Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Jim Fetzer / Gary King

Sen. Paul Wellstone (with Larry Harris and Sterling Harwood) /      The new JFK Show #4 [NOTE: Revised from the one broadcast]

34 comments:

  1. Thanks, Gary, for another nicely put together show with excellent sound and special effects. It is a good idea to have a weekly wrap up of news highlights.

    The first anniversary of the Boston bombing is April 15th. I imagine the media will be taking advantage of that by bringing us more interviews with "rehabilitated" amputees.
    Last year, they treated us to several interviews with the victims a few days to about a week later in the hospital. They were not in their rooms but rather in a special area for press in the hospital.

    It was remarkable how the "dancer" recovered so quickly. She moving around the hall without assistance. She was much too cheerful to have suffered such a loss. It would take months and even years for a normal person to recover and get over the trauma of losing a leg. (Kind of strange no arms were lost in Boston, only legs! It was odd that a bomb which exploded so high in the air would have hit so many people in the lower extremities. The bomb didn't even damage the fence.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'bomb' exploded at ground level, it was in a backpack placed on the pavement. No-one lost any limbs, no-one was injured, it wasn't a real bomb, there was no explosion, all that happened was a pyrotechnic device went off emitting a large amount of smoke, under the cover of which a load of crisis actors lay on the floor and smeared fake blood around as well as unveiling a couple of gory prosthesis.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Joan, I really try hard to bring back the golden age of radio when shows like The Green Hornet, Jack Benny were highly produced, scripted audio dramas with sound effect such as footsteps, thunder ect. I always thought it was lame to be a radio host who leans on the callers and guests. I hope you liked the Black Sabbath "War Pigs" segment in show #2 with current war propaganda of John Kerry, Madeline Albright ect, I can promise you that 6 mins look 6 hrs at least to make between finding the appropriate news clip, recording it, editing it, matching the music up, volume adjustment ect. And have you noticed that very few guests say ummm and ahh??? Thank you again Joan for noticing.

      Delete
  2. Jim, good work on the Wellstone crash. Is yours the only book on the topic? It's interesting how all of these too convenient crashes have so much in common, i.e. the FBI on the scene BEFORE the actual crash. This was the case in the Watergate plane crash at Midway which "killed" E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy. The case fell into the lap of well known investigative reporter, Sherman Skolnick, who wrote quite a bit on it called "Airplane Sabotage." He also took on the NTSB in court. It's a fascinating story which involves E. Howard Hunt's blackmailing of the Nixon WH.

    ReplyDelete
  3. P.S., on the Wellstone crash. Wasn't Ted Kennedy supposed to have been on that flight? I remember hearing the report on the radio and that he changed his mind in the last minute.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To Don Fox, It would be nice if he backed up his opinions about the nukes with some facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? Are you being serious? Gimme a break...

      Everything Don has written about nukes is based on solid, hard fact. How can you ignore the isotope chain found in the dust samples that proves nuclear fission, or the tritiated water samples, then there's all the secondary evidence such as the 'pothole' melted into the bedrock and the incidence of all kinds of rare cancers among responders.

      Serious question - are you just stupid and missed all the evidence or are you deliberately trolling?

      Delete
    2. Don is preparing an overview article with more facts in one place.

      Delete
  5. Joan, as one veteran Skolnickian to another, did you ever ponder the most significant difference, IMHO, between Sherman's Chicago-based geopolitical analyses and that of his West Coast kindred spirit, Mae Brussell -- with whom he reportedly shared discoveries?

    Of course, Sherman outlived Mae by several years, and thus we can only speculate what that brilliant, matronly-maven-of-mystery-unraveling would have made out of 9/11!

    (Although they both were of Ashkenazi descent, Sherman was always much harder on modern-day Israel than Mae was.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andy, thanks for the question. I became aware of Skolnick in the 90s, long before the internet. I used to watch his "Broadsides" cable access program every Monday night and taped most of his shows. He jumped around between many topics.

