a bit and identified what you "know" vs what you don't. That process tells you where to focus further investigation.

      We performed this process extensively.

      The process revealed quite a few things. The process has not exonerated Simon Shack as a reliable iconic figure. There are some very real problems with some of the things he's said and some of the over-reaching conclusions made.

      Cutting right to the issue: 911 was a media based deception operation. It involved the broadcast media. Among the people who need to be arrested is "the Harley guy".

      On the topic of the building demolitions: Was a standard “Controlled Demolition” of WTC 1 & 2 possible using standard commercial demolition methods? WTC 1 & 2 had Perimeter Columns and Core Columns. Each was 5 inches thick and they were double-walled structural steel filled with concrete. Essentially a hollow tube structure.

      People who believe that the video we saw was real also believe that an airplane could penetrate 8 walls of columns with each wall being steel 5 inches thick.

      Perhaps most people reading this don’t have a good gauge on impact analysis on various materials and structures. Those people might want to start educating themselves.

      Without boring you any further, we know that planes did not cut those columns.

      We absolutely know this for sure. No question whatsoever.

      We know that a novel method of demolition had to be employed to drop those towers.

      If the concrete powder as depicted was not total CGI, that leads us towards certain possibilities concerning how the towers were dropped.

      If the reports of extremely elevated temperatures in the wreckage are reliable, that leads us towards certain possibilities concerning how the towers were dropped.

      Good to see you B’Man

      Regards,

      Tom

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Tom.

      I have been following your and John's discussions/programs since you joined in as an analyst. You always offer excellent insight and help me understand the critical thinking process more and more.

      I find that studying the events (and footage that Shack points to) that when I saw the nose of a jet (including about 1/4 of the front part) come through the opposite side of the impact, I knew something was wrong. It is an impossibility to come through seemingly intact.

      This is where I can believe there was a media manipulation of images.

      I am not yet convinced that the dust and pyroclastic flow of minute debris are video fakery (much less that no one died and that no one would have seen any normal destruction of the two tallest buildings anywhere around)... not to mention many other issues such as the heat measured for months afterwards.

      So, if there was two towers coming down as they did, we are forced to try to understand how that is so. As you mention, it isn't really possible that normal demolitions were used, for they don't provide the minute particulate that was seen (nor the temps).

      There is but one suggested source that I am aware of: some sort of nuke.

      Jeff Prager's "Dust" goes in to a decent explanation of how this may have occurred (and the science behind it). There is a Scrib'd version:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/59702510/Jeff-Prager-911-Dust-2011

      It also explains the rise of cancers of the people (first responders and those that helped in the clean-up).

      Delete
  10. As stated earlier, it was not necessary to actually have something hit the towers to create the illusion to a TV watching public that something did hit the towers.



    To illustrate this concept, lets say you live on the water where there are frequent offshore sailboat races distantly in view through your window at home.

    You look out your window and see what appears to be a sailboat race in the distance.

You can’t see very well so you elect to turn on the television to get a better view of the race.

    On TV you see a blue sailboat crossing the finish line ahead of the other sailboats. 

Then, on TV, all of a sudden you see the winning blue sailboat accelerate to 300 mph, take off and fly a short path and strike a nearby house. 



    Almost immediately, you hear a big boom both transmitted through the TV and heard in real life in your waterside home. 

As a result of viewing broadcast footage of a blue sailboat crossing the finish line ahead of the other sailboats – you are convinced that a blue sailboat won the race - and that it took off like a plane and crashed into a house.

    You grab your binoculars and look out to where you heard the explosion come from and you see a big smoking hole in the side of a house in the distance shaped exactly like a sailboat including the outline of the mast and sail.



    But in reality, a red boat won the race - no blue boat was ever in the race and the alleged blue boat didn't take off and defy the laws of physics and nothing crashed into the house.

    How could this be?

Easy. Fake imagery on TV.



    As a result, many people actually think that a sailboat took off like a plane and that a canvas sail can penetrate a house.

    Others, knowing this is impossible speculate that maybe a missile hit the house.

    

Arguments result.



    Somebody makes a great documentary showing the imagery was faked.

    Certain people attack his character.



    We can’t say that nobody died in the house.

    We can’t say that nothing hit the house.

    Having something hit the house was not necessary to create this illusion.

    Hopefully this helps.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  11. John Friend said : "This "debate" turned out to be an utter disaster for the most part. "

    John , you cannot have a debate without a neutral,firm -handed and completely unbiased either way, moderator, in my opinion. I believe it was a mistake on your part to expect a real debate, if that is in fact what you expected. Live and learn ,eh?

    Regards, obf.
    www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. From Deanna's chatroom today, we appreciate all the work you do John.
    Deannaspingola: People should not criticize John Friend. He is absolutely incredible and accomplishes more than most people I know. He writes a blog, almost daily, attends numerous meetings, does a radio program, and joins more groups than almost anyone that I know. That is just incredible for a young man to engage in so many activities and to have interests in so many issues. It is the good thing that the JDL got him fired from his job so that he can do all of these things. Perhaps he is only one of a set of triplets? He is absolutely amazing and so talented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well i was going to say he may need to get away from this stuff and go find a real job while he still can. the trouble is , anything that goes on the internet stays there forever more or less. mike is always saying use your real name. well that is good i guess in some respects, but we live in a very bad world controlled by very bad people. so sometimes anonymous is the way to go. that is why i think john friend should get out of this stuff and go get a real job and just do this on the side at least while the damage is still manageable perhaps. i can tell you one thing. if he was working in any office environment in some corporation etc, and they found out he was posting this stuff on his blog, he would be fired immediately, free speech or no free speech. so the question is. which is more important? a career and making a living? or using whatever free speech rights we still have in this country? terrible tommy says be a lone wolf for the time being. maybe he is right.

      Delete
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

      when i see stuff like his john, what am i supposed to think? tons of amateur video out there showing plans hitting the wtc. come on man, get off of this nonsense. i have gone over everything that is on 911 let's roll forum and after reading a lot of their stuff i conclude that 3000 people did not die that day. not sure how many died but i think the figure was much less than that. however, planes did hit the wtc. they had to have an excuse to bring the towers down. the planes imho were radio controlled and were not passenger planes. frankly i am not sure if any hijacking ever even occurred that day and i am not sure if any passengers were even killed that day. what happened to those people? who knows. were there calls made from planes? not in 2001, that is for sure. the whole lets roll scenerio never happened. i believe a ng pilot shot down the plane in pennsylvania that was headed for the white house or camp david and they made two crash sites for it. one we saw and one we never saw, that was the real carsh site. etc etc............oh well.........nobody is going to ever do anything about it i guess. stupid americans............

      Delete
  13. You need to get your guts ups and start telling about Jews and Fukushima.
    See jimstonefreelance.com RIGHT NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

    Many of you are no doubt familiar with the practice of “tailgating” at football games. Let’s say there are tailgaters hanging out in the parking lot of a stadium during a football game and a massive roar from the crowd in the stadium is heard.

    What do the tailgaters do? They turn on their portable TV set to see what happened.

    What are the tailgaters actually seeing? A TV set with moving images on it.

    Are the images authentic?

