On Tuesday's Alex Jones show, Jason Bermas was discussing details from the BBC's WTC 7 doku hit piece. Near the end (not recorded in the previous link), Bermas mentions that the BBC was promoting disinformation by showing a close-up clip of Nico Haupt wearing his "TV fakery" t-shirt (@ 57:06).
Bermas then proceeded to insult the idea that TV fakery was used on 9/11 to cover-up that no planes hit the WTC by calling it something like a ludicrous theory.
Ludicrous huh? Well better not tell Bermas that the military planned to use 'TV Fakery' since 1995 and the media had warned since 1999 about the military's use of it and how live TV broadcasts can be doctored.
And does Bermas really have any room to talk about certain theories being "ludicrous." How many times did he have to redo Loose Change again? And speaking of "ludicrous," what does he think hit the WTC? Watch the first 4 mins of Bermas' Loose Change I for a refresher course:
Bermas believes in the "Pod" theory; drone planes with a special "pod" fired a missile out of it into the Twin Towers a fraction of a second before impacted. I also believe he thinks these drones were outfitted with "special skin" and that's why the plane appears to "melt" into the facade without meeting any resistance.
The Pod theory has been criticized arguably as much as TV fakery by some in the truth movement and Bermas got so much flak about promoting the "pod" theory in Loose Change I, that he took it out of his 2nd edition.
I'm sure one reason Bermas thinks TV fakery is "ludicrous" is that he buys into the "thousands of witnesses" around the WTC saw the planes. Yet, I believe he still thinks no plane crashed into the Pentagon even though "hundreds of witnesses" near the Pentagon "saw it."
A while back I had asked Dylan Avery what he and Jason Bermas thought hit the WTC on the Mike Swenson show (@ 5:32) when they had him set to be the first caller to attack me. Dylan says he never answered my question because "there's much better things to do" (or something like that) and when I pressed him again his responses was "I don't know what hit the 2nd Tower."
Too bad Bermas has joined the haters club. I always thought he was pretty open-minded. Sad to see he's now towing the Alex Jones' "That's disinformation!" party line.
Hope you are getting paid well over there Jason.
Ludicrous huh? Well better not tell Bermas that the military planned to use 'TV Fakery' since 1995 and the media had warned since 1999 about the military's use of it and how live TV broadcasts can be doctored.
And does Bermas really have any room to talk about certain theories being "ludicrous." How many times did he have to redo Loose Change again? And speaking of "ludicrous," what does he think hit the WTC? Watch the first 4 mins of Bermas' Loose Change I for a refresher course:
Bermas believes in the "Pod" theory; drone planes with a special "pod" fired a missile out of it into the Twin Towers a fraction of a second before impacted. I also believe he thinks these drones were outfitted with "special skin" and that's why the plane appears to "melt" into the facade without meeting any resistance.
The Pod theory has been criticized arguably as much as TV fakery by some in the truth movement and Bermas got so much flak about promoting the "pod" theory in Loose Change I, that he took it out of his 2nd edition.
I'm sure one reason Bermas thinks TV fakery is "ludicrous" is that he buys into the "thousands of witnesses" around the WTC saw the planes. Yet, I believe he still thinks no plane crashed into the Pentagon even though "hundreds of witnesses" near the Pentagon "saw it."
A while back I had asked Dylan Avery what he and Jason Bermas thought hit the WTC on the Mike Swenson show (@ 5:32) when they had him set to be the first caller to attack me. Dylan says he never answered my question because "there's much better things to do" (or something like that) and when I pressed him again his responses was "I don't know what hit the 2nd Tower."
Too bad Bermas has joined the haters club. I always thought he was pretty open-minded. Sad to see he's now towing the Alex Jones' "That's disinformation!" party line.
Hope you are getting paid well over there Jason.
3 comments:
Kudos Killtown. YOU had the first timeline that I saw btw, not that Paul guy.
The stink is hearty with the Loose boys... something about them altogether gives me a twangy gut feeling. And AJ, well, he's mostly a fear-mongerer these days IMO, so I haven't listened to his radio show in months. The in-fighting is endemic to infiltration and clearly serves it's ultimate purpose time and time again.
Stupid humans!
The serial killin', mass murdering masters of genocide have been exposed (over and over) and yet they walk above us, attempting to control every single aspect of our lives.
This reality is FUBAR and WE are creating it, which is the ultimate mind-blower. 'Cause if a person is able to wrap per brain around that conceptualization it is not difficult to accept that there is NO WAY THOSE WERE REAL PLANES and that "special effects" technologies were deployed for mass psychological consumption.
Fasc-corp mind control at its finest... the experiment, so far, has been a success, and will continue to be as long as they remain free to harm others at whim.
Namaste
What you are saying may be true about militairy able to take over tv and put fake news on air, but in the case of 911 they didn't need to have fakery to prove a threat in order to bring about their political agenda.
They had the real thing a real attack real plane real suicide bombers and murderers.
No need to fake.They were given Perfect justification for any previous ulterior agenda.
NO NEED TO FAKE
EVERYTHING GIVEN ON A PLATE.
Tom.
Tom,
Basically what you're saying is that the planes were real because they were real. They were not fake because they were real. Thus, there was no need to fake planes, because real ones crashed. I can see it now, in the control room central on 9/11.
"Are we all set with the fake planes?"
"You're not gonna believe this - we don't need em. Real ones just crashed into the towers."
"Great - we now have Perfect Justification for our previous ulterior agenda."
No way dude. You can't just say "They had the real thing a real attack real plane real suicide bombers and murderers" in response to all the evidence that they didn't.
Post a Comment