Winn, meanwhile, wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an “invasion of privacy.
User sondjata then left the clever comment:
I’m trying to figure out what part of:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The passage he quotes is the Fourth Amendment, directly from the Constitution. It seems to speak very clearly for itself, and yet the lying feds, such as Obama, suggest that this ancient document is in fact a “living document.”
The “living document” argument would suggest that, since the Constitution was written in a different time, that we can re-interpret it.
“We are living in different times now,” the government would say. As if the extent of violence or terrorism warrants a re-interpretation of the Constitution.
What this argument covers up is the fact that the Constitution was written the way it was FOR THIS EXACT REASON.
The authors KNEW and FORESAW government overreach, and so they built the Constitution to ensure that it would stand the test of time.
Now the fact that it’s an old document is being used against it? That’s the biggest irony I’ve ever seen.
The Constitution is old, and rightfully so. It was very carefully written when it was constructed by wise men who knew what could happen in the future, and tried to warn against it.
The Constitution does not need to be updated. It is NOT a living document, in that it grows with the times.
The intent of the author changes the nature of the work, however we might choose to interpret it. And in this case, intent is not only important, it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING about the Constitution because that is how the judges and courts are supposed to (and used to) make their rules based on it–by basing it on the intent of the document, and what presents “justice.”
History repeats itself, and the founding fathers purposefully set down a lasting foundation with proper checks and balances to ensure democracy would continue….
But when the government itself violates its own laws, then there is only one check left.
Journalism is the social work and work-craft, and profession (high-level) of reporting on the events, facts, and people that are the “news of the day,” such that a society is “informed,” to some non-trivial degree.
Except journalism is not just reporting.
It used to be legitimate investigation and fact-finding.
I remember reading about Neil Strauss, author of The Game (don’t follow its advice and do this instead). He would go to many interviews with celebrities, and use game techniques like “The Cube” to get them talking and liking him. This would give him more info for a story.
Today we repeatedly see alleged “journalists” simply repeating soundbites and mere “information” from other journalists of their own kind.
Nowhere do I see legitimate INVESTIGATION or FACT-FINDING.
I took journalism classes in college. The first one I ever took, I still recall, they told me that the central tenet of being a journalist was presenting THE TRUTH.
But as we can see from GamerGate and countless other examples, the media today are not doing any legitimate work except parroting.
Where is the digging? The unearthing of evidence? The going out and doing custom interviews?
Nearly every media outlet uses the same interviews! They don’t get their own like a real journalist ought to.
Indeed, “journalism” in today’s online media is dead. Now it is simply Impulsive Reporting, with no forethought or questioning taking place.
I would like to see popular news outlets, rather just merely “report,” actually describe the work they did to get the information they are reporting on. Go on their own interviews. Collect their own evidence.
Do their own due diligence so that they can come up with all of the facts.
And yet none of the major news outlets disagree with one another.
It’s almost disturbing how the only dissenting views come from “red pill” or “alternate news” sources. Especially after exposing the 9/11 hoax for myself and finally yielding to the fact that the cover story wasn’t real, it’s clear that even greater things could be amiss.
In the above pictures, the World Trade Center Building 7 for both CNN and BBC is being reported as “has collapsed or is collapsing.”
That’s right. They not only use the same words in their reports, but theyboth report the building’s collapse as it is standing in the background.
Later BBC would claim, after pretending that they had “lost” the original tapes, that they got their news from Reuters.
Great. So we are left to infer that both CNN and BBC falsely reported an obvious lie from the same news source.
Hopefully you see how insidious this is.
From one false report, we get 100 more because they are all just copying, not doing any legitimate investigation of their own.
How easy would it be, then, for the government or any single corrupt agency to introduce a bit of untrue news, and watch it propagate throughout the system?
The Network, drawn by yours truly
Simply “capture” or bribe one source, and watch the rest of the network soak in the same misinformation. Because when nobody is doing their own journalism, they will all just be telling the same story.
It’s human nature. I know.
Oral histories have been delivered down through the centuries.
But our current media system is a perfect example of just how imperfect it all is.
The Rebel is what’s emerging beneath the surface. It’s a being, a character you create to replace the old you, the one mired by layers of conditioning and untruth by the world and its media and technology and its ignorant people.
You slowly rebel against the world until you begin to uncover the REAL YOU beneath it all.
Beneath it all…beneath all beliefs and systems of thinking that you subscribe to.
You read things on the net and they make sense. They seem to be true. But do not actually know and they provide comfort where you have none.
When you follow a system to think for you, then you have rules and righteous purpose. You have concepts and ideals, such as “saving the world” or changing it to your own vision of utopia, or being too honest, when honesty is not always a virtue. You become consumed with ego or “respect.”
These things are all only illusions, designed to distract you from trusting your own intuition and true self.
Beneath all the awkward, casual social interactions. Beneath the light, airy, surface world that everyone pretends is real.
Beneath it is the underworld.
It is a red river, a current of distaste.
You are not satisfied with the status quo. You are uncomfortable with your place in it. You want to push the limits.