    There was so much corruption going on in those days what with the Bushes and Clintons, Vince Foster, Waco, Mena, etc. I don't remember Mae Brussel even being discussed. It was only later when I got my computer that I looked up Mae and read some of her articles. Skolnick sometimes mentioned the fact of his Jewishness. Mostly, it was in regard to his publishing in the Spotlight which was thought to be an anti-Semitic publication.

    Sherman always said with a laugh he never asked a bus driver his religion or political views as he was only interested in getting to his destination. The same with the Spotlight. He liked them because first, they were the only paper which would publish his stuff and second, because they never edited or censored it. He said, in a serious vein once in a while, that he thought the Jews would be scape-goated in the very end by other Jews at the top. He did say his relatives didn't like the idea of his writing for the Spotlight.

    Skolnick's real talent was his knowledge of banks and the ability to trace the sources of financing these crooks were receiving. Also, knowledge of the law helped a great deal in his work. He helped many blacks in neighborhoods who were being exploited by realtors and other businesses.

    Tell me, what was your experience like with Skolnick? How did you come to know about him?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Back in those long ago, pre-Internet days, Joan, Sherman was a frequent guest on several of the more daring "alternative news/history" programs that you could listen to, anywhere in the world, via a handful of powerful, international short-wave radio stations located in the USA.

    Although the stations were privately owned and used mostly for Christian missionary broadcasts -- the FCC had issued them commercial licenses, and that meant that the station owners could (to help pay their huge electrical bills) also sell blocks of airtime to marginal political organizations and groups of independent investigative journalists who lacked access to mainstream broadcast media.

    Some of the absolute best interviews with Sherman were conducted on the official, nightly radio program of the highly controversial "Spotlight" newspaper (predecessor to American Free Press), masterfully hosted by veteran tabloid-news reporter Tom Valentine. Tom and Sherman were old friends from way back, and their combined knowledge of covert activities, secret societies, banking scams, political corruption, etc. was absolutely awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ian said: "Serious question - are you just stupid and missed all the evidence or are you deliberately trolling?"

    No need to be rude, Ian. Aren't you an advocate of the scientific method and critical thinking? Fox continues to make categorical statements without offering proof. How is it being a troll to ask for some evidence of these unsubstantiated claims? The geological samples alone are not enough to make a case for nukes.

    I would also remind you and Fox that there were no intact bodies found in the aftermath. Please elaborate and state your source for that incredible claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rubbish, Don has provided solid evidence for all of his claims.

      If you are not prepared to accept hat evidence, that is your failing, not his.

      For you to claim Don's claims are unsubstantiated is a clear sign that either you are willfully ignoring the evidence he and others such as Jeff Prager have presented or are deliberately talking rubbish.

      Delete
  9. Ian said: "Rubbish, Don has provided solid evidence for all of his claims."

    So where is it?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you stupid? Do you expect to be spoon-fed? Don't you know how to look for things on the internet?

      Here's a clue - why don't you go to Veteran's Today and look at the articles written by Don Fox...

      Delete
    2. Really Joan?

      Why don't you start by reading one of the best 9/11 articles ever written Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11

      Yes there were some whole bodies found.

      I've got a ton of nuke stuff on my blog.

      All of these hundreds of posts out of you and you haven't bothered to read ANY of the several articles we have written on Veterans Today and the scores of posts on my blog?

      Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

      Delete
  10. Oh, excuse me, Don, for not scouring the internet to find out what your evidence was for making such outrageous claims. Silly me for thinking listening to you talk for hours was enough time for you to make your case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How arrogant of you to demand we spoon feed you all the information.

      Don's claims are not outrageous at all, but if you weren't so lazy and took some time to research them and look at the large body of solid evidence he has presented then you would know that.

