How do people feel about this? The post, and the locking mechanism? Would they prefer the post removed entirely? Or no action at all? at least the lock is not complete censorship. It's a stupid fucking post IMO, and borders on incitement to violence, which we're supposed to get rid of on this website.
there's a new browser in the works to keep an eye on. Impervious:
This you? Congrats.
It might be related to ESG score. It's a pretty extreme turn around alright.
To be honest I saw a pretty good photo comparison of the infamous proof footage with her and work colleagues posing on a stair case that convinced me it was probably her. They did themselves no favors with the set up; it was terrible as proof, it was dark, she was not close up, she was wearing a mask etc - but someone on Twitter adjusted brightness and contrast and pointed out things like she was wearing the same watch as Tiffany, and some other physical aspects I can't exactly remember we're the same too - maybe a mole on her arm or something.
So my guess is she's alive and that was really her, but somewhere along the line some glowie figured this fainting episode of hers would be a good opportunity to discredit doubters, and so somehow encouraged Dover and her employer to not try very hard to prove she was alive, and also encouraged her to stop using social media, go dark "for her sanity" as it were and only deal with media stuff through them. The result would seem to be this TV special, which will be a cleverly achieved hit piece on "anti-vaxxers" and conspiracy theorists.
The title was just a summary of the message on The Institute for Historical Review's (which is run by Mark Weber) telegram channel. Full quote:
Back in the '90s, David Cole and Mark Weber appeared on the Montel Williams show to discuss problems with the official Holocaust narrative. The show was never aired again and we only have it today because a viewer taped it. The producers, and Montel, were shocked at how knowledgeable and erudite Weber and Cole were, they expected the two to be crazy and incoherent conspiracy nuts. The audience became genuinely interested in what the two had to say. One highlight of the show is when an audience member had some very interesting things to say about the Jewish role in the slave trade and holocaust reparations Germany pays to Israel. The whole episode is worth watching multiple times. Enjoy!
Found some of it, I think;
EDIT - actually, no, this is a prior release. The 1547 new pages have not been released yet.
The fuckin SUN doesn't provide a link to the documents as far as I can see! Looking to see if I can find one.
A newly released report from the Pentagon, dating from 2010, has documented the effects of close encounters with UFOs, along with other phenomena like ghosts and yetis. It compiled relevant medical cases, many of which have never been published, going all the way back to 1873.
In the Netherlands they have something called the Gronigen Protocol which allows for children up to 1 year old to be euthanized without legal repercussions:
Well, man-made models not being able to replicate nature accurately is not surprising at all, given the ignorance of man. Having said that though, the moon is weird as fuck, and I've read convincing arguments for it being an "unnatural" presence in our solar system.
“I never understood how an aluminum airplane could cut through solid structural steel.”
Me neither.
Richard Hall did an investigation into the bluetooth thing, and even preformed experiments with willing vaxxed participants. Start at 30mins 48seconds in the video at this link:
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=295&part=3&gen=99
How are the constellations the same for tens of thousands of years if the universe is constantly expanding and moving?
There is a competing theory to the Big Bang theory of the universe that accounts for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
That article is woefully inadequate and biased. It's the better theory, but "Big Bang" has the support of our ruling "sex-majik", Kabbalah obsessed death cult. The idea of a "big bang" was conjured up based on ejaculation, basically.
On 4chan an anon said his friend worked on one of these train-wreck b-movies he's been doing (11 in the past 2 years!) and that he had so much trouble with his lines he has to wear an earpiece and have them fed to him. He also said it was an open secret that his family were pressuring him into doing these films since he gets an easy 2 mill for a few days work.
The Obama's have a couple who they are very close friends with. They go on holidays together, known each other forever etc. The Obama children resemble a combination of this couple in physical appearance. It's almost as if, the girls are just LARPing as Obama children, and this couple are their actual parents, and they see them regularly, whenever they want, no problem. That family would receive a lot of money, set for life, probably happily complicit. I forget the couple's names, someone will remember.
I read this really great defense of Velikovsky's work (link below quotes) addressing in particular Carl Sagan's orchestrated attacks on his ideas, which have been the go-to for "deboonking" Velikovsky - I was just scanning through it when I found it online, without the intention of reading the whole thing, but it was utterly compelling and in the end I read the whole thing, and it was a great and informative read. Highly recommended, it backs up Velikovsky and exposes Sagan as a charlatan and a piece of shit:
Since the publication of Worlds in Collision, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's unconventional theories of the origin of the solar system have generated immense interest and bitter controversy. Chief among his critics has been the well-known astronomer, author and television personality, Dr. Carl Sagan, of Cornell University.