But to be an effectiverebel, you must have a REASON. It can’t just be for guts and glory.
Those things will never build your soul.
You’ve got to have a selfish reason to push yourself through the barriers of the System. Your goals, the things you really desire, those are enough at first. You take ahold of them and then you FIGHT.
But fighting wears you down after a while, and you run the risk of turning into the enemy.
Deep down, despite all you’ve been told, despite the hard knocks you’ve taken, you aresomething special.
There’s a power in the background, awaiting your total surrender. It calls to you. It tugs at you like a nightmare every damn day and every time you fail to do what you want to do. What you set out to do.
This thing isNOT the thing that you fight.
This thing is the Rebel.
The Rebel is your emerging soul.
Beneath it all, beneath this human shell, you have a heart of rebellion.
You rebel in order to find your soul, the origin of yourself. And then you hold onto that power and don’t let anybody take it from you. And you don’t let imposters like your old self take it either.
You are a slave to your bosses, the big gorillas whose opinions you care more about and who you can’t be seen undermining. You have to go in on time, wear what they want, and not speak your mind.
You are a slave to your landlord, who calls the rules and shots and can evict you whenever they want. You can’t make too much noise or have too many people over.
You are a slave to your girlfriend, who only has sex with you when she feels like it, which may not be often. You cannot hit on all the pretty girls you see when you and her are out together, wasting time and achieving nothing.
You are a slave to the gym trainers, who will get mad at you for hitting on too many girls in the gym.
You’re a slave to the clothes you wear. You can’t buy the new ones you want because you can’t afford it.
You’re a slave to the food you eat. You can’t afford the organic meats and vegetables that you need, so you are forced to buy all the toxic food that America has for sale.
You’re a slave to lawsuits and police. You can’t afford to break the law, even on accident, because it would ruin you.
But the good news is that money solves all of these problems.
With money, you don’t need a boss. You can tell him where to shove it and go to work any damn time you fucking please.
With money, you can live wherever you want and set the rules. If you’re evicted it doesn’t matter. There’s a million places to live out there.
With money, you can have as many girls as you want. Sky’s the limit because you have the time and freedom to find them, and your confidence and money will attract women.
With money, you can buy the best foods and the best clothes. In turn you can use your newfound energy and status to produce even more money, and live like a king.
You can pay off whoever you want and whatever you want and you have unlimited options. The world is at your disposal.
But to get there, you must climb the uphill battle. You must start with nothing and build up from there.
It is a simple and easy process, but only if you treat it that way. You must endure above all. You must simply persist and not give up. Not succumb to video games, or TV, or porn, or just become complacent at your job.
Well, Satan told me to have pride and rebel against authority and make yourself your own god.
I’d pick Satan any day. And I’ll get to why in a moment.
The myths of the Bible
Now Satan is a largely misunderstood myth. His name was never “Lucifer.” Lucifer is a misnomer that actually described Nebuchadnezzar, notorious king of Babylon. Satan was never a being of Light in the Bible.
From the Bible, “satan” was actually an office or title held. A “Satan” would be deployed by God as an agent of disaster, an “accuser,” such as in the book of Job.
That said the Bible is a hugely mistranslated book. It is a compilation of stories, letters and poems later referenced by the alleged Jesus Christ, with notable internal fulfilled prophesies, much later put together by the ancient church.
Just common sense thinking can determine the obvious problems in this. Namely, the original Old Testament is not the same as the Torah, and many notable historical documents are not included and chalked up as “apocrypha” including highly controversial books like the Book of Enoch, which doesn’t exist in the modern Bible but is actually referenced by Jesus!
Much of it can be taken as metaphor and applied to your life, but the idea that the “Bible” is a book “breathed” by God is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous because only a fool can surmise a book rife with obvious metaphor and parallels and parables–since even Jesus spoke in fictional parables–and only a fool can attest that the book is all-literal truth.
What other book out there can attest to be full-literary and inerrant truth?
Even worse is that the same Christians who claim the “innerancy” of God’s Word can’t even agree on what is “canonical” in “Scripture” and what is not, and they even ignore historical inconsistencies present in their own version of the Bible.
With all that said, the modern Bible is English translation, further paving the road for horrible mistranslations.
I once stepped into the library and read the first page of 10 different copies of Dante’s Inferno. Written in Italian, the book is then forced to be written into English as the author sees fit, with its own form of poetic language, descriptors, and rhyming schemes.
Reading through these copies, I felt like I was presented 10 different poems. Each one was staggeringly different, with varying meaning, and it was hard to select which one to read as the “definitive” text.
Needless to say, translating a work creates a torrent of altered meaning. It is not the original work.
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Anyone who has studied Latin knows full-well the difficulty of the language. Greek is purported to be easier than Latin, but often requires Latin knowledge to get started with. The translations we use today alter the meaning entirely.
Not only are we getting hearsay writings from ancient writers in the Greek language that have been tampered with in unimaginable and unknowable ways by the Catholic church, but then these writings are further corrupted and changed by multiple translations into English.
