Planes crashing around the White House, 90s style. Lots of big hair reporters back then.
OBF doing a good job again promoting September Clues against quite the line-up of shills. I haven’t had time to listen to the audio of this particular broadcast but did go through the comments, and left this one:
For the record, I want to give my thanks to OBF for doing a great job defending cluesforum.info… and its followers, like myself. I also want to applaud Andy Tyme for his efforts in bringing reason and light to the leading Sept. Clues research, which he appears to support for the most part. I’d like to extend my gratitude for Pshea, for his gentle soul and kind Irish nature in nudging Fetzer to the view of clues fakery. I’d also like to thank Jim Fetzer for his endless coverage of the 9/11 and JFK rabbit trails. By his repetition I concluded that the parallels between the two were so obvious that JFK must have modeled for the 9/11 psyOp. Because I was convinced that occam’s razr best explained 9/11 as a psyOp centralized on a 102 minute movie, then JFK was most likely the same type of event. Events this big could only be pulled off by an entity that endures through different administrations, and that of course is the psy-war department of the military. Perhaps more discussion of this elephant in the room, as opposed to who the three tramps were or if holograms were used at the WTC, would lead to a greater understanding of what is happening on a daily basis in the worldwide media in every country.
Quite a thread raging over at John Friend’s blog, following up on show we listened in to on episode 78. Worth a look.
The day after the 9/11 “debate” with Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts this past weekend, I had to take my computer to the Apple store for a minor repair. The repair took longer than I expected. A lot has happened since the “debate”, and I’d like to take this opportunity to address the “debate” itself and Andrew Anglin’s commentary on it. Carolyn Yeager’s radio program this past Monday will be addressed in a future blog post.
“The bigger the environment, the easier the control”
“the opponent simply distracts the victim by getting them consumed by their own consumption”
“the bigger the trick, and older the trick, the easier it is to pull”
“they think it can’t be that old, or can’t be that big, for someone to have fallen for it”
“eventually, when the opponent is challenged or questioned, means the victim’s investment, and thus his intelligence is questioned — no one can accept that, not even to themselves”
“you’ll always find a good opponent, in the very last place you’ll ever look”
Anyone know what show this is?