      People like you who do nothing but spout nonsense and never contribute anything useful sicken me, you well deserve the label of troll and deserve scorn and derision. You sit there pouring out hundreds of useless posts and never bother to contribute anything useful in the form of your own research or verification of the research of others. All you do is bitch, moan and complain then attack others for doing what you are too lazy to do yourself - research the terrible crime that was 9/11.

      Don is right, why would anyone take anything you say seriously, you miserable trolling lazy uninformed waste of space. It infuriates me that Jim's blog is ridden with trolls like you and I have a zero tolerace policy towards you - behave like a troll and I will verbally stomp all over you because it is precisely what you deserve.

      Delete
  11. Don Fox, how do you explain the million tons of debris at GZ when your claim is that the debris was dustified and/or vaporized?

    Only one percent of that steel debris was saved and has been stored in a huge airplane hangar at JFK. Seven story trident columns survived intact and are stored in the hangar.

    +++++++++++++++++++++
    See: Nova, the Building of One Trade Center and the 9/11 Memorial. ? Ground Zero Supertower - YouTube

    The million tons of debris fell inside the slurry wall which was made up of 100 panels, 22 ft wide and 7 stories high. "Tie backs" hold the panels up against the Hudson river securing the bathtub was a top priority.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF0DjN0KXyg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utter rubbish, clearly you are either an idiot or a shill.

      There was no million tonnes of debris, if there had been, the pile would have been 13 storeys high.

      Instead, what we got was a smoking hole in the ground with a small amount of debris scattered around. Half of the material that should have been present as debris was dustified and ended up covering Manhattan in a blanket of dust.

      Delete
  12. Joan that is covered in the Mystery Solved article. But I'll explain it again if you can tell me:

    1. What is tritium?
    2. Where does it come from?
    3. What is it used for?
    4. Where did the tritium that was found in the basement of WTC6 11 days after 9/11 come from?

    ReplyDelete
  13. From Fox's
    Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 | Veterans Today
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

    "Fortunately, we have scientific proof of what happened at Ground Zero."

    "The dust and water samples reveal the true story of what happened on 9/11."

    "This article thus provides more of the scientific evidence–especially from the USGS dust samples–that settles the debate in favor of the demolition of the WTC buildings as having been a nuclear event."
    [This is your best evidence, but it does depend on when and where the samples were taken and whether the tests are honest. Judy Wood was one of the first to analyze these statistics and she did not conclude 9/11 was a nuclear event. So, when were the samples taken and what was the chain of custody. Deaths from cancer can be explained just by working for any length of time in the rubble of mixed toxic substances and asbestos.]

    "Debris Ejected over 600 feet"

    "The explosives that demolished the Twin Towers were so powerful that North Tower debris was ejected up at a 45° angle and out over 600 feet into the Winter Garden."

    [If that is the case, the Winter Garden should have been destroyed along with all the buildings bordering the WTC. This was not the case. The serious damage was limited to the WTC. Building 7 did not damage the adjacent post office or the Verizon building.]

    "This feat alone puts an end to the notion that the buildings were “dustified” where they stood or that an incendiary such as nanothermite was the responsible for the destruction of two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers or that the buildings collapsed due to fire."

    "Consider these photos and graphs:"

    [The photos show large drill-like holes and have been seen before. They have been altered by darkening areas to look like these holes are incised and circular as if made by a drill. P. Shea posted them a while back.]

    The photo on this page of the erupting tower is hard to believe. First, it is unlike other photos of the same tower and second, it looks like a volcanic splay eruption. It would be easy to combine photos of volcanic eruptions with photos of the towers.

    And please........stop kidding us with that phony picture of the tilting tower as if on a hinge. They didn't even bother to use perspective on that tilting piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aah, so you're another one of these 'everything is fake' bullshitters sent here by Simon Shack to disrupt the good work of Fetzer and Fox.

      You keep trotting out this pathetic nonsense about fakery in the photos while completely ignoring the vast body of evidence that exists, others have already tried this and been thoroughly debunked and exposed as the lying scum they are.