    What if it’s not just a football game that’s being broadcast? What if it’s a “terrorist attack” instead?

    Are the images authentic?

    Obviously the people who broadcast that imagery have complete control over it. What if they have a motive for broadcasting fake or manipulated imagery to you?

    Is this concept so difficult to understand that the jews will maintain complete control over the perceptions of the (m)asses?

    John Friend completely understands all of this and he’s been working hard on explaining not only how theses things are done – but who is behind it.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  15. I did not listen to the debate. I listened to one of recent Delaney and Scott programs and they both admitted that studying 9-11 was never their thing. So I knew there would not be a good debate on the subject of "no planes." There never has been and I doubt there ever will be. Those who claim that there were real planes have from the beginning limited their "arguments" to ad hominems.

    I was around when Hoi Pilloi and Shack put out the vicsims paper. I and others made some pro and con comments on the paper on I think it was Killtown's old forum. Most of us thought that though there were problems with some of the things in the paper, the idea of simulated victims was sound and needed to be fully explored. However, Shack and Hoi Pilloi and their followers have been hostile and vitriolic from the beginning and they make the most extreme claims thereby throwing ALL their so-called "research" in the garbage. No planes, no true videos, not true still photos, no real victims, no ability to take real videos or photos because of some kind of blocking device. That is not the complete list of their extreme claims, just a sampling.

    Simon Shack and company never presented their research and findings in a quality objective way. It was all anecdotal undocumented research. There was no quality data base design, no well thought out and consistent querying on each alleged victim, and no clear nicely designed report from their research.

    Here is their findings...

    " http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5440450620561193447&postID=7419684742195220821

    November 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM
    Anonymous said...
    Simon Shack's research findings about the 'vicsims' were independently confirmed by Salem News :

    "I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error,"

    Yes, there are only 249 death certificates on file and not a single of those has a valid 'last address of record. "

    _____________________

    Additionally, I do not believe finding a "death certificate" with a name that matches a name of some list, be the list from CNN or some other source, proves anything. The names on the list can be fake names and death certificates can be faked. Shack's people did spend considerable time showing how phony names could have been chosen and placed on the list. We finally got death certificates on the Sandy Hook "victims" but to me it does not prove that each child's name was a real child at the school or that the child really was killed, or really was killed at the school, or really was killed as a result of "multiple gunshot wounds."

    I would ask just how you would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a real person and that that real person was actually killed at the time and place and in the manner stated. Dean Hartwell showed us how to do this in his book Planes Without Passengers latest edition.

    There were about 300 firemen killed on 9-11 in NYC and those are real deaths.

    The Bldg 7 destruction video in all of the Loose Change I know is real because it was taken by Jeff Kantoff, a person I know in my town.
    By the way, the term "no planes" ought to be clearly defined. It means no big passenger jets, and no planes of any kind, crashed at the four designated sites. There were indeed several real planes with real people on them used in ancillary ways and as props, so to speak, in the big sophisticated, multi-layered deception play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Jeannon,
      I just can't help commenting here:
      Mike Delaney who I first came across years ago is more hardcore into 9/11 by far in exposing the Jews than anyone I know of! He started out with 9/11! You can go back and listen to the podcasts from several years ago now and the archives from Prothink.org. Mike Delaney is a stand-up guy and he really has done WAY WAY more than he should ever have to in this Cause with his duties as a husband and father now. It really is upsetting and I understand it, to work hard for years and be an elder and then not given due respect or credit for it. Here Mike made MISSING LINKS and you are saying 9/11 was not really his thing! Giving the man no credit!
      This is why White people are losing.
      Respect is not given toward those who have earned it. Disagreement is not the same and as lack of respect and not paying due credit to the man.

      Delete
    2. "Here Mike made MISSING LINKS and you are saying 9/11 was not really his thing! " If you listen to the show of second or third to last show, you will see that it is not I who make that claim, but they themselves, though not in those exact words. When the subject of the debate is to be "no planes" and all of Delaney's research was related to proving the Jews' involvement and perpetration, I can see where these two people would have in a small way had to acknowledge that their area of expertise in seeking 9-11 truth did relate to things like "no planes."

      Delete
  16. John, you should have gotten an idea of what you might be in for when Delaney starts the program playing the 2001: A Space Odyessy theme song. I imagine the choice was between that or the theme song for Rocky. Maybe Rocky would've been too obvious.

    Keep on truck'n. Learn and grow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John- Thank you for your posts. It is becoming clear that there are numerous "gatekeepers" like Alex Jones, Mike Rivera, etc. Delaney and Roberts are just another pair of gatekeepers disguised as "people that are awakened to the 'all roads lead to the Jews' conclusion." They ramble and are clearly employed by the Jews....

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Shack evidence reminds me of the evidence John Condit uses to prove Hitler was a Jew.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeanon states a few things that need to be understood clearly, especially the fact that the September Clues crew has not presented their research and findings in a quality objective way with absolutely impeccable methodology.

    Any and all claims of fact must be iron clad.

    Any and all inferences and suspicion must be clearly labelled.

    The bare bones are there.

    The basic premise is correct in that the media transmitted a multi-facted deception.

    There needs to be a quality database design.

    There needs to be well thought out and consistent querying on each alleged victim.

    I am not levying a personal attack on anyone by saying that there are some things that need to be done to tidy things up.

    Perhaps the September Clues crew has generated work product that is as good as it gets coming from a group of dedicated individuals without funding and perhaps who might not be professional investigators.

    Their work makes it clear that we have to take it to the next level.

    To give you a rough idea of what I'm talking about, this job would be considered to be a major undertaking for any of the mega-law firms. This job would keep a team of lawyers and investigators busy for quite a while. Consider what their operating budget would be and what their expenses would be. Such an effort could easily cost into the millions of dollars.

    I propose an end-run around all of that.

    I propose a coordinated grass-roots effort to petition the FCC to make a major rule change stopping the presentation of manipulated imagery as "news".

    The FCC is an Administrative Agency and its rules have the force and effect of "Law".

    The United States has no formal written rules preventing broadcasters from knowingly lying on-air or from presenting intentionally deceptive imagery or audio to an unsuspecting public as news. Current FCC news distortion policy does not seem to address the use of CGI and composited imagery or digitally manipulated audio at all. The FCC has never actually published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses.

    There are several ways a rule could be worded.

    A grass-roots effort of signature collection on the issue of preventing media deception would have broad appeal. The issue itself is not threatening to anyones world view. And we could certainly make a hell of a lot of noise about this.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  20. John- Might I also add that it is very likely that there are Israeli and U.S. agents that are reading your board and are more than glad to add their share of disinformation. The difference between me and them is that they are getting paid very well to add their opinions. May I congratulate you and tell you that I support what you are doing to educate people.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This sounds like a great idea in theory, but like all laws like this, the "rub" lies in the enforcement of the law. The entity that is the chief supplier of fake news and video to the media would be the same entity responsible for the enforcement of the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Jeannon,

      As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details".

      A citizen effort to petition the FCC for a rule change specifically barring media deception would also require an innovative enforcement strategy to ensure its effectiveness. Otherwise, as you said - the rule itself would be of no real value.

      The value of the overall effort is really to bring the issue to the forefront in the public eye.