Simply put, the Bible we have today is not at all the Bible that was originally written, which itself likely is further altered from what the authors wrote. And as I said, can you always trust an author?
Lastly, highly significant Biblical perspectives completely alter the entire religion. While many Christians are notable for believing in the End Times and eventual Return of Christ, myself noticing world events leading to a World War III with Muslims which is ostensibly predicted by the Bible, the truth is that without a bias the natural and logical interpretation of purportedly “apocalyptic” books like the famous Revelations turn out to be indicative of very local events far in the past (preterism).
Many lifelong, hard-studying Christians still don’t accept the fact that there is no singular Antichrist, as “anti-christ” was a counter-movement against Christianity back in the final days of the Roman Empire, that the “Beast” mentioned in the Bible during the end times is not the Antichrist, that the “Tribulation” refers not to the end of the world but to the impending active persecution of Christians across the Roman Empire, and that Emperor Nero was in fact the “Beast” in Revelations heralding the infamous number “666.”
I bet you never knew that.
The obvious and totally undeniable truth is that the “Bible” as we have it today is a foreign history textbook, cherry-picked and translated with an agenda. That is all fact.
Keeping all of this fallibility in mind for the “Bible,” is it any surprise that “Satan” as an actual entity simply does not exist?
Like most of the Bible, Satan is a myth perpetuated and altered over time.
The idea of a fiery red horned demon is not and never was in the Bible. It was entirely made up in the Renaissance.
The concept of “Satan” is a testament to the power of myth and memes.
We have powerful concepts people still believe in like demons, the End Times, the Antichrist, Slenderman, 9/11 as a terrorist attack, and HIV that have spread through the culture and become immortalized.
Now when we consider Satan, we see him as a deceptive being of great intelligence and power that works through the world, tempting people and managing demons and ostensibly a demon of great light, handsome and beautiful as an angel but ultimately driving the world toward sin and away from God.
A “deal with the Devil” is where one takes a great risk for power but loses his soul, and perhaps his future.
What we can learn from the historical thoughtform, or legend of Satan is what people harbor as truth in human nature.
People invent obstinate myths based on deep-embedded fears or truths within themselves.
He had the ultimate act of overconfidence and self-belief.
Think about it.
Satan defied God, who had omnipotence–that’s ALL-powerful–who sees and hears all, who even CREATED Satan himself. Satan still has the pride and conviction to declare HIMSELF not just as an equal to God, but as a future successor.
Unlike all of the Christians who want to “be like God” and “FEAR God” and “be humbled by God” and “FOLLOW God”–Satan throws all of this out.
With unmitigated audacity and shameless irony the Devil takes the place of God his Creator, and becomes his own God, going so far as to tempt God’s own son in the flesh.
Women are shallow and only seem to want one thing. They frequently make mistakes by choosing the kind of men that are going to abuse them and push them around, and they secretly like the abuse because its addictive.
They go on internet forums for support during breakups.
And it’s true that men are crazy. One moment they are telling you they love you, the next they are ignoring all of your calls and texts.
Men are hypergamous.
They only want the most beautiful women, the ones who take care of them the most and are the most exciting. If given the choice between a hot woman and an ugly one, men will often choose the hotter one even if she suffers personality and is a total bitch.
Men tend to like “bad girls.” They are drawn to the women who will have a hard time committing and are great in bed.
And they all like it that way because men and women like that are drawn to each other, they are both equally damaged.
Yes, it’s true that there are minor differences in the sexes. Men have a lot more tesosterone, women have visibly more body fat and less muscle, along with tits, they have periods and babies, and men seem more wired for casual sex.
But as far as everything else goes, it really does appear to be cultural…or, rather, conditioned.
It’s hard to make the claim that women love men with money and that men don’t love women with money when we live in a culture where men are all programmed to spend money on women and women are programmed to get away with whatever they want without consequence.
For all the talk of how women love badboys, let’s not forget that men love the bad girls too. They are addicted to the drama and the battles of control. Or else why would they all stay with lying, deceptive borderline women?
It’s the sexual energy, of course.
I love the song “She’s Always A Woman” by Billy Joel. Though it’s sung about women, I was skeptical last time I listened to it, and decided to flip the song around. See if you can find yourself in the new lyrics:
He can kill with a smile
He can wound with his eyes
He can ruin your faith with his casual lies
And he only reveals what he wants you to see
He hides like a child
But he’s always a man to me
He can lead you to love
He can take you or leave you
He can ask for the truth
But he’ll never believe you
And he’ll take what you give him as long as it’s free
Yeah, he steals like a thief
But he’s always a man to me
Oh, he takes care of himself
He can wait if he wants
He’s ahead of his time
Oh, and he never gives out
And he never gives in
He just changes his mind
He will promise you more
Than the Garden of Eden
Then he’ll carelessly cut you
And laugh while you’re bleedin’
But he’ll bring out the best
And the worst you can be
Blame it all on yourself
Cause he’s always a man to me
Oh, he takes care of himself
He can wait if he wants
He’s ahead of his time
Oh, and he never gives out
And he never gives in
He just changes his mind
He is frequently kind
And he’s suddenly cruel
He can do as he pleases
He’s nobody’s fool
But he can’t be convicted
He’s earned his degree
And the most he will do
Is throw shadows at you
But he’s always a man to me
If you want to fit the rhythm better and really get a good laugh, just replace the word “man” with “alpha,” and you’ll get the stereotypical alpha that all these idiots talk about online: charming, lying, independent, invulernable, abusive, non-committal.