      Delete
    2. 1/3 of the Towers were completely vaporized. There should have been 3 billion pounds of debris and they only collected 2 billion.

      Where did the other billion pounds go?

      This YouTube clip has a nice breakdown.

      Delete
  14. you deserve a punch in the nose ian.

    don't waste your breath joan. you are spot on but these people cannot shift their perspectives as they are hemmed in by the borders drawn for them.

    you deserve a punch in the nose ian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter you deserve to banned from posting. You contribute nothing to the discussion. You're a worthless shill.

      Delete
  15. Ian ought to quit his gatekeeping job here if he can't field a few legitimate questions without totally losing his cool--poor fellow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ought to crawl back under your rock, ashamed of yourself for your constant trolling of good people like Don who have done some good by carrying out proper research.

      My patience is at an end with scum like you so there will be no more politeness or engagement in your trite nonsense from me, only scorn and derision for your shilling and bullshit.

      Your 'legitimate questions' are nothing of the sort and are merely nonsense designed to disrupt and waste our time, so shove em where the sun don't shine.

      Delete
  16. Everyone, if you haven't seen this 2013 Nova program:
    'Ground Zero Supertower - YouTube," you should see the large amounts of debris--whole, intact seven story trident columns which framed the WTC at the ground level. Hundreds of huge pieces of steel assemblies from the WTC exterior are stored in a hangar at JFK where it is filled to capacity and is only 1 percent of the total steel debris. (Cue up to 22.05.) Watch the whole show if you have time. They rebroadcasted it on PBS this past Sunday night. It is well done and mostly about the newly finished One World Trade Center. Why anyone would build a gorgeous, state of the art building on a radioactive site, is beyond me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF0DjN0KXyg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not built on the site of the twin towers, it's built next to the site. Where the twin towers stood is now a a pair of reflecting pools and the entire 8 acre site of the former WTC is an open air memorial garden.

      Clearly you know nothing about radiation, have you never heard the term 'half life'? The radiation doesn't hang around forever, use some common sense or pick up a basic physics textbook. Tritium has a half life of 12years, other radioactive elements less.

      They hosed down the rubble pile and the trucks that removed the rubble, using millions of gallons of water, that's how a lot of the radiation was dealt with. Don covered all of this in his work with Ed Ward and Jeff Prager:

      http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

      Again, you waste our time with nonsense...

      Delete
  17. Gary, you have a lot of talent. Most of all, you make us smile with the touches you add to the discussion. Investigative reporting used to be fun but lately it has become so serious and contentious. So thanks for lightening up the atmosphere. Also, it's a treat not to have to adjust the sound every few minutes or have it blast unexpectedly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ? Funny and Dumb Bush Quotes/Moments - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlcE3HVRlRs

    Gary, Here's an example of terrible sound on a video. It could use an audio engineer artist like you to clean it up.

    I was looking for the video showing Bush delivering a speech in the White House and in the background, objects are catching on fire and people are screaming while fleeing for their lives. Do you know the one I mean? I couldn't find it on Google. It would make good sound clips for some of your news stories.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Protesting Too Much is a Dead Giveaway of Shill Behavior:

    Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online • Cluesforum.info
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=167

    We throw around the term shill a lot. But I never really thought about the logistics of that.

    I mean the information on the amount of people that work for the NSA as well as their budget is of course classified

    I've just been mentally trying to picture guys who sit behind a computer all day long just to defend official accounts of events.

    On the surface it sounds ridiculous, but when I see the relentless effort of those who try to discredit those who challenge an official accounts of events, you can't help but think they have to be on the payroll. I mean seriously who has the time and resources and incentive to sit all day long debating with people considered a fringe group?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    That's what I mean when I say shill. That means someone who is paid to hold a certain position. I literally mean disinformation artists who are on some kind of payroll.

    Point being I just can't see a group of people that organized who just volunteer all of their free time fervently defending official accounts of events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course there are paid shills, Simon Shack is a prime example!

      Delete