      I see the issue as a parallel to that of prohibiting certain substances to be introduced into the food supply - or to require the labeling of food ingredients.

      This is a concept that is within the reach of the broad (m)asses.

      Jeannon, since I know you understand that 911 was a deception operation involving intentional media deception - and you also know that there is currently no rule at all barring this kind of thing in the US can you think of a theoretical way that a strict new FCC anti-deception rule could be enforced?

      Obviously, you are right that we can't have a situation where the fox guards the hen house. In fact, that's what we have right now.

      In a practical sense, the enforcement method is what would make or break this kind of rule.

      I'm going to work on this issue. Consider your thoughts on this invited.

      Tom

      Delete
  22. Sorry the 'debate' deteriorated into a shouting match at times. But my sentiment remains with Mike/Scott's case. Reiterating a portion of the OP of my thread; full thread linked in my 'PatColo' handle above:
    _________
    I believe the "No Planes @ WTC" (NP@WTC) theory is, as far as our 'movement' is concerned, a red herring at best. And at worst, it 'accomplishes' 2 destructive ends:

    1. It temps/baits 911 Truthers into expending our energies into a "dogs chasing our tails" infighting ditch, over a speculative & irrelevant (as far as the forward movement of our 'movement' is concerned) question of HOW the 911 psyop was technically done. Not our job to completely resolve that question-- let's not dwell on the "technicals of the smoking gun", and instead focus all that same energy on waking up NEW people outside our 'choir', and on identifying & prosecuting the perps.

    2. Given that the NP@WTC theory is, IMHO, practically tailor-made for targeting by our opponents with their powerful disinfo gambit of 'ridicule' (and I say this as a ~10 year Truther who diplomatically "allows for the possibility" that NP@WTC is in fact correct, though I don't presently subscribe to that belief!); it therefore turns OFF not ON potential newcomers to 'our movement'. That is, IF those in our movement who misguidedly 'take the bait' outlined in #1 above, have any energy left over for actual outreach to noobs!
    ___________

    Separately, RE the "no victims" thingy: Recall in the days/weeks following 911, they set up a "Victims' Compensation Fund" administered by a guy named Feinberg, same guy they assigned to administer the comp fund for Gulf/BP oil spill victims who lost $ somehow. For the 911 victims (surviving families), they got varying amounts based on the earning power & foreseeable lifetime earnings of the people who died in the towers.

    Nearly all the surviving family members took the cash... and the stipulation in their deal with the devil was NO FUTURE LITIGATION! I also heard they were given supplies of SSRI/antidepressants! A few, like Ellen Mariani and I recall a couple others, didn't take the deal and instead pursued litigation; but they were ultimately shut down by the joo-courts (judge Hellerstein...). See:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/25/supreme-court-justice-is-blind-to-ellen-mariani-petition

    I speculate that the "inconvenient victims/families" thing from 911, is why in later 'atrocity' hoaxes like S.Hook & Boston, used all actors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PatColo,

      I agree with your overall assessment.

      The characterization of "No Planes" rather than being "Deceptive Imagery and Lying in Media" as the issue does, in fact, seem tailor made for ridicule.

      I think this false characterization of the core issue is an intentional strategy and part of the security aspect of the 911 Deception operation.

      The core issue is the use of deception in media.

      You mention that you believe that the video showing the passenger aircraft striking the towers was authentic.

      I do not share that viewpoint.

      There a many reasons why I don't agree on that point. One of the most basic reasons is due to the issue of how that video was created and what the chain of custody of that video was and who broadcast it.

      This kind of basic evidentiary issue is encountered every single day in courts of law.

      To accept that video as being authentic in the face of a fact pattern that objectively allows for massive content tampering by parties unknown and the broadcaster - makes it very unlikely that any conclusion drawn from that premise would lead to the right answer.

      This is why Judges spend time deciding what evidence will be admitted and what evidence will be excluded.

      If you are basing any portion of your opinion of that video - you absolutely must have a good reason why you think it's authentic.

      Can you please provide us with your reasoning on why you think it's authentic?

      Tom

      Delete
    2. @Tom: U said, You mention that you believe that the video showing the passenger aircraft striking the towers was authentic.

      I've never said that anywhere. I say here:
      http://tinyurl.com/mpocbe8

      To "enter the realm of speculation", I'd guess the planes flown into the WTC, guessing by remote control, were specially designed mil aircraft. They plainly weren't the AA/UA passenger planes which the 911 perps purported, much less planes hijacked & flown by scary-moozlems™, as the perps' gov and their global weaponized media further purported to us.

      As to "...the issue of how that video was created and what the chain of custody of that video was and who broadcast it"; I raise that same video-chain-of-custody question WRT S.Shack's Sept Clues thesis. Shack's answer to this question when asked about it near the end of his recent Reality Report podcast, was unsatisfactory. He mumbled some website where the original network broadcast video archives could be found and cross-checked with what Sept Clues presented; but I checked the URL I believed I heard him mumble, and it was "Page Not Found".

      Imagining I were pointed to the correct website addy-- it would be an XXX-hour project finding all the exact video segments supposedly presented in Sept Clues. Are all the supposed "amateur videos" also found at that site? I believe it's incumbent upon S.Shack to publish an article citing the minute-marks of every video clip presented in Sept Clues, and linking directly to that video archive site where "the original" can be found.

      Regardless, I maintain that the NP@WTC theory is a monumental distraction (& IMHO, a deliberate/calculated one), when the TM's time/energies are best spent waking up noobs to the WHO question, not chasing our tails "debating" the technical specs of the smoking gun.

      Delete
    3. PatColo,

      Good answer.

      My own personal strategy is to bring the message of media deception to the (m)asses and to move toward petitioning the FCC to ban any deception in media.

      The real purpose of the effort is to increase public awareness on this vital issue.

      Tom

      Delete
    4. "...bring the message of media deception to the (m)asses [...]
      The real purpose of the effort is to increase public awareness on this vital issue. "


      Skeptics of the NP@WTC campaign could [and DO] speculate that its "real purpose" is to make the 911 TM the object of ridicule & dismissal by "the (m)asses" (as surely as most of the TM ridicules/dismisses the theory...), as well as to immobilize any TM 'movement' thanks to the textbook joowey MO of DIVIDING through inciting infighting/wedging.

      " ...and to move toward petitioning the FCC to ban any deception in media. "

      ^ Pipe dream, under our current ZOG. The Supreme Joodeo-Masonic Court has already ruled that the joozmedia can legally lie,
      http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie

      Separately, I checked A.Angin's article re the debate after John tipped me off to it below, and I agree with most of it, exceptions being his stance on Sandy Hoax & Woolwich-- I say both (& Boston & Batman & probably AZ) = hoaxes.

      RE C.Yeager's recent hour spent on John-- I heard a lot which I considered 'unfair', but the parts where she expressed her "anti-NP@WTC-ianity", I agreed with her on. I have no problem with John's politeness to his guests, nor with the "finger in many pies" nature of this blog. And CI = bad nooz from the fake jooz, similar to the NP@WTC campaign. :)

      Delete
    5. PatColo,

      You will find a link to the official 9/11 TV archives here: http://septemberclues.info/faq_1.htm

      Only amateur videos that was broadcasted those days you will find there.