It’s almost as if we as humans are all lying cheating deceptive bastards…
Paying for a woman’s bills and fully supporting her does not make me a “Man.”
It makes me more like her FATHER. And she became an adult a long time ago.
When you think about it, what is a girl who relies on a man for all of her needs?
She is a leech. A parasite.
I imagined myself as a girl living under such a scenario, and I imagined being very bored and very restless and utterly disgusted with my own laziness.
I then imagined myself as a very rich man with money to spare taking care of everything for a girl while she sits around and does…something. I was disgusted.
She didn’t have to work for that money, I did, and so nobody else gets access to it. Especially not just because they are women.
There is no real scientific evidence that men are providers and women are supposed to be taken care of. Humans are so distantly and wildly different than gorillas, which is where evolutionary psychology concepts originate. And gorillas themselves are wildly differentiated in social structure and behavior than even other monkeys.
So comparing humans to any other monkey species is wild speculation at best. We are too advanced, too complex.
When you as a man take care of a woman, you give her your energy and you take her energy. You lower yourself to your weakest link.
You can never be strong leeching off of the weak because you will only ever be as strong as the energy that they give you.
This works both ways–for both the parasite and the giver. It’s really just common sense. But think about it.
Spending money on women and buying them shit and driving them around and ordering them around and paying all their bills is treating them like children.
But they’re not children. They’re adults.
Women act like children because they are taught to, and because we let them. Not because they are actually children. Because they’re not.
I have no respect for a woman who demands to be treated like a child, like a “lady.”
And a lot of men (that media would label “mysoginists”) these days would say “That’s good, women don’t need to be respected.”
And you’re right, they don’t. So why waste your time on them again?
But wait! Isn’t it great to have a bunch of women as your slaves?
No. The truly strong person does not want or need slaves.
Because he is repulsed by them.
When I think about women acting like children, I am truly repulsed. I cannot stand people acting weak and rather than take advantage of them, i just want to grab them by the shoulders and shake them, or slap them, or drive them to achieve their potential and stop being weak.
But I can’t. The people all around me won’t stop being weak.
And so you’ll forgive me when I don’t take care of women or treat them the way they want to be coddled like little 5-year-olds.
I have MUCH higher standards for them, and most of them fail to meet these standards.
A lot of men would suggest that there are huge differences between women and men, but this is false.
I will now say what 99% of the manosphere-red-pill-esque people never say:
Many men are stupid. They don’t get the truth. They complain, they want to be coddled. They look up to others and want to be taken care of.
It’s not as blatant as women’s programming because men are taught ot be stoic and emotionless and, of course, to get rich so that they can take care of their women (LOL!).
But all I see are a bunch of rat-race losers.
Real men do not set out to play the rat-race game of big house, kids, hot wife.
They seek a purpose in life and inspiration for THEMSELVES. This is strength. They do not coddle others.
And this goes for women.
Women need a purpose too. Women are men are much alike. They are the same species, after all.
I don’t buy into the bullshit anymore that men are the providers and women are the caretakers. And for all those of you “evo psych” people out there who love alpha males and beta males, of which I used to be fond of, the truth is that these models are based on species so radically different from humans they cannot be used as a valid comparison.
I have always been baffled by the use of mice in science before human trials and this is no different.
Wolves and monkeys are not so simplistic in social structure, and there are a BILLION other social structures out there to observe in the animal kingdom that defy the traditional patriarchy model.
Enough with all the crap. Stop allowing women free license to get free rides in society.
Men, you have a greater purpose than to enslave women and provide for them and make them dependent on you and lose their soul and become parasitic leeches.
And women, stop pretending to be victims and stupid.
Men don’t owe you money and I’d like a real strong woman to go out there and become her own breadwinner and inspire me to reach my potential. I would prefer an equal.
I’ve done the whole love slave thing, the whole “women are children” thing. It’s gotten old because I can’t stand being “psychologist” and teacher all the time to unwilling students. I hate people’s pathetic behavior and when I am exposed to weakness I either avoid it or try to nip it in the bud.
I never coddle women or give them an easy pass. If they are complaining, I tell them to shut up and stop whining like a little bitch. Because that is what I would say to a man.
If they are acting like children, I tell them so. If they are making excuses about their lack of progress or how their parents hold them back, I point out how they don’t actually need anyone else, including me, and that they can make their own decisions.
I’d rather see a bird fly away from my nest and be free than keep a woman around as a doting child with no real mind of her own.
I know, it’s very “un-red-pill” of me.
But I do not accept the social narrative and I don’t have to play by its rules. I simply don’t want to.
