Wednesday, January 8, 2014

The Realist Report - Sandy Hook debate


* Michael Collins Piper backed out of the debate late last night. I received an email from him this morning when I woke up stating that he was having health issues, and would be unable to participate in the debate. *

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Dr. Jim Fetzer and Michael Collins Piper. We will be debating the alleged shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th, 2012. Calls are welcomed during the second hour.

You can download the mp3 for this program here, or visit The Realist Report on BlogTalkRadio to subscribe via iTunes and view past programs.

Below are relevant links for this program:
My opening statement: Anyone following my website and radio program knows that I have taken a keen interest in the alleged Sandy Hook school shooting that took place just over one year ago in Newtown, Connecticut. The Connecticut State Police and mass media reported that on December 14, 2012, a 20-year-old young man named Adam Lanza first shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, in their Newtown home before driving to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and going on a shooting rampage, murdering 20 children and 6 adults - truly an amazing, and highly implausible, feat supposedly accomplished by a young man with no known military training. According to the official narrative of the alleged shooting, Adam Lanza - the “lone gunman” - shot all but two of his victims multiple times, firing 154 total rounds in a matter of minutes. According to the official narrative, Adam Lanza shot himself in the head, killing himself instantly, as soon as first responders arrived at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Many have questioned the plausibility of such a scenario, and consider the official narrative and subsequent media coverage of this alleged school shooting a total insult to the intelligence of the American public. I include myself in this category.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no evidence or proof that a mass shooting took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. There is not a shred of genuine evidence a young man named Adam Lanza shot his way into the elementary school, and proceeded to murder 20 children and 6 adults. The absurd media coverage and testimony from alleged "eye witnesses" and "family members" of the supposedly murdered children truly was a bizarre spectacle to observe.

The hypothesis that the alleged Sandy Hook school shooting was in reality a massive hoax - perhaps some sort of mass shooting drill organized by the Department of Homeland Security working in conjunction with state and local police and officials in Connecticut, which was then presented in the mass media as if it were a real life, genuine event - has been put forth by numerous independent researchers. Based on the known facts and information at our disposal, this hypothesis appears to me to be much more tenable than any other hypothesis or explanation, particularly the official narrative of the Sandy Hook shooting maintained and promoted by the mass media and government.

The Jewish propagandist and public relations specialist Edward Bernays wrote in his 1928 book Propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. [...]
Bernays would go on to write that "it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."

Bernays defined propaganda as "a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group," and contended - correctly in my view - that "Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government."

There can be no doubt that the Jewish-controlled mass media regularly presents altered, distorted, manipulated, or even outright fabricated photographic and video imagery, coupled with false scripted testimony, in order to advance certain geopolitical and cultural agendas, as well as literally creating and manufacturing an artificial reality we are all forced to operate in.

An artificial reality the government is forced to create public policy in.

An artificial reality we are forced to educate our children in.

The mass media is no longer a benevolent, enlightening force - if it ever was one - that seeks to honestly inform the public about important political, economic, social and historical issues, in addition to holding powerful forces operating in society to account. No, the mass media has been weaponized, and has been and continues to be used to systematically deceive and psychologically and emotionally exploit the American public in order to advance certain agendas and false narratives of history and current happenings.

18 comments:

  1. Great Show!

    I think I agree with everything stated during this show by John, Dr. Fetzer, Tom, and Linda.

    Except for one thing. Holograms are bullshit. There was no need to do such a thing nor do I think it is at all possible. CGI on the other hand was very possible, probable, and efficient in carrying out the 9/11 illusion of planes hitting the towers.

    Using JFK as a reference. Eighty percent of the witnesses at dealey plaza said they saw the shots come from in front of JFK. Nobody seems to have heard much from those people and certainly did not hear anything from them in the early years that followed the assassination.

    Same goes for NYC on 9/11. Of the witness statements we do have from that day, MOST did not see a large plane and NEAR ALL did not hear a large plane. Those that did say they saw a plane obviously did not testify to any investigation because there was no investigation to 9/11. The commission was not an investigation.