      Here is the list of all located plane crash footage: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

      September Clues only indicates what you should look for in the "live" news reports - that is the real evidence. Lots of other nonsense in those movies too.

      Here is the worst "live" news report 911. isn't in the TV Archive: WNYW News Live 9/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQdpTzqh8Ag

      Compare the quality from those $100000 broadcast cameras with this real amateur video pre 911. That $1000 camera didn't have any problem with the color balance at all. Can see much more details, and lots of moving object on the ground. Exactly what we expect from a real camera and video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQiqoI0QNwg

      I highly recommend this video for you: Jeffrey Grupp Why the PLANES vs NO PLANES on 911 distinction is SO IMPORTANT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPVJq7JK6as

      Best no-planes video (11 sec): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW9LnzOFvB0

      Evidence for commercial plane crashes 911 is extremely important for the 911 operation management, because without these cashes there couldn't be any foreign hijackers, and the basis for the War on Terror, etc, wouldn't exist.

      The HUGE controlled opposition is aware of this, and have talked about anything but this. They even talk about energy weapons, holograms and mini-nukes. Totally desperate, but lots of people can make themselves believe even this. But that the Jewish news media aired some cartoonish Hollywood animations 911, that is allegedly too wild. Give me a break.

      Delete
    6. PatColo,

      The core issue here is media deception.

      It may be a pipe dream to force a rule, regulation or law change - but I will still try.

      Along the way, this issue will be brought before the court of public opinion.

      Obviously what has been going on so far has not worked - and is not working.

      There is a reason why I discuss Information and Psychological Warfare methods, deception and human epistemology.

      My strategy may be a pipe dream, but I'm going to give it a firm try.

      Tom

      Delete
    7. PatColo,

      Regarding my Pipe Dream:

      You linked to this:

      ^ Pipe dream, under our current ZOG. The Supreme Joodeo-Masonic Court has already ruled that the joozmedia can legally lie,
      http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie

      =

      PatColo, here, I'll set the record straight on how this works:


      The United States has no formal written rules preventing broadcasters from knowingly lying on-air or from presenting intentionally deceptive imagery or audio to an unsuspecting public as news. Current FCC news distortion policy does not seem to address the use of CGI and composited imagery or digitally manipulated audio at all. The FCC has never actually published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses.

      Relative to a case involving intentionally deceptive news content dating back to 1969, the FCC’s stated written opinion was that, “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest - indeed there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs.”

      However, as the Florida Court of Appeals noted in New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, in 2003, the commission’s current news distortion policy has never been formally established as a rule, regulation or law.

      The New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre is the one you referenced.

      If you bothered to read the actual case, rather than the article you posted referencing it - you would have been able to figure out that the issue is that the FCC has never published a rule barring lying in broadcast news.

      That is the issue PatColo.

      Of course, any legal challenge built on sand with fail. We have to have a firm foundation of rule, regulation or law to build upon.

      At this time none exists.

      This avenue of approach is the best one concerning the issue of stopping or severely limiting media deception.

      FCC administrative action is necessary to prevent news distortion and intentional deception operations directed at domestic target audiences by agents of foreign powers.

      Against the backdrop of the FCC’s 1969 statement that, “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest (and that) indeed there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs,” our investigation has revealed that the totality of the available evidence supports the hypothesis that the 911 event was part of a Psychological and Information Warfare operation involving the broadcast media, elements of government and others - directed at a widespread target audience.

      Under its current policy, the FCC does not exercise investigatory powers due to legitimate First Amendment considerations but only considers complaints received from the public.

      Of particular concern to the FCC would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene in cases of alleged intentional news distortion.

      Yes, I actually know what I'm talking about.

      Now, concerning those who engaged in the despicable group character assassination campaign against John Friend - I found their smear tactics to be decidedly un-Aryan and despicable. So much so, that I believe they have further marginalized themselves.

      Tom

      Delete
    8. Tom said, "... It may be a pipe dream to force a rule, regulation or law change - but I will still try. "

      Hey if you sincerely believe you can convince the masses of your NP@WTC belief, and subsequently "force a rule, regulation or law change" in the current joodeo-masonic-FCC & joodeo-masonic-court system environment; I say wear yourself out & best of luck.

      I've said what I have to say re NP@WTC-ianity,
      http://tinyurl.com/m258v6e
      I share A.Anglin's sentiment where he writes, "In all honesty, it sickens me that I am even typing this right now. "

      So here's what I'm going to do instead with the time/energy I would otherwise be tempted to spend engaging in this contrived "dogs chasing our tails" infighting ditch, over a speculative & irrelevant (as far as the forward movement of our 'movement' is concerned) question of HOW the 911 psyop was technically done. I recommend all sincere Truthers do the same.

      1. Make "mini-flyers". With one 8.5x11 sheet, you'll be cutting to make 5 flyers. Hand-write (more personal feeling) the following message, 5 times, spaced from the top through the bottom of the page:
      _______________
      Hi Friend. Please check out the following 2 videos:

      WTC-7, The Smoking Gun of 9-11 (15 minutes)
      www.architects-engineers.org

      Missing Links: How Israel Did 9-11 (125 minutes)
      www.911missinglinks.com/watch-movie

      _______________

      ^ you could do 3 links, I'd suggest rediscover911.com - just keep it short & succinct yet enticing.

      2. Print however many of these as you'd like, whether on your home printer or Kinkos/etc. With your copies, cut them into mini-flyers, which will end up being 8.5" by ~2.2" each.

      3. "Flyer" your neighborhood, or wherever you'd like. An effective placement is on cars. I like to roll the mini-flyer loosely, and slip them into the driver's door handle, in the space the driver will place their fingers to open the door. The loosely rolled flyer will act as an outwardly-expanding spring, so it stays put in the finger space. The flyer will be somewhat protected from rain/etc there; and you can put them there without even physically touching the car yourself (as opposed to putting them under the wiper). There are many other flyer placement ideas: shopping carts, free newspaper racks (put a flyer INSIDE each of the top 5-10 papers), etc. Mailboxes is your discretion; realize it's illegal to put anything inside US Mail boxes... If you're not shy, dress in your Sunday-best, and give them to people personally in a public gathering place.

      Point is, I/we expend our Truther time/energy reaching NEW people; not "taking the bait" playing keyboard-commando/chase-your-tail with (contrived sub-factions within) "the choir" on the internet... ESP over nonsense like NP@WTC-ianity. :)

      Delete
  23. I think the "no planes" issue is extremely important to the study of 9-11. It addresses the "who did it" aspect of the study. Every aspect of 9-11 needs to be continually studied over the years just as the JFK assassination is continuing to be studied. It is telling us so much about the standard methods our darkside government uses to pull an op.

    Dr. Fetzer was a little slow to come on board with "no planes" but he did join the few others, including Simon Shack and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, when he saw how logically sound their arguments were.

    When we continue to study all aspects of 9-11, we lessen the chance for the next false flag operation to be perpetrated upon us by our darkside government. When we study the "how it was done" aspect including the destruction of all 7 of the WTC buildings, when we study everything about the "planes", when we study the "victims' and the plane "passenger victims", and when we study the actions and inactions and rhetoric of the front government operatives (Condoleeza Rice, etc.), we greatly narrow the field of "who" could have done it and who could not have done it.