Those of you who enjoy the game of vapid trivialities, go do it.
But there are more important things, and rewarding things, and I know that I will never find my equal amongst women.
We do NOT NEED a soulmate outside of ourselves. We are all searching for one, even if secretly, but the truth is that you only need YOU to be whole.
I take women as they are…or, rather, as they choose to behave.
And I will hold you men to the same standard.
People in general act stupid and I would rather see the potential in them than take advantage of them.
I think men in general should all hold much higher standards for women, especially the ones they are serious with but also the ones they go casual with.
If we all stopped putting up with women’s behaviors and rewarding them for it, then they’d be forced to adapt.
Many “red pill” men claim not to “put women on a pedestal.”
Yes these same “red pill” men actually allow women their childish behaviors because it is IN THEIR NATURE and that “ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT.” So even the “enlightened” men of our new era are GIVING WOMEN A FREE PASS.
I don’t normally even bother, unless something rubs me the wrong way. I just see things for what they are. And on 9/11, I was rubbed the wrong way.
I didn’t even care when I woke up that morning for school and saw the TVs. It didn’t seem real to me, and I wasn’t bothered by the attacks. My parents were flustered and I just saw the building crumple. I didn’t even know at the time what the World Trade Center was. But something about it seemed unreal to me.
The first thought that went through my head was, “If giant steel towers were a noticeable target for terrorists, why weren’t they prepared for this kind of attack?” (They were).
As I went into school, the teachers were afraid and made us all pray. But I was not praying.
I had my eyes open.
In later years I bought the media story, but naturally I heard about the media fakery and went to investigate.
I spent many hours looking into each and every theory, the boards of “evidence” with photos and videos with the vague hint of some kind of resolution or definitive conclusion. But the pictures proving CGI tampering seemed just as ethereal as the media clips. Something had to give.
Back then I didn’t understand why I was so interested, but now I get that I was looking for the answer to my gut/intuition’s pleading. Often our intuition will tell us there is something wrong, but we can’t rationalize it until our conscious mind “figures it out.” No wonder I didn’t care for 9/11 that morning that it happened. Somehow I knew there was something amiss.
The following video you are about to watch occurred 23 minutes before the WTC7’s actual collapse.
What you see in this video is the BBC getting the info about the “Solomon Building” (WTC7) having already collapsed and subsequent reporting on other media outlets, WITH THE TOWER STILL VISIBLE BEHIND THE REPORTER AS SHE IS TALKING ABOUT ITS COLLAPSE.
Don’t believe me?
You can see an unedited video here:
Oh, wait, no you can’t.
This is irrefutable evidence of deception.
It may seem small, and not so sinister, but that is precisely why it is so ignored. What this video demonstrates is that someone had the foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to collapse, but we are never told who had this knowledge.
Did firefighters know? Police? Where’d we get this information in advance?
If you dig, of course, you’ll find footage of people in the building before its collapse, not concerned at all. The building is strangely empty and filled with dust.
NIST, a government angency, even claims WTC7’s collapse was sudden and unexpected, despite many supporters of the official 9/11 story claiming it had severe structural damage that led to its demise. The computer simulations they released never match up with reality, and they had to go back and re-structure their models due to complaints of people who knew better.
The only sensible conclusion here is that the media was fed narrative events before they happened and that the government tried to cover it up.
Now for the expected objections, which can be defeated by common sense:
“But it was reported as having already fallen because it had structural damage.”
In that case, BBC would have reportedits impending fall. But that’s not what we got.
We got “the building fell and people died” while the building is hilariously still visible in the background.
Both reported its already having collapsed conveniently long before it really did collapse and was covered by the other media outlets.
Two major errors about an important building, with no interviews or verification of claims made about why WTC7 was going to fall. With
The distinct lack of reporting here, especially given the nature of overreporting during disasters, is a huge clue.
“It was a simple mistake! Media outlets were in a frenzy!”
They sure don’t act like it.
They report it with certainty, almost as if they were tipped off.
The media has been covering disasters for years. They are used to the hustle and bustle. And they put out a fake report on a building that is clearly seen in the background. Conveniently, the footage is then cut off just 5 minutes later. But here’s the thing:
BBC NEVER CLARIFIED ITS MISTAKE.
If this were truly a media “mistake,” they would have corrected their mistake and clarified that WTC7 had not yet fallen. But that is not what they did.
To this day, 15 years later, BBC has not clarified their source, except for a possible tip from Reuters that the building had already collapsed. “Conspiracy theorists” claim that no steel skyscraper has ever succumbed to fire, and the official report on WTC7 is unable to draw a conclusion. You’d think BBC would have a better grip on their tip-off. But they won’t tell.
And they never will.
“It just fell from collateral damage! It was not blown up by controlled demolition.”
There are a lot of people out there with advanced architectural knowledge that beg to disagree.
But personally, I just prefer to use my own eyes:
“WTC7 was supposed to be demoed anyway.”
Great. None of that was ever reported. You have to really dig to find out that WTC7 was being considered to be demoed before 9/11. In fact I’m having a hard time tracking down the quotes.
