Tom in CT – still best psyOp talk

like this

Reviving an old post from 2013. If you want to learn about , Tom may be an insider, or at least keen observer.

Most or all of these shows are from John Friend’s Realist Report.

Download them all and listen.

Here’s a few more I couldn’t find on my site. Listen to them all. This IS what this site and fakeology is all about. Tom, if you’re out there, come do a chat!

debate wrap up


Tom on Cass Sunstein


Tom and OBF


Two other shows:




No tags for this post.

11 thoughts on “Tom in CT – still best psyOp talk

  1. Faye

    Hi Ab, the first of the above audios you posted is a discussion between John Friend and Tom in CT about a debate (on audio) that took place on Dec 1, 2013 between John Friend, Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts.

    I looked for the audio file on the website of John Friend but the file is not linked anymore.
    On the original posted platform that hosted the debate on talkshoe, called PROTHINK radio, the whole website is gone.

    If you happen to have that audio file in your collection, would it be possible to post it?

    Here is the article of John Friend on his blog:

    Sunday, December 1, 2013
    John Friend vs. Mike Delaney & Scott Roberts…

      1. gaia

        What do you mean by “Jew bashers”? Is that anyone who dares to oppose the Trickster Tribe of Chosenites you now here implicitly start defending, again? Where is your selected sympathy for jews coming from Ab? Why do they get a free pass and you smear and slander John Friend and his guests here without even leaving a file for us to verify these cucked opinions you spread?

        Do jews deserve a special treatment? Why are you falling for THEIR psyop; that they are being bashed, and the victim?

        Get this hanukkah programming out of your head Ab, it is poison.

        Jews are nothing special and deserve all criticism directed towards them. Without any fear of being branded a “jew basher” by the owner of this blog.


      1. antipodean

        Surely you’ve seen the close up footage of the Towers collapsing. Once you establish that it’s faked to make it look like a top down collapse as a result of being hit by a jumbo jet you realise that none of the footage was filmed in real time.
        Ace Baker’s Ghost Plane video is a nice piece of work which I’ve used to win arguements on other forums when discussing ‘No Planes’, because, people argue that if all the footage was pre- recorded why wasn’t the ‘Nose out’ noticed before going to air.…

      2. antipodean

        Nobody as yet outside of the select few who organised it would have seen the real collapse footage.
        What we saw was an attempt at faking a top down collapse. Be it put together in a Hollywood studio or where ever.
        The biggest question is how did the ‘Nose Out’ get beamed live in real time. It some how escaped pre show time scrutiny, maybe the Networks screened (amateurish pre recorded footage) it live from a none news network military studio. Such as Strategic Communications Laboratory.

          1. gaia

            What a questions, you’d expect antipodean (who really believes his family died in probably the craziest hoax of history; ‘D-Day, the 9/11 of WWII’) to know this, but apparently not.

            With so many lessons to learn for the other resident kiwi (do News-Zealanders have an extra problem in believing the most obvious bullshit?), I hope to hear him and many others joining you in your chat, Ab!

            For The Future.

            1. antipodean

              Oh my goodness there’s another one.

              It’s debatable whether leaving the ‘Nose Out’ in the pre recorded fake footage was deliberate or not.
              It could have been done purposely for shock & awe, or the mistake being deliberate then covered up to make the footage appear to be live with an inserted plane.

  2. Faye

    In a radio show from November 2013 John Friend has Ace Baker as a guest and the discussion is about the imagery of 9/11.

    Tom from CT joins the discussion and makes an interesting remark. He says that through a methodic structure analysis of the material that is available they have come to the result that leaving the imagery material out of the debate, the result of the analysis about what happened and what not, becomes clear.
    (this summary of mine might be not 100% accurate due to my english skills)

    This perspective interests me very much because it could help me as a contrast and level for comparison for my own analysis, the point of convergence being my working hypothesis that the video-fakery discussion is in its own one of the multiple levels of the continuing psyop 9/11 and also actually one of the most important and well guided from the first moment.

    It would interest me, if Tom from CT is around and if we could write or talk together.

    Thanks for uploading!

Leave a Reply

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