    I do not see how anyone can say that is not extremely valuable to the cause of truth and justice. Dr. Fetzer, it appears to me, is, as he says, someone who can chew gum and walk at the same time. He can study the "who" and "how" concurrently. He also gave due recognition, fairly early on, to all of the illuminating information about the Zionists, the Mossad, and Israel to the crime. He avoids the use of the word "Jew" and I think wisely and appropriately so. There are some issues where you must use the word "Jew" and some where it is perfectly and most correct to use the word "Zionist". Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. It is a great advantage in objectively studying any big crime of our darkside government to not have to use the word "Jew" if possible. The Jews hate it when we can legitimately not use their very useful J word as that is their ticket to their anti-semitism rumblings.

    The "no planes" issue is monumentally important. It amazes me that so many who claim to want 9-11 truth want to brush that study aside completely. That is not helpful. That is injurious to the cause of truth. The "9-11 truth movement", a term I hate because it has been used to manipulate and collectivize all factions and destroy quality investigation, was taken over, early on in early 2005, by the most strident "no planers" of them all, the Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage gang. This gang locked down all questioning about planes from the get-go and strongly redirected and misdirected their groupies into their nanothermite meme. I consider their whole nanothermite misdirection program to have been part of the planning of 9-11 event by Zelikow and company from probably several years before this big operation. If anyone wants to see some of the main players in the current phase of the "mainstream" co-opted "9-11 truth movement", just look at the member roster of Consensus 911 Panel at http://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/.

    To my knowledge, no one on this "best evidence seeking" panel will give any study whatsoever to "no planes" and the strong involvement and connections of the perpetrators to Israel, the Mossad and Zionist interests. It appears that their game plan is for 9-11 truth seeking to wind down now and for everyone to just move on. They go through the motions of wanting a "new investigation", especially of Building 7, supposedly because it is the right of the family members of the "victims." So they have moved on to the never never land of a new investigation and the heartstrings pulling ploy.

    I hope that there will always be a remnant who will continue to study all aspects of 9-11 and keep on working for and standing for 9-11 truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jeannon, U said, " Every aspect of 9-11 needs to be continually studied over the years just as the JFK assassination is continuing to be studied."

      ... yeah, perfect analogy ^ Jeannon! You make my point for me.

      Remind me, where has your recommended approach of 'continual JFK study', gotten JFK-Truth 50 years later!? ;)

      Delete
    2. Though I have not studied JFK very much, I would say that now, finally, and I guess it had to take this long, the strong roles that the CIA, the Mossad, and Israel and Jewish operatives in those entities played in that Hollywood production called the JFK assassination. We can see certain common characteristics and strategies and methodology in the mind control and the physical execution and the media behavior when comparing to past and ongoing false flag events on US soil as well as how the events are used and continue to be used, that is, these psyop, mind control, false flag events are gifts that keep on giving. Even the truth seeking and true investigation efforts are something that was planned for and anticipated in advance so those can be used and infiltrated and co-opted too over the years.

      It took time to begin to find the CIA, Mossad, Israeli and Jew connections and those connections came to light only about 15 years ago and onward as far as the JFK assassination is concerned so I am glad the JFK assassination truth seeking efforts were still alive and well over the years and that this increased light has come to be shed on the whole assassination operation.

      The movr all of these methods and common characteristics are shown to everyone, they become predictable and offer the chance of delaying or stopping future operations against us and they at least offer us the knowledge and experience to expose the truth about a false flag event immediately after it happens. We become, by continuing study, on to their formula. That is a strong weapon on our side. Being knowledgeable about exactly how they operate also shows us more clearly our own human individual nature and how vulnerable we are to their games and how we can protect ourselves.

      Anything and everything that exposes truth more and more is valuable. When you search for truth, you have to be open and uncontrolled, unmanipulated so when there is any truth seeking effort that militaristically will NOT examine and analyze certain ideas, that tells me they are not seeking truth at all. Anything that serves to keep people's minds in useless circular delusions and ruts is not of truth and is not good.

      I believe there is a verse in the New Testament that those who do not have a love of the truth will be sent a "strong delusion" and that strong delusion is described in some translations as a judgment of God on the person who had not a love of the truth.

      Delete
  24. Prety brutal interview huh john? I'm not sure how they did it but the planes crashing into the buildings are suspect imo. I don't see how airplane wings which are made of plastic and fiberglass can penetrate so deeply into a steel building but what do I know?? Maybe planes did hit the buildings just not the planes that were shown to us. You can investigate this for months and months and end up nowhere. Lets focus more or the who and not the how.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timm,

      911 was a deception operation involving the broadcast media.

      The broadcast media sold us a lie.

      The "how" is very important because it sheds light on the fact that the broadcast media intentionally lies to us and even broadcasts CGI imagery as "news".

      This is the core issue here.

      911 was essentially a big stage magic trick. Investigating how it was done has already revealed certain persons of interest that should be arrested.

      As with any crime investigation, you cannot have a "who" without a firm "how".

      That "interview" provided a little window into the personalities of several people and certainly exposed their lack of basic decency.

      Since when are ad hominem attacks part of the basic discourse?

      Since when is the redirection of basic forensic issues toward whether or not someone is a jew a valid tactic?

      Overall I think the show was very revealing. It showed us all how illogical many of the people are who simply cannot seem to comprehend that watching TV is not the same thing as reality.

      All in all - it was positive because it certainly showed us all who's who - so to speak.

      An honest discourse on the media deception issue would not have descended into a guilt by association yelling match.

      Frankly, none of this matters.

      The truth is independent of the ego of very small insignificant people.

      We will continue with our push to expose media deception methods and tactics. Also, we will continue to explain how we used Structured Methods to investigate what we know.

      I'm not sure what the average education and/or IQ level among those who actually believe what they saw on TV on 911 is. But it certainly helps the jews out quite a bit.

      Tom

      Delete
    2. Yeah I really enjoyed your insight Tom as you bring a lot to the table. 911 was such a mindfuck that I don't know exactly how it was done. Could planes have been used just not the ones that were televised? I dunno?? But saying that lower Manhattan was evacuated and nobody died is pretty insane. I kinda felt john didn't get a chance to get any points across and Mike was his usual self being a pompous dick. Pretty unreal considering the about of plugging John did for his site TruTube. Live and learn I guess. As far as scott goes I can only take jew jew jew for so long. We know its the jews but they would have no power if our own people didn't sell out. I'll be looking forward to more shows from you in the future.. Cheer.

      Delete
  25. Tom,
    maybe you can explain to me why people seem so bent on not naming the Jew. Why is it that,it is easier for them to say they are being purchased to take the blame and have been that way for ages now. Yet say the jew are the most boastful about what they are doing but reuse to believe it is actually them. It is far easier for them say it's all fake and yes maybe the Jews have a hand in it but since they are such a small minority (we are told) that it is impossible for them have such power.

    I firmly am of the opinion that since they DO have such control of the media it so trouble to be so boastful about what is being done to thr west. The have almost complete control of this truthmovement, since I'm convinced they created it. In order to further confuse people with the coming computer conspiracy age..