    Large buildings obstructing vantage points, nearly all of Manhattan being on the North side of the towers thereby blocking the sight lines of the impact of the South tower, and how confused and bewildered those that missed it could easily say they saw it due to the amount of chatter on the streets of planes due to early radio and tv reports about small planes. (I will provide a link below this comment to further explain this)

    Lets just remember one more thing, I said this in a previous comment. Lets just say you were a person who KNOW that there was no airplane, you had a good view of where the south tower was hit, and you didn't see anything hit it, you just saw it explode like WABC reporter Don Dahler...You call up CNN, MSNBC, FOX or any Newspaper or Magazine to tell them your story...What happens? You and I both know, nothing will happen, they will bury it...You will never get that story or video into the mainstream.

    Bottom line, with all of the World and America watching on TV, and nearly all of Manhattan on the north side or watching TV, this was not a big problem. Even if someone swore they didn't see it, once a TV was shoved in their face, or a news anchor in front of a TV told a reporter on the ground it was a plane, game over. The magic trick has been achieved.

    The mind would not be able to hold on to anything except the present moment and the narrative given in such a chaotic, emotional, traumatic, and war like atmosphere where you felt your very life was in danger.

    911closeup.com (Gerard Holmgren, the 'original' no planer)
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21213 (check out 'island pilot')

    RIP 'holograms'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Dave, very well said.

      Delete
    2. I agree that holograms are quite implausible. There is an abundance of published research in academic journals demonstrating how notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Humans can be very sincere and confident in their memory of things they actually did not see. It does not surprise me at all that given the psychological trauma and general confusion occurring on 9-11, that if someone planted some bombs in a building and detonated them, planted a couple actors on television to say they saw an airplane, had news reporters repeat endlessly that there was an airplane, and then played repeatedly CGI footage of an airplane causing the explosion, that of the thousands of people who saw the explosion, more than a few will "remember" with absolute certainty that they saw an airplane with their own eyes, even though they did not. That's really all it would take.

      However, regardless of the foregoing, of all the debunkers who ask, "but what about the thousands of witnesses who saw the planes?" I have never heard one identify who these many witnesses are nor the circumstances in which they supposedly gave such testimony.

      Delete
    3. Excellent observation friosteinn-ludw! Most people just assume "thousands - maybe even MILLIONS - of people in New York City saw with their OWN EYES 'the airplane' crash into the WTC" when in reality the vast majority of people were not in a position to even see the WTC. Besides, there is no evidence or proof that any commercial airliner crashed ANYWHERE on 9/11, zero evidence or proof "Muslim fanatics" hijacked commercial airliners, and we KNOW that all of the phone calls allegedly made by the "passengers" on the "hijacked airliners" were FAKE.

      The official 9/11 story was in reality a Hollywood script sold to the public via the Jewish controlled mass media and government. Virtually every single aspect of the official 9/11 narrative is false, and demonstrably so.

      Delete
  2. Continued...'Island Pilot' from PilotsFor911truth.com

    I have read much about President Bush's activities on 911, including several detailed reports of his arrival at the school, what he "said", and the possibility of him "seeing" the first crash via a special "communications link" other than broadcast TV.

    My "impression" from this information leads me to conclude:
    Our "mono-syllable speaking" President was almost capable of "reading at grade level" to the school children. I had not previously assumed he was quite that "dumb".

    It became very obvious to me that "all of his movements, where he went, what he said, and what he did, was being "controlled" by someone else. I'm surprised that he didn't have to "raise his hand" to ask a Secret Service agent for a "bathroom break".

    At NO TIME on 9/11/01 does he act like he is "Commander in Chief" of Anything. Dick Cheney is "running the Country" from a bunker while "President Bush" is "asking" him "for instructions on what he should do next.?" [It is possible President Bush narrowly missed an assasination attempt directed against "Air Force ONE", a little earlier that day... and also by taking the "risk" of flying Air Force One "without fighter jet escort" [contrary to Cheney advice?], to a known "friendly Air Force Base" out west; before returning to Washington.][The real goal of 9/11 may have been to "replace" our President.]

    When Mr. Bush said that he "saw" an airplane crash into the first building on TV; he was really using the word "saw" in the context of "watching" TV as the "source" of his information. Television is a "visual" medium that you "look" at, or "watch", to "see" what is happening. He would have "seen" the TV coverage of the first "burning Tower", and "heard" the reports that "it had been struck by an airplane."

