FAC444-Radio Rollo, Napoleon, Jesse Waugh, John le Bon, John Adams

like this

You never know who’s going to end up chatting in the audiochat. The combinations are always interesting and often unexpected.

Radio Rollo does a great job grilling Jesse about what he saw on in lower Manhattan. John Laws eat your heart out we’ve got the best!

With interruptions from Typoerror and his friend Phil.

No tags for this post.

16 thoughts on “FAC444-Radio Rollo, Napoleon, Jesse Waugh, John le Bon, John Adams

  1. Jesse Waugh

    I just listened to a bit of this, and Rollo you were disgustingly rude to me. I told you nothing but the truth. I will not be returning to listen or participate with Fakeologist.

    Reply
    1. ab Post author

      Well I will agree that Rollo may have been rude (rough, unpolished) I can assure you that Rollo meant no ill intent. He and I both have great admiration for your work, and he was simply trying to reconcile your 9/11 account with what we think happened that day. I hope you will stay as we value your contributions.

      Reply
      1. Jesse Waugh

        You two know what you’ve gathered through the media. I was there. And it doesn’t matter to me whether you believe me or not.

        Reply
  2. John le Bon

    I enjoyed my chat with John Adams. He is a level above the standard fare. Many thanks as always to Ab for facilitating these kinds of interactions and then posting them for others to enjoy and engage with.

    Regarding the Rollo/Napoleon vs Jesse portion of the call, and some of the comments on this post, am I the only one who finds it more than a little distasteful?

    Just a couple of days before this call, Rollo was telling Jesse that he had ‘changed his life’, as were other Fakeologists in the same call. We can all agree that Nuke Lies certainly has had a tremendously positive impact on those of us who no longer fear nuclear war, and can now laugh at the propaganda.

    All of a sudden, because his views on 9/11 do not accord with the Shackian perspective, Jesse is to be treated as a liar, or a charlatan, or even as some kind of enemy agent?

    Are none of you guys taking a step back and listening to yourselves? Remember, this is a man whose praises you were veritably singing just a couple of days earlier, and now you feel compelled to treat him as a belligerent?

    The man owes you nothing. If he changed your life as you were saying just a couple of days ago, do you not owe him some respect?

    Or are such praises entirely empty? ‘You changed my life (but if you do not agree with Shack about 9/11, I will treat you as an enemy agent)’.

    The levels of paranoia on display are next level. Slowly my eyes have been opening to it. Now I see it for what it is. Like a cult. A Shackian cult mentality.

    I say this as somebody who completely disagrees with Jesse’s 9/11 perspective. Let me be clear: nobody died, nobody got hurt, it was a made-for-TV movie, and I have released plenty of material explaining the evidence and logic which lead to my conclusions.

    Does this mean that I will treat Jesse like he is an enemy agent if he does not see what I see? Perhaps in the past I may have done just that. Then I grew up.

    If you read this, Jesse, thank you for your Nuke Lies work, and for taking the time to visit Fakeologist recently to let us know more about what transpired with the forum and where you have been since. I hope in time you will reconsider your stance on 9/11, but whether you see the truth of 9/11 or not, it doesn’t change the fact that your work helped to open many eyes to the Nuke Hoax, including my own.

    Cheers.

    Reply
    1. Jesse Waugh

      Thank you John. I promise that everything I said in the interview and in my video describing my experience on 9/11 is true.

      Reply
    2. xileffilex

      Just found this video of Jesse doing his walk….

      seems, like, from the comments, someone else already has, as a result of the above exchanges.

      Suggested video….Alan Silva. Hmmm, the WTC must have been occupied, lol!
      this guy who escaped from the WTC!
      @2.45
      “people everywhere” “horror in people’s eyes” [where have I heard that before?] “surreal ” “really really happening” “looking up in horror”

      Reply
  3. gaia

    I agree with your observations Vespadouglas.

    Also, the repetitive use of “definitely”, like he tries to convince himself of the veracity of what he tells as a story. He is more fluent when he talks about the theories surrounding it than when he talks about his own alleged experience. That doesn’t fit.

    Around 38:30 Rollo asks the question “did you see people running on the streets” and he repeats the question, to either gain time and organize his thinking or for some other reason. If you really witness such an event (and have talked about it for years), then you don’t need to do that. You just say “yes” or “no”, it is not a hard question at all; just describing what you see with your own eyes. He says “I don’t recall that”. How can such an obvious thing not be recalled??

    Reply
  4. Vespadouglas

    Who , if anyone , retells a story ,if true , with the incessant use of the term ” I remember ” ? Pair this with the details that “I dont really remember ” and its plain to see this chap is talking shite. I’m less than an hour in and would estimate over a hundred uses of the word, remember…….and he doesnt know SEPTEMBER CLUES ! teeheehee

    Reply
    1. xileffilex

      Indeed. The equivent of “my recollection is that…”, which has always been a flag that someone official is making it up.

      Reply
    2. Jesse Waugh

      He made me nervous with his constant grilling interruptions. I was being interrogated, and wanted to communicate that I was telling the truth, which I was.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to kelaren Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.