Denis Praeger always says that in leiu of agreement you can have clarity. I simply wanted to clarify your opinions, as you are rarely clear when it comes to making declarative statements. Even you affirmative answer has a question mark after it.
As for building 7, she witnessed how the building was in terrible shape and was listing in parts prior to the collapse. She was in the basement for a time after the attack. Here is a site with related materials:
As for explosions, and witnesses to their sounds, I doubt the witnesses have that trained of ears to recognize controlled demo from blowing air pockets and failing structural supports. To say that people heard explosions that day is to state the obvious, and it doesn't prove any sort of theory. Its just more ambiguous correlative observation that has no tie to any form of conspiracy except for the one our active minds wish to invent.
Also, it takes WEEKS of preparation to set up the implosions you claim, including cutting into structural supports, stripping most of the internal facade, etc. Kind of hard to hide work like this, although I'm sure there are many explanations of mysteriously dressed anonymous workers in the building prior who worked quickly and PERFECTLY never raising any questions or alarms. There always are.
Now if there were tremendous explosions below the impact of the planes, I could see it and it could be easier to hide ina large building, but to orchestrate a controlled implosion would be impossible under the circumstances of their environment.
And steel does not melt at the temperature of jet fuel and hot fires... it loses half its structutural integrity which is more than enought to collapse a weakened structure, but I'm sure you've already read all of this and have some kind of answer for it as theorists always scramble to pick up the peices after being debunked. There always is.
Now Playing: BF4, PubG, MrioKrt7, CS:GO, BF1942, AssettoCorsa
Posts: 1,839
Re: Journalist throws shoes at Bush
What do you believe the end goal of the New World Order is, if they were ever to achieve their ambitions, and how would they achieve it?
Of course, you know the answer. Reduced population. Genetic refinement. It dates back to the eugenics movement, very popular in the United States prior to the third reich. The Henry Fords and Prescott Bush's of the world are the guys who believe in this shit. You do know Prescott's banking firm was shut down because of the Trading with the Enemy Act? A lot of the Bush fortune was made on financing the Nazi military movement?
Reduced population(especially in third world countries) would free up the better part of humanity to take care of this planet, creating a better, more sustainable future for the generations to come. How would they impose this? Well, what would you call economic 'sanctions' imposed by the IMF? Have you found out how IMF policies towards debt relief and adopted policies work in countries...like in subsaharan africa? Do you believe that monsanto crops are safe for consumption? I suppose you believe that perpetuating a medical system whose doctrine only moderately includes preventative measures as opposed to prescribing pharmaceuticals is the way to go? We have Bill C-51 here in Canada which effectively shuts down holistic/alternative medicinal products. The Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine is one tiny example of military ideology being used despite scientific outcries over the repercussions. There's a reason why cancer rates are so high in north america. It's ok to feed kids happy meals on a day to day basis(lots of families can't afford better) yet you'll get a jail sentence for simple possession of weed. There's a lot of ways to achieve tighter control. It's not just population reduction, that's merely one step in 'their' ambitions. An EU style of world government is the most effective way to stifle discent. I'm saying that the reality around us is largely constructed to keep money with the rich and reduce the power of the people to spur actual change. I suppose you believe your dentist when he says fluoride is a must to prevent cavities. You know Toronto's had fluoride for years in the city water yet their cavities/per person is way higher than Vancouver which doesn't add fluoride. Joseph Goebbels had some interesting things to say about adding the chemical to the populations drinking water in order to placate the people and extinguish free thinking. Instead of asking me this, how about you read the power elite playbook series of articles from that website i mentioned. I think there's something like 19 in total now, so there's a bit of reading.
another example, what gave the US the right to use chemical warfare in Cambodia and Vietnam? The idea was to destroy the ability to grow food. and I mention the US because they dropped the most agent orange(supplied by monsanto) than any other country. A majority of food in your local supermarkets is GMO. Churchill was still all for using chemical weapons even after WW1. Do you think it's beyond 'them' to use chemical warfare as a means to reduce populations? blah, yeah I believe that there is little regard for human life within the inner workings of governments throughout the world, either enemy life or that of the nation's peoples. They condembed Japan for it's brutality and disregard for the Geneva Code, yet the west can act with a double standard. better stop here.
__________________
Find me on Twitter as @SethosElken
Re: Journalist throws shoes at Bush
Hybrid Mode