    Mr. Bush may have watched the same TV coverage as the rest of us "where" an "aircraft" had struck the first tower... an "observation" that he "simplified" and "shortened into": "I was sitting outside the classroom, and I saw an airplane hit the tower."

    It is likely this is only an "error of symantics"; and to be more "technically correct" Mr. Bush could have said: "While watching TV outside the classroom, I saw the report about the airplane that had hit the tower." A man of "mono-syllables" has no time for "technicalities" when providing such commentary to the MSM, whose livelyhood depends on "sound bytes", to be recorded into the memory bank of History.

    The "First Error of Seeing" is to not actually "see" with your own eyes; something that you "say" that you "saw". Mr. Bush clearly did not "see" what he said that he "saw".

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Cont'd from 'Island Pilot')

    Now let's go to New York City. Tens of thousands of people live and work in the WTC area. What percentage of them could have POSSIBILITY SEEN an airplane fly into a building? My guess would be less than 1/10 of 1 Percent.
    Here's why:
    If you are working in a building,
    there is more than an 80% chance that you will NOT have any VIEW to the outside from your "cubicle". (check the "typical" WTC Tower Floor layout to confirm this). If you are one of the lucky 20% to have an "outside" view; only 25% of you will be located on the side of your building "facing" the WTC. Since your view is not from a location as HIGH as the WTC Towers, it is likely that another building is blocking your direct view of the Towers.
    If you are in an automobile, taxi, or bus:
    You would not be able to see anything around you above the level of the 2nd or 3rd floor of ANY building. It is not possible for you to observe anything flying into a building, from a vehicle.
    If you are in the subway, or in underground parking lots, or workplaces: You will see NOTHING.
    If you are a pedrestian, walking along a sidwalk in downtown Manhattan, you will never see an airplane, unless you are looking nearly "STRAIGHT UP". Then if you DO SEE an airplane, you will see only a brief "flash" of it, as it crosses the space between the buildings that tower above you. Unless you've never been a pedrestian in such a large city, you'd never realize how little SUNSHINE ever reaches down to STREET LEVEL. (Unless you are on East-West street during an "equinox", the average city street will receive about 10 minutes of Sunshine on a Sunny day.)

    As a pedestrian it is likely for you to "hear" a lot of airplanes flying overhead; nearly CONSTANT noise in the WTC area, I would guess. But you would have NO SENSE of the DIRECTION from which this noise is coming, as the "sound waves" would be reflected off of several buildings at the same time. These sounds would seem to be coming at you from several directions at once. But, if you are a New Yorker, you will learn to "block them out" of your consciousness, while still being "aware" of their presence.
    If you heard the sound of an "explosive" noise coming from the WTC, after hearing the sound of an airplane just before the "explosion", it is very easy and quite natural for you to "BELIEVE" that an "aircraft" flew into the building. You have become, after all, an "earwitness" to this historic event. You are now "suggestable" to "seeing" an airplane flying into the building, as your "mind" is searching for more information. If a friend or maybe a policeman, now tells you that an airplane hit a building, it is easy for you to "KNOW" this happened. These facts, combined with your own observations, establish a "reality" for you, equal to "seeing it with your own eyes". Which you might naturally report and repeat several times later on. This event is so strongly etched into your "truth bank memory", that you might even "swear in court" that you "saw an airplane hit the building."
    I can "accept" this "natural human fallicy", of "inaccurate observations" leading to "suggestable conclusions" that become quite "real", to a person under stress, as in my NYC example. This is understandable, and forgivable. Our Criminal Justice System, by requiring trials by "juries of one's peers", allow the juries to make "allowances" for unintentional, inaccrate testimony like this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Cont'd from 'Island Pilot')

    But NO JURY is ever likely to hear any case relating to a 911 Criminal, because hundreds of thousands of other people will be most willing to "Swear in Court" that they also "SAW an AIRPLANE fly into a building"; when in fact, they neither SAW, nor did they HEAR, an airplane fly into a building. All they "saw" was the temporary "phosphoresence" of a few photons being released from an electronic display screen.