    To me it's no longer a conspiracy they are doing and boast about it because they have fully controlled peoples mind that they are the victims.

    anyway to the topic.
    John,
    I feel you did the best you could. this was uncomfortable to listen to. I do think they brought up some good points overall.

    I see this more as Jew/Fakery game. The two sides are one on the same. It is the Jew using their media control to confuse people. that is why they are so out front.

    The fakery guys find that to easy to an answer. It's easier for them to think the Jew are front from some ghost entity. Which doesn't jive. I feel none of the fakery have looked into anything that this site and Andrews deal with. Like I have said the reality of what is going on is maybe too much for the fakery guys handle. So it is easier claiming it's all fake instead the very REAL realities the White and world population face. Most of them are far lefties. Open border we are all the same bullsh%%.. They fail to see the bigger picture of WHY fakery is being used.

    We are hear bickering over this crap instead talking about what is REALLY going against u s and by whom.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aybesea,

      I share your pain. Although that show was painful to listen to, we all learned a few things.

      You know, I really can't understand why people recoil when you say "jew". It probably has to do with the intensive conditioning they've received over time.

      Of course, then there's plain cowardice. There are also practical considerations like the possibility of job loss and even legal prosecution in many countries.

      As you pointed out, there's bickering going on over details that are less significant than who should be arrested based upon what we already know for sure.

      For example, I think we could easily obtain a wide consensus on affirming that Rick Leventhal and the "Harley guy" should be detained and questioned.

      They simply should not be able to find anywhere to hide.

      People should be chasing them down with pitchforks.

      Tom

      Delete
  26. I do not have access to my computer at the moment. It is being worked on and I likely will not have it back until Thursday. When I get it back, I will be writing a lengthy response to the debate and it's aftermath, specifically addressing Carolyn Yeager's recent program and the article Andrew Anglin wrote on Daily Stormer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carolyn Yeager: the self-annointed queen of revisionists. She has been on a bend against Weber and brought several others into it. Seems like she has a vendetta against the dude.

      I have forced myself to listen to some of her radio shows and I find her style and sound of her voice quite disturbing (like fingernails on a blackboard).

      She is very knowledgeable about certain topics, but then alienates people that even venture a question regarding her presentation.

      I read one commenter call her a "hag" and I agree it is quite fitting.

      I also got a visit to my blog from the king of 911, Mike Delaney, himself. Gosh, I must have done something to deserve the attention, for the same crew discussed me on their show (I doubt I'll take the time to listen).

      Delete
  27. I heard yeagers show this morning. jeez it was brutal. She made some good points. But on the whole I found it mean spirited. Why it's so hard for them to see fakery as a very real thing is beyond me.

    You can still be a White Nationalist and still look into media fakery. The fakery side gets a little too much into conspiracy land, where all we see is fake being carried out some mystery ghost entity. Nobody dies they just retire to conspiracy island.

    I spent a few years in the fakery camp until I got hip to the Jew. I still find much validity in Media Fakery. To me, the more pressing issue is what is being done to Whites.
    White genocide is just as real as media fakery. Yet one is more of a concern of mine than other these days. fakery can lead to more confusion. As nobody is to blame as the perps are not real they are a front for a front.
    The threat to whites is very real. but according to them we should have open borders, we are all one race, there is no threat at all ever, it's some elaborate hoax.
    To me that's is not factual.
    Race and Culture very much exist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The no planes theory is ridiculous especially the supposed motive. What I don't understand is motive of people who are pushing it. Tom will say it is my low education level and IQ that prevents me from seeing what is obvious to more intelligent people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      You have not been paying attention.

      911 involved the creation of several illusions. Those illusions were transmitted to you through the TV.

      For example: the illusion that a passenger plane struck the Pentagon.

      No passenger plane struck the Pentagon.

      What do you suppose the motive would be to create that illusion?

      In addition, 19 arabs did not defeat our NORAD air defenses. What do you think the motive was to create that illusion?

      My suggestion to you is to continue watching TV because everything you see there is real and true.

      Why would you waste your precious time on this blog when you could be watching the jewish broadcast news? It's all true, you know.

      The fact that fake video was shown on 911 is an established fact.

      I'm going to let you in on a secret. Did you know that many times, what is depicted in a movie isn't real? Yes, I know how difficult that must be for you to process.

      Tom

      Delete
  29. A few stand-alone points (I'll shoot for 10):

    #1. This isn't an "either or" debate. Just because we don't believe Simon's nonsense that does not mean we believe the official story either.

    #2. Simon's position is not just a "no planes" theory, the guy goes about a light year beyond that. So to those stating the obvious ("it doesn't matter whether planes were used or not"), pay attention, that's not the issue here.

    #3. We are not the ones obsessing over this (mostly) irrelevant nonsense and we aren't the ones losing sight of the big picture.

    And if you are going to ridicule a messenger for going on about the "Joos Joos Joos", then I don't really need to know anything else about you, your level of awareness, or your intentions.

    #4. Simon and Judy and Finklestein (or whatever his name is) and all of these other "9/11 conspiracy theorists" are all leading their various factions of the "9/11 truth movement" to NOWHERE. It's a big circus, where they engage in circular arguments, attempt to prove the others wrong (mostly by calling them names), and create "giant smokescreens" that keep the average person from ever connecting the Jewish dots (yet the John Friend's of the world are somehow baffled by and attempt to excuse the "mysterious" trend where none of these 9/11 truthers ever call out the Jews by name).

    #5. There is no way in hell that the Jews would ever go through such painstaking efforts in order to prevent the loss of "Gentile" lives, when their ultimate agenda is all about mass-murdering "Gentiles". The argument is absurd, especially when one understands that it's the Jews, not the "bankers".

    And I just can't wrap my mind around the manner in which John Friend (of all people) believes this ridiculous theory of Simon's despite the very foundation of it being so severely flawed OR how he gets beyond (even attempts to excuse) the fact that Simon fails to call the culprits out by name.

    I mean, if you believe that the sole purpose of opting for a "hoax" is to "spare lives", then how well do you know your enemy after all? And you simply must start from that point in order to follow along with Simon and his story telling, since that is clearly/admittedly the foundation for his entire argument..

    The very motive for pulling off a hoax was to make sure that "not a single life was lost", according to Simon. Take away that motive (one we know the Jews would never have) and the whole damn theory falls apart.

    ReplyDelete
  30. #6. The Jews would naturally take whatever was the cleanest, easiest, most effective approach towards achieving their goals. The principle of Occam's razor certainly comes into play, and the fewer loose ends there are the better.

    Thus, it would make far more sense for them to kill 3,000 people and have a (relative) handful of loose ends (mostly Jews) than it would to kill "ZERO" people yet have thousands upon thousands of witnesses to contradict their story.

    And all in the name of "sparing lives"? I think not.

    #7. Real blood has a real effect on people. The whole 6 degrees of separation principle comes into play (and they knew it would), where pretty much everyone knows someone who knew someone who died on 9/11. That works in their favor, whereas the same principle would have blown up in their face a long time ago if they really cared so much about "sparing lives" (a baseless/laughable assertion).