And if it WAS demoed that day, that means it was wired and setup in advance. Again, none of which is reported AND government agencies such as NIST claim the exact opposite and are covering it up.
I am forced to conclude now that WTC7 was plotted in advance to fall.
Even the feed cuts off at the end, for crying out loud. I have no real bias or particular interest in 9/11, but I can safely say this incident seals the deal for me. Especially given that most of the reporting footage has been blocked on YouTube, and the BBC claims that the tapes were lost for this monumental fuckup.
Smells like fish to me.
If you want to know whether our government did indeed play a role in 9/11, simply look into WTC7 and THEN ask yourself why NIST would want to cover up its demolition.
I just love to remember this quote by Frank A. Demartini:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
I am not saying that 9/11 “was an inside job,” because that is not clear yet.
But what IS clear is that the government knew about it in advance, had a hand in blowing up WTC 7, and has done a thorough coverup job.
How did the government know about WTC7 in advance?
Because SOMEONE fed BBC and CNN their information before the fact.
The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed. The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building’s structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.
In other words, NIST, a government agency, doesn’t believe the eyewitnesses who found thermite, reported blast sounds, and saw window breakage. The government itself considers that it blew up WTC7 unlikely, and does so because it observed that fire destroyed the building, despite the fact that no steel highrise has ever succumbed to fire.
I especially love the last sentence:
“…It is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.” – The Government
Hopefully I don’t have to explain to you why that’s funny.
And if it WASN’T a government conspiracy, then ask yourself:
Why didn’t the government launch any investigation?
Why isn’t it outraged by the evidence that has come to light?
Why have government agencies like NIST covered up and explained away the evidence?
Especially in today’s feminist 1984 environment where we stick cameras in our TVs and people call the cops over the most frivolous things, it’s important to understand the correct and proper way to handle these encounters.
Personally I have had a number of incidents involving police but every time I have managed to evade any kind of ticket or problem, sometimes by refusing to speak to the police altogether.
There is absolutely no need to talk to a police officer.
What they want is for you to suck up like a little bitch boy and tell them all they want to hear, answer all their questions, and give them as much information as possible so that they can find a reason to arrest you.
What’s funny is that after they stop you, interrogate you, and ask intrusive questions they’ll usually ask a question like “What’s with you attitude?” and then they will order you to walk away or be rude to you, even though they are the ones who stopped you.
When police detain you it is an intrusion. It’s a waste of your time and it’s harassment.
I’m a busy man and I don’t have the time to be annoyed by police who are going to invade my privacy, be rude to me, and try their best to accuse me of a crime.
Police are like salesmen.
They find a lead, they get that lead talking, they find out what the lead needs or wants, and then they get a sale.
But in this case a sale means you are getting fined or going to jail, and so you need to make it very clear that you don’t want the cop’s services.
If you’ve ever been in sales, you’ll know that the most common response to a sales pitch or cold call is a polite “I’m not interested.”
With cops I’m suggesting the same thing. When I say “don’t talk to police” it’s not like you just keep walking and seal your lips. There are certain rights you have depending on where and why they are stopping you. We’ll get to those.
There’s a good way to handle police depending on the situation.
1) When police are at your door
If cops are at your door, then lock the door.
Just completely ignore them until you go away.
This is because 90% of the time when cops come to your door they are seeking information in you to build a case. If you answer them or give them any info, then you are implicating yourself.
One time my girlfriend had a warrant out for her arrest because of a traffic ticket that was a year overdue (ridiculous, I know). We were both at home and got into a fight.
10 minutes later there was a definitive, familiar harsh knock on the door that we both knew was police. I told her to just wait it out. 5 minutes later they left and there were no notes, no calls.
You don’t have to speak to police unless they have a warrant.
And the best way to find out if there’s a warrant out for your arrest is to refuse to speak with them.
In the event you’ve done something big enough to have a warrant out without having spoken with any police, then it’s either a misunderstanding or you’ve done something pretty illegal. In that case the police will find you eventually or they will kick down the door.
So with a warrant or without, just say no to police. Lock the door and wait for them to go away, just like you would with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
2) When police are the phone.
Another time I received a call at work from a lady saying that two cops were at my door. “Do you have time to speak to them?” she asked. I said, “No. What’s this about?” She wouldn’t tell me and simply said, “Several people have called the police on you. Can you come speak with them?” I said no. Then, she asked me in a challenging tone, “Why not?”
The implication here is that the onus is on me to prove why I can’t. It’s a sales tactic, but not a good one for someone who doesn’t like to be challenged. I just told her, “I’m not available.” She then said, “Hold on a sec,” and I hung up. I knew that she was going to put me on the phone with police, but I didn’t want to talk to the police.
So just hung up.
Treat a police call like a telemarketing call.
You wouldn’t give out vital information to a telemarketer, would you?
In this case, you don’t even want to identify yourself. If you ever get a call from cops, never confirm anything. Let them only guess that it’s you on the phone and don’t confirm if they ask for your name. Challenge them, as if they are trying to scam you. Find out what they want.