    I too, "saw" the same thing, LIVE as it happened, the FIRST TIME it happened. I did NOT see "AN AIRPLANE" hit the building. I could not tell "what" "IT" "was", that "appeared" to strike the building, before the building "explosion" occurred on my TV screen. To me, it looked like a "Special Effect" for a Hollywood Movie trailer, "coming to a theater near me", next week. That's what I saw; That's what I said that I saw at the time, and It's what I'm saying today.

    Yet many of my friends, who are "good" airplane pilots, think I am crazy for "questioning" any of the events of 9/11. "Didn't you SEE those airplanes FLYING INTO THOSE BUILDINGS?"... they will ask.

    They MOST CERTAINLY SAW THE AIRPLANES CRASH into the buildings, and that IS ALL THEY NEED TO KNOW! They don't care about the IMPOSSIBLE AIRSPEEDS.... or the COMPLETE LACK OF ANY AIRCRAFT PART TRACEABLE to a 9/11 AIRCRAFT. They don't care about the MISSING UNRECOVERED FDR and CVR boxes. And they REFUSE to CONSIDER ANY FACTS that DO NOT support the OCT.

    They don't care about the PENTAGON FDR data that doesn't support a "collision" with the Pentagon, or a proper departure from an Airport Gate according to AA Ops Manual procedures. They don't care about professional archetict opinions, that an airplane crash did NOT cause any building to collapse on 9/11.

    They are so "CLOSE MINDED", they can't understand why any INVESTIGATION should be needed to reslove any of the overwhelming "anomalies" concerning the 911 OCT. It is OK with my "pilot friends" for our Country to be killing thousands of people in unjustifiable wars, because they SAW airplanes fly into buildings. They will even send their own children into "harms way", because they are as sure as an actual "eyewitness" that they actually "SAW AIRPLANES CRASHING into the WTC!"
    [maybe I should ask myself why I keep referring to them as "pilot friends"?]

    I still don't know "what" crashed into the WTC Towers, if anything. I'm not convinced of "anything" yet at the WTC.

    I am very convinced that NO AIRBORNE OBJECT struck the Pentagon on 9/11, and that MOST CERTAINLY a BOEING 757 DID NOT strike the Pentagon. After 9 1/2 years, there is still absolutely NO reasonable, verifiable DATA to support such an outrageous conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey John, do you think it would be possible to give your followers more of a heads up in advance for your programs? I try to come to your site every day and it seems that all your shows are already recorded. It is like posted the same day that it is already done. Especially if you are going to take callers.....some of us are working stiffs in the Jew S of A, ya know? We need a bit of notice so we can make plans......

    Thanks man!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Aservant, I used to post details of all my upcoming programs on Facebook but I don't have an account anymore... I would recommend following the BlogTalkRadio page for The Realist Report - all of the upcoming shows I have scheduled are available there. Calls are always welcome on all my programs.

      If you look on the right hand side of this website, you will see The Realist Report above the Don't Tread on Me image. If you click on that image, it will take you directly to the BlogTalkRadio page for The Realist Report.

      Here is the link:

      http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-realist-report

      Delete
    2. Thanks John, I'll check it out.....

      Delete
  6. Excellent broadcast. When Mike was on Deanna's show last week discussing chapter 27 of this latest book of his, she gave him such a free ride, even agreeing and commenting favorably on many of his findings and crude accusations against some of us truthers, so, especially since he discussed you, John, I invite her to have both you and Jim on to refute false statements in his chapter 27, especially since Piper particularly discussed you during the show, John.

    Piper stated that Willis Corto agrees with his stance on the Boston Bombing and Sandy Hook incidents, so it would be great if you would have him as a guest on the Realist Report. Besides, he is a wealth of information and I always love hearing him speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love to interview Willis Carto - I will see if I can arrange for that. Good idea!

      Delete
  7. John, you and Jim really tore MCP a new a-hole on this one. Good work!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kudos again John for not caving in to the heavy browbeating campaign waged from TUTlanders (followers and disciples of the emperor Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth website) on this issue.

    You and Jim expressed very well a free-thinking, rational person's perplexity over the position of TUTlanders Glenn and Piper on Sandy Hook. The position doesn't appear to be rational. Whatever the reason for it (I think its partly if not mainly a business strategy.), it is not serving the truth. One would think they should be celebrating the fact that so many people saw through the obvious hoax, instead of poo-pooing it.