    If you think there are a lot of "I had a friend who died in the towers" stories out there, just imagine how many "I had a friend who was detained and not allowed to go to work that day by these FEMA camp guys, with their giant smoke machines and neuralizer pens" stories there would be if what Simon says were true.

    #8. The idea that "they didn't want it coming back to them" as the reason for them being "so careful not to kill anyone" is just plain crazy, since they blamed the Muslims right away and would never have expected the "it's the Jews crowd" to gain any real momentum...And they see to it that we don't, due to their control of not only the MSM, but the alternative "theories" ("truth movement") as well. Here we are, 12+ years later, and the average person still has no idea that "it was the Jews".

    So thus far, it hasn't come back to haunt "them" at all ("they", the "elitists", the "globalists", the "Illuminati", etc). Why? Mostly due to people like Simon, who conveniently "fail" to call them out by name (and this commonality amongst these dissent leaders is not a coincidence).

    Besides, what do you think the "Goyim" would be more pissed off about? The "3,000" killed on 9/11 OR the trillions fiddled from our economy, the loss of rights we have tolerated ever since (which will ultimately lead to massive bloodshed as well), the MILLIONS who have been murdered since, or the ultimate goal they had in mind when they set out to murder the (relative) few on 9/11?

    ReplyDelete
  31. #9. These hoaxsters almost invariably (I can't think of any exceptions) take their "no planes" theories and run with them all the way to "there were no kids killed in Sandy Hook", "there were/are no nukes", "there are no satellites", "we didn't walk on the moon" (a moot point, yet it is obsessed over), etc..etc...etc.... All the way to the point of telling you "there's nothing to worry about kids, it's not the Jews, and they don't have the weapons or technologies you think they have, so just go back to sleep" (which is clearly their agenda in the 1st place.. it's not some "inconsequential side effect" to their obsessing over trivial points).

    #10. These "enlightened" hoaxsters actually believe they are "two steps ahead of the curve" and that we are the ones who lack the vision to recognize their "faith" (and that's exactly what it is, as even John points to September Clues as though it were his bible). This despite the fact that their entire theory is based on nothingness, on taking the word of "Simon" (he insisted John "just believe" him several times in that one show alone), on believing that the Jews would be motivated to "spare lives" (well, they don't even name the Jews, of course), on wild conjecture, on drawing extreme conclusions based on inconsequential "evidence", (this bears repeating) on concealing the perpetrators identity (with John being a rare exception), and on using partial truths to build up their illusions.

    Simon is just a story teller. His narrative is based on some truths, but he indulges in fantasy at each step along the way. All the while he counts on his listeners never calling him out (again, John didn't question him on anything) and controls their thoughts with some very basic psychological tactics being employed. Yet somehow, I am sure that John (and those who share his BELIEFS) will conclude that we are the ones who are "just not getting it yet", as he refuses to budge an inch OR take a fresh, new, and objective look at all that Simon says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Scott, I like this post...I think we can reach some common ground here...

      1. We know you do not believe the official story that is clear. I would like to hear your positions on how it was done, specifically in regards to the plane hijackings or lack thereof.

      Yes, you shouldn't just BELIEVE Simon's nonsense, by nonsense I assume you are referring to his speculations, postulations and opinions.

      Such as nobody died or that a dozen people assumed new identities. Staged running crowds. They used military visual smokescreens to obscure the view of those on the street. That they had the entire complex evacuated before hand or immediately after first explosion they had military style control of the small piece of land on the southern tip of Manhattan's financial district. That the towers themselves were computer graphics as well. It sounds nuts and it is irrelevant.

      Whether or not we went to the moon or have satellites orbiting the earth. Oh, and atomic bombs are not real. I think that about covers it. Yes, these are his opinions, and he can have them to himself. I don't share them and don’t think they are even important to address to this audience. You can do it at CluesForum though.

      2. Agreed, he goes WAY beyond light years of what is truly important. Which is whether or not they are planes or CGI planes. The only issue this debate was supposed to be about, was whether or not the planes we see on video are real planes flown by terrorists. I guess the other position can only be a remote controlled plane?

      The Central strongest piece of evidence that the media and government have is the planes.

      3. By 'mostly' irrelevant nonsense, can I assume we are in agreement that you are referring to what I referred to in point one above?

      As to your second point in this area, go ahead and say what you want about whoever you want, that's what makes America great.

      4. Agreed in your frustration with people not naming the who. I would also throw the AE for 911truth in there as well. Specifically Steven Jones. I read some private emails that he and a real researcher had in private and the guy is a total liar and COINTELPRO. I read it about a year ago, last time I checked it was gone, but the report on him is still available I believe.

      AE 911truth, they are 'asking' for an independent investigation from the 'government' and ‘mainstream media' time on the airwaves. HA! how's that for a signal that they have no clue or care for the who.

      As for John, he can answer for himself. I just want to get the clarifications out of the way so we can move forward.

      5. Agreed, They love war it seems, Especially when our boys do it. So I think I can leave that one alone.

      Criminal Penalties in European countries including jail time for naming ethnic groups disparagingly like you want that Simon guy to do. He does name individuals, but that is not the point of this response back to you.

      I don't care about his theories in the Cluesforum and I am glad you don't either. You are free to go over to CluesForum and warn them all. Moving on.

      Delete
    2. 6. They would use the cleanist, easiest, most effective approach towards achieving their goals, YES.

      The fewer loose ends the better, YES.

      You correctly have serious questions about all the witnesses, and their is plenty of those reports to go through, not just from that guy Simon's movie. There are many interesting reports about 'what' people saw, some say they thought they saw a 'small' plane, some thought they saw a 'missile', some thought they saw a large plane, but most missed it and only reacted to the explosions. There is a reason for that I wont discuss just yet. And most did not hear the noise of the roar of a jetliner.

      I, not Simon would like to go over these with you if you want, it is very interesting, but that really would be something better left to go over after we go through the videos one by one.

      7. Totally agree, I have personal experience with specifically, wives of victims, I don't really want to go into that here. We could talk privately. But that would only be if you were serious about investigating the video evidence for yourself and examining what is on there.

      8. Here all I will say is, We probably all go through the list of shills like AA has at TF.com. What I want to say is that is why we are not going to talk about Simon Shack or what John thinks of him personally, we are going to talk about planes or GCI on the video.

      That would be like arguing about Alex Jones, when we can just sit here and prove that it's not a Germanic Death Cult. Moving on.

      9. Only one exception I have with you here, Sandy Hook. I admittedly haven't dug my time and energy into it, I have looked at it though. Anytime they want to blame a white guy for a mass shooting and do not provide evidence, I think we all should be concerned about that and look into it.

      I am not a Everything is a HOAX guy. I think they put out a bunch of meaningless shit and invent guys like that Dallas Goldbug guy just to confuse the young people who are looking into this. I looked at that guys stuff, he says John Candy is alive and is the governor of Connecticut. Ha! That is clear disinfo to discredit anything about their big hoaxes they will continue to carry out to get the guns. ’Democrats’ love to talk about those mass shootings by whites.