The only purpose of talking to police is to find out what they are after, then get away from them.
3) In a vehicle
Here’s where things get tricky. You do have legal requirements if you’re stopped while in a vehicle.
If they ask you to get out of the vehicle, you have to get out. They are allowed to test for drugs or alcohol. But they cannot search you.
Opening your car door is also an invitation to search your car.
Therefore, before opening the car door, you MUST tell an officer that they are not allowed to search your vehicle and that you are only opening the door to step out.
You also must give them ID and registration.
But, again, they are NOT allowed to search your vehicle or your person.
That includes sticking their hand through your window. That’s not just illegal it’s dangerous. It’s also a possible violation of your right to consent to searches. It may be helpful to record your interaction if you are in a vehicle, unless you sense you’ll just get off with a warning.
4) Being stopped in person
When you are detained on foot or by yourself, you are not required to give any information to the police except to identify yourself, and even then only in certain states.
In California, for example, you do not have to give the officer your ID or your name or address. But keep in mind giving them a hard time increases your chances of false arrest.
The best thing to do is to never show fear, stand tall and proud, look them dead in the eye, give them only your name and home address (or just hand them your ID), and answer ANY other questions with:
“I can’t speak without an attorney present.”
Cops know what this means and they might give you shit, but just stand your ground. Make it clear they won’t get a thing out of you without outright provoking them and often they will leave you alone. Though these are not hard-and-fast rules, since some cops may give you more or less trouble.
Just remember to trust your gut.
Things to always do during a police encounter
1) Record them
Video recording them is likely to land you particularly bad treatment, so I don’t recommend it. But what you can do is record them with an audio recorder on your phone.
That way if they do anything you don’t like then you can challenge them in court.
2) Ask if you’re being detained, arrested, and if they have a warrant
If they balk at any of these questions, there’s a good chance you’re just being detained and they don’t have enough info on you to arrest you or get a warrant.
Also remember that even if police tell you that you are going to go to jail or be arrested or get a ticket, they might just be lying.
I’ve had cops tell me they were going to ticket or arrest me, before telling me to “get lost” 5 minutes later.
They are trained to lie.
3) Lastly: remember the magic phrase.
The magic phrase any time an officer asks you anything is easy:
“You’ll have to speak with may attorney.”
And this is an important phrase to learn for when police ask you questions while you’re being detained and ESPECIALLY if you are arrested or in the police station.
If you find yourself at the station or in jail, use this line and don’t give them any information. Make sure you also tell them you want your free attorney if you do not already have a lawyer. Don’t confirm anything or help them out without talking to your lawyer first, even if the cops promise you that they’ll “let you go if you talk.”
Remember that police are trained to lie and trained to give you a hard time.
They want to make you out to be a fool, as lesser than them, as being “wrong” for challenging them, or as an assumed criminal. They are trained to do this and they act like they have power even if the law prevents them from outright abusing it (though that doesn’t always stop them, does it?)
NEVER believe you are in the wrong and remember that police are just doing a job and they are trained or allowed to be assholes. Stand your ground, assert your rights, and let them tase you or jail you with or without a warrant.
You don’t have to suck up.
Being stopped or called by police is no different than being interrupted by any other stranger or professional.
If they are wasting your time or you don’t want their services, then you don’t have to speak with them. You don’t have to give them any information and it’s up to them to get a warrant on you, at which case there’s enough evidence for your arrest that speaking with them can only be a bad thing anyway.
I highly recommend watching the above video in its entirety. Both a law professor AND a police chief speak about the legal dangers of talking to police, and your legal rights.
“Tolerance” is becoming the opposite of what it used to mean.
In the US right now cities and states are ruling that “Shariah law” remain unaffected by US law. What this means is that muslims can come to our country and have their own laws and mini-societies within America, which includes amputating limbs of thieves and stoning adulterers.
while apparently there are stipulations to these punishments, i know full and well life in the middle east is miserable and dangerous, and people routinely get acid thrown on their face. why we would ever want anything like that here is ludicrous.
right now what’s happening in the world is this: islams, which are totally opposed to the freedoms once touted by American ideals, and want to kill all non-believers in their Jihad to win the favor of Allah and go to their heaven, are steadily mounting an empire in the east.
Muslim terrorists used to be guerilla groups and in a constant state of civil war. i was taught for a long time that they were never a threat because they did not have the organization or means to band together.
enter ISIS. if youre not familiar with world events, that is exactly what ISIS is–an organized Islamic empire. and we are almost at war with them.
i always figured world war III between the allies and the muslims would occur–i just did not know it would happen in my lifetime. it’s so patently obvious to anyone who knows about islam that it is not a happy religion. it is a militaristic one.
the Crusades in European history were born of the Catholic church and were not strictly adherent to the Bible. Biblical Christianity is not nearly as warlike as Islam, which demands its followers die in fire killing “infidels” for a guarantee to heaven (as opposed to just praying to Jesus).
i hope you see why having pockets of muslim sub-governments in our country is beyond stupid.