    Perhaps the reason Piper didn't show up for the debate may have been that an edict had gone up in TUTland that TUTlanders are not to discuss the matter any more. But one would think that Glenn and Piper would have get together at least one more time now to lay down the truth for Piper's reason not showing up, and of course to make fun of Sandy Hook doubters.

    I'm a big fan of Deanna Spingola (still am). I was very disappointed to tune in at the end of her show with Piper and hear her fawning all over him and agreeing with him, and together with him poo-pooing Sandy Hook doubters.

    Recently she had Dr. Lorraine Day day on as a host for three days. I loved it. Day quoted ex CIA director William Casey's following statement from the CIA's first staff meeting in 1981:

    “WE'LL KNOW OUR DISINFORMATION PROGRAM IS COMPLETE WHEN EVERYTHING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVES IS FALSE.”

    I think the program is complete. LMAO... I cheered at the very end of Day's last appearance, when to Spingola's chagrin she volunteered that the Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing events were complete hoaxes. Hooray for Day!

    Since my days of leading protests at the beginning of the Iraq war in Milwaukee, I've been saying that the media is not our friend. The reported numbers of people protesting the war were greatly reduced from the truth; the numbers of the Clear Channel sponsored cheering events were greatly exaggerated the other way. I don't believe there ever was a majority of the people to go to war, but just enough for the media to portray it that way, of course after their own relentless campaign for it.

    Lastly, Glenn is a regular commentator on Press TV. Has Press TV ever interviewed him on Sandy Hook? If not, think they ever will? Any bets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rick, thanks for the feedback! Yes, it is very clear that Piper, Glenn, and their entire crew's position on Sandy Hook (and Boston) is entirely irrational, illogical, and just plain ridiculous. They are the one's discrediting "the truth movement" not people like Jim and I who are genuinely interested in the truth about these events, no matter where it leads.

      I have no reason to doubt Piper's sincerity regarding his health issues and decision to back out of the debate. I think there will be another debate scheduled in the future, but who knows? I think Jim and I thoroughly refuted Piper's entire position on Sandy Hook during this show - if he had any integrity, he'd simply admit he was mistaken and we'd all move on. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening...

      I haven't listened to Deanna's program for a while now, although every once in a while I'll tune in when she has an interesting guest on. I missed all of Dr. Day's appearances, but I'll go back and check them out soon. I have been really disappointed with Deanna the past year or so, and have lost a lot of respect for her to be quite frank.

      And you're absolutely right about the media - the media is most certainly NOT our friend. The media and Hollywood do NOT provide "entertainment" and information - they provide propaganda and social engineering programing to advance particular geopolitical and cultural agendas. The television is a Weapon of Mass Deception, there is no doubt.

      Thanks again Rick, cheers man!

      Delete
  9. I take it for granted that the jews are going to be lying every time I turn on the news.
    My focus isn't on if planes were there on 9/11 or not (I think there were) its who's doing 9/11 and why.
    As far as Sandy Hook all I saw there was some bad actors and a lot of media
    hype. There wasn't any there there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr. Lorraine Day made her comments about the Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing events in the closing moments of her third show with Spingola. She suggested to Spingola that they should discuss the events next time should she have her on her show again. LMAO... If Spingola has Day on her show again, I doubt that Spingola will want to discuss those events with her.... LMAO... anything but that.

    I don't doubt that Piper's sincerity regarding his health. I was being sarcastic. He'd have to be on top of his game to defend TUTland's position on Sandy Hook. It's good that the TUTlanders were challenged to debate, given their laughable position on it. However, I doubt that any TUTlander will ever debate the issue outside of TUTland wiith anyone except a fellow TUTlander. I'm reminded of Kevin Barret's challenge looking for any dope to defend the official 9/11 story. I don't think you'll find any dope to debate the matter. I have respect for Piper also, it would truly be amazing should Piper be that dope.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Today, VidRebel.wordpress did positively reference Mike at his finest, for sure:

    "Ryan Dawson and Michael Collins Piper - Israel and JFK."

    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.