      10. Simon was referring to Mark Walsh in the clip you are referring to, 'please believe me'. That was because the LAX airport guy sounded a lot like the Mark Walsh guy, actually sounded a lot like him to me. That was being discussed I believe just days before and he had his take on it and wanted to clarify, that was the one time he said 'believe me'.

      Interesting how I found about that alleged Crisis Actor was from Mike Delaney on a face book post. I guess on that day I was not looking around for the newest hoax. Mike was. In fairness, Mike was doing a good thing, he was on top of it checking it out.

      I don't care about Simon, agreed, agreed, agreed about not following anybody agreed, agreed, agreed. We want your positions on what you see in each video because that‘s the only way a debate about what you see visually can be discussed.

      This is my point. Simon is not the Father or Leader of me. He is not even the first person to investigate no plane theory. He is however the only person to have made a movie that people have seen it seems.

      There are others looking into it. Simon does not own this evidence. He did a great job in analyzing and catching the video and audio manipulation, as did other people too. His Opinions at his forum are irrelevant for now.

      Delete
    3. Lets look at the videotape, we don't even have to watch his movie, lets look at each plane hit frame by frame or slow motion., whatever. This can go for anyone. We can do it privately in emails if people think its too much and don‘t want it public. I want to look at it. If it can be proven, just the planes being CGI, Composited Video Overlays, whatever. The point is the only thing that matters is what you see.

      Demolitions don't do it for people because people think the planes did that. If planes are seriously in doubt at two locations of the four, than it seems very logical and reasonable to investigate what the two plane crashes at the WTC looked like with your own eyes. We have, what do you think of them after evaluating them?

      I think a lot of people don’t believe planes hit the pentagon and buried itself in a field in Pennsylvania and evaporated into nothing. It would really be something if this ties it all up, no hijackings, no war on terror, proof of media involvement. WHO would not want that?

      Delete
  32. Have you had a chance to listen to this and reply?

    http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-narrow-road-vs-wide-avenue

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tom What did you think about scott saying that you did a 180 as a result of the debate ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'd bet there are the same number of witnesses to the planes that hit the towers as there are holocaust survivors!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Carolyn Yaeger treated Kyle Hunt with kids gloves. The man promotes bisexuality of white females and group sex. When I confronted him about it he banned me from renegade chat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's news to me, I have never heard Kyle say anything like that. Then again, I rarely listen to Renegade Broadcasting. To be honest, I find it hard to believe Kyle would say something like that though.

      Delete
    2. Ask him John. Yes he does promote both (bisexuality for white females and group sex with whites) as does many of his listeners and people in the chat. He wont deny it . When I said these sexual perversions are bad for white people he called me a prude...

      Delete
    3. Get the hell out of here. Link to one show where he says this.

      Delete
    4. It wasn't on a show where I heard him say this. I stopped listening after I realized this about him so I cant say whether he has talked about it on his show since. He said this in a chat. If you ever see him in a chat ask him how he feels about the bisexuality of white females. I'm not making this up. In regards to the group sex, he said Vikings would have sex with multiple women at once and that makes it "cool". He also said he would indulge in it because of his "kingly ways". I cant say if any of the other hosts support it but he does and several people in the chat agreed and said they have NO problem with it. Is why I don't go there anymore.

      Delete
  36. I just published an article responding to this "debate" and Andrew Anglin's commentary on it.

    http://www.john-friend.net/2013/12/thoughts-on-911-debate-and-its-aftermath.html

    I will be responding to Carolyn Yeager's recent program in the very near future.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Okay, just for the sake of argument, here’s a little scenario to help illustrate what this “no planes” debacle is all about.

    The jews and their shabez goi have dominated and controlled the media in just about all its forms for many decades. They have been incredibly successful in using it to fool and misguide the goyim, whose minds are like putty in their hands.

    Now then, it appears that a handful of the stupefied masses are beginning to see through these deceptive ways that, up until now, have been able to control their thinking and beliefs. And they are becoming much too vocal, and increasing their numbers. Of course, this is not good for the jews. Something has to be done.

    What better way to discredit the ‘awakened ones’ and to quell the uprising of others in their discovery and awareness of jewish deceptiveness, than to do something like essentially admit to the deception, but being very careful not to implicate the true villains behind it. Demonstrate how it is done. Reveal some of the secrets. Give them 98% of the truth. That would certainly satisfy the ‘awakened ones’ and give them cause to exclaim, “I told you so!”

    But here’s the kicker.

    Throw into the mix a few “pseudo-facts”, and perhaps go as far as to have a jew be the one who does the documentary. What better way to poison the well, cause infighting and dissension, and thereby silencing and discrediting that which is actually the truth? In other words, the jews tell the truth in such a devious way as to ultimately result with the masses not believing it, and never really questioning it again. Brilliant!

    Now if that doesn’t qualify as an example of the jewish mastery of deception and mind control, then I don’t know what does.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Honestly, I think that Mike Delaney's side was correct on most aspects, especially concerning Simon being a Jew and saying there is nothing to be afraid of;

    However, they were both EXTREMELY unprofessional and unchristian. They didn't even let John Friend finish his points, and they obviously didn't listen, nor did they care what John was saying. Very, very terrible.

    John you presented yourself as a gentlemen and very respectfully. I am still listening to the show and am an hour into it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 911 - The "No Planes" is very easy to figure out. Forget Simon Shack for a moment. The evidence IS the video fakery. I have weeded out many videos and found the ones that cut to the chase, along with Lears affidavit entered as evidence explaining why "No Planes" were used. All early eyewitnesses, first on scene, saw no plane wreckage. No plane wreckage means, no planes. Youtube has great diminished the definition of their videos, but you cant still still all the editing mistakes and video footage that makes you go "Hmmm..." Why is video fakery important ? Because they pulled off a magic stunt and basically got away with it. You cant even say "Jews" until you establish ALL material evidence such as where were the cruise missiles fired from.
    As for Vicsims, I think Shacks point was, very few people were killed, a few on impact etc I had two neighbors who supposedly died. Were they Sayanim ? I dont know. The floors that the missiles hit, there was no one there except for a few people. Getting estimates of 250 on impact. I think there are more first responders who died from health issues than the initial attacks. The death estimates were far higher than the reality

    Mayor of Shankesville PA says "No plane" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPkpvc-9wFM

    Flight 93 Rare footage-never seen again - "all there was, was a hole in the ground"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maY54MwUsu8#t=11

    Jaime McIntyre says "No Plane" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia7bS_uKilI

    New Raw 911 Footage From Another Helicopter 'Back Off' instructions - where is the plane ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDrbhFxKK-Y

    9 11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFpEzFWiwk

    911 CNN Dick Oliver; "some people said they saw a missile" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDT7RHDeX64

    NBC 9/11/01 - 2nd Plane Collides WATCH AND LISTEN CAREFULLY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tl__04Xoi0&playnext=1&list=PL94307CC5E95EDF7B&feature=results_main

    Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8

    9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter back peddles "it was like a cruise missile" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKE9Om5EGDQ watch @ 4:17 "crumples like an accordion"

    Nose Out Shot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSzm_6BqRM

    Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers
    http://the-tap.blogspot.ca/2014/03/ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that.html

    John Lear's "No Planes" Affidavit https://wikispooks.com/w/images/d/dc/Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.