my father warned me once that muslims were coming to this country in droves and that there was a hidden agenda behind it. i am staring at the face of world events and am forced to conclude he is right.
you can’t please everyone
in an effort to be “tolerant” America has decided to let these religious communities have their own laws, which greatly differ from American ideals. but in so doing, “tolerance” actually becomes the opposite of its original meaning.
political correctness in America is out of control. you cannot limit the majority and declare speech “hate crimes” and let dangerous religious groups operate above the law. that is not tolerance. that is the opposite.
while before muslims would have had to “tolerate” not being able to kill cheating wives, now Americans are being forced to “tolerate” bloodshed on their own doorstep?
while before gay people would have had to tolerate people hating them for being gay, where are the equivalent ramifications for the opposite?
you can make fun of straight white men all day and that isn’t a hate crime. see? there is no tolerance here. there is only intolerance of people who aren’t LGBT, or who don’t like them, or who might actually have something critical to say about them.
America is not equal, it is not fair. in the interest of letting muslim terrorists perform their own vile laws on our very soil, we compromise the safety of the REST of its population.
here’s what people seem to miss:
PART OF “TOLERANCE” IS THE ABILITY TO TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTOLERANT.
if you can give it, you should be able to take it. just like i can’t smack a gay dude, women shouldn’t be able to smack men either.
but who wins?
thats the real problem, isnt it. in our rush to make America a great place to live for EVERYONE (literally) we have made it quite intolerable to live in.
because now instead of people tolerating people with differing opinions, or harsh criticism, or even trash-talking (which SHOULD have been their first amendment right) it is now considered intolerant to have those views.
tolerance is bullshit. it’s just a word.
it’s a concept that has changed over time, it’s a part of language control, which is explained perfectly in George Orwell’ls 1984.
in order to have REAL “tolerance” and make America the best place to live, we have to be tolerant of intolerance.
people must be able to speak their mind, to criticize.
we must also base our laws on fact and human rights, not whatever feels right to the popular minority this year.
you see, in order to remain steadfast, you must dissatisfy people. you cannot please everyone. in trying to do so, you end up compromising the original value you had to give.
the only way to have value is to be real, to be truthful, to speak from experience and to even be a little selfish.
if you are pandering to others, your value is diluted because it’s no longer your truth. you are speaking in others’ words and eventually you will be outright lying to not “offend” people, when of course that means the message is no longer the original message.
“negativity” is not a bad thing. it is NECESSARY. it is a crucial part of life.
anger is natural and normal and it occurs when we need to RESOLVE something.
the irony is that by trying to stamp out “hatred” in America we are actively promoting the hatred of the alleged “victimed” party.
just see the kind of vitriol certain feminists display toward men who disparage feminism. they go so far as to want to send men to jail for false rape allegations, and kill them.
extreme feminists even want to kill ALL men:
it’s just pots calling the kettles black.
feminists hate mysoginists. the definition of mysoginist is “a hater of women.”
great, so let’s just pick a side and perpetuate the hate, and favor the side that is in our best political interest.
welcome to (modern) America.
in order to stem off corruption, you must remain dedicated to the core of what you are. your principles. you MUST be unbending and unbreakable and you must, yes, even be intolerant.
You must be intolerant to the whims of haters
the haters today may be the hated tomorrow. you cannot please everyone, people will always try to destroy one another.
to become America again, we must cater to laws that are in AMERICA’S best interest. not anyone else’s.
feminist laws? they’re only in hate-filled women’s best interests.
LGBT hate-crime laws? they’re definitely not in their critics’ best interests.
Shariah laws? they’re not really in ANYONE’S best interests, except muslim fanatics who believe in their hate-filled religion.
America is a hotbed of hatred, and you see it everywhere. people cannot look one another in the eye, they are wary, they are deceptive, they do not trust. sounds almost like the Middle East when you put it that way.
no, it’s not that bad yet, but my point is that by cracking down so hard in the name of “tolerance” we become the very thing we hated–we become the hatred. we become the haters instead of defending the REAL victims, the ones who lose their civil liberties.
all humans should be free.
that includes both the right to wear a dress when you have a penis AND the right to tell a gay person that you think it’s disgusting. that’s free speech. that’s true tolerance.
nowhere in this post have i stated that i think homosexuality is disgusting or wrong, none of this is hate-speech. but there’s the irony:
there are surely gay people who would read this and be up in arms because i am “siding with their haters.”
and you know what would happen next?
they would HATE me and want to jail me or ban me or shit on me and tear me down. ironic, no?
we see it all the time, but you just have to put two and two together. hate-crime laws are not tolerant, they are exactly the opposite. they only favor the chosen side, which happens to be the LGBTs. and perhaps, soon, the muslims.
America may burn and collapse, literally, just as Rome once did, and it’s easy to see the parallels. i always wondered to myself, though, in this analogy i often think of–who are the visigoths and other barbarians that will raid the Roman Empire while it is weak?
now i know. it’s so obvious i don’t even have to say it again.
prepare for the fall of Rome, kids. war is on our doorstep unless we take action against the truly insane regime we are letting have control.