While brilliantly defending Velikovsky's work, Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky mercilessly dissects Sagan, his blatantly snide, dishonest and unprofessional 'arguments,' and exposes the sordid and unscientific side of 'scientific' controversy.
“Dr. Carl Sagan, a professor of astronomy from Cornell University, a well known public personality and writer of popular books of science, in 1974 at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) delivered a paper, “An Analysis of Worlds in Collision“. This paper was later edited and presented in a book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, published by Cornell University Press. The paper was further edited and presented in Sagan’s book Broca’s Brain, under the title “Venus and Dr. Velikovsky”. Sagan’s paper is a critique of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision.
“Having read Velikovsky, I also read Sagan’s paper; I thereafter discovered that a group of scientists and scholars had written critiques of Sagan’s analysis. After reading these criticisms I began a search of the literature and over a period of time I became convinced that Sagan’s critique lacked substance. Most surprising was the number of statements made by Sagan that proved to be clearly untrue. Further reading reinforced this discovery of the glaringly unscientific and unscholarly quality of Sagan’s paper. What was much worse, was that it was difficult to imagine that even Sagan was unaware of the misrepresentation of evidence presented as scholarly criticism by him and offered to the public.”
“.. the realization struck that Carl Sagan’s criticisms had been uncritically read by a wide audience. This was soon discovered to be the case among friends and relatives. Seemingly, they had all read Sagan’s side, but not Velikovsky’s. With little or no scientific background with which to judge, they had accepted Sagan’s word on all matters. It was then that I conceived the idea for this book. It is hoped that reading the other side will permit laymen to clarify the issues.”[1]
https://web.archive.org/web/20190620233119/http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm
Video of the assassination is gone. Could be a stealth marketing campaign for the Genghis Khan oniion site, which basically has PDFs for sale for $200.
Ban whoever downvotes you, though you don't know who it is? Yeah, I'll get right on that.
Subterranean infrastructure doesn't hold up anything, it's generally built in such a way that it does not effect the load bearing of the surrounding material, which is supporting the buildings above.
Where buildings were built on "reclaimed land" from the Hudson, the foundations are actually laid on bedrock that would have been below the water and even sea/riverbed. This is ironically an even sturdier more reliable base to build on; than a higher up layer of compacted clay, earth, sand, whatever. The major risk with such building projects is water, flooding, since that is where the water naturally wants to be.
If you really want to be conspiracy-contrarian about the destruction of buildings in the WTC: you could bring up the fact that WTC7 had huge tanks of fuel that normal skyscrapers don't usually have - because of Mayor Giuliani's bizarre decision to put his "bunker" on a high-up floor there.
He was sharply criticized, and strongly advised not to put his bunker at such a location, expressly because it would require these large fuel tanks to be housed high up in the building (off-grid, emergency electricity generation for the emergency control center), creating a massive potential fire hazard in a high rise building. He did it anyway.
I think most people don't know about this when they mock the "out-of-control-fires" scenario with regards to WTC7 - but it could be (i don't know the exact amounts) that WTC7 actually had even more highly flammable liquid stored in it than the towers - so much that an out-of-control fire may actually structurally weaken it.
What if, of the 3 major building collapses that day - WTC7 - the "only one not hit by a plane" - was actually the most straight-forward, easily explainable collapse? Fires started by the collapse of the other buildings quickly became uncontrollable because of Rudy's massive fuel tanks. Wouldn't labeling it as the weirdest one and focusing attention on it, as the "9-11 truth-community" always does; wouldn't that be a great distraction from the utterly bizarre, impossible and inexplicable collapses of the two towers? Something to think about.
when 1 and 2 fell they imploded the tunnels
The tunnels were barely de-stabilized at all. There is video footage of guys walking around down there after collapse looking for survivors. The carparks are mostly unaffected. There's a shopping area, same. There is some damage but the subway tunnels are mostly intact (though strewn with dust and debris). The whole underground WTC complex is bizarrely unscathed, except for the large gaping holes at ground zero down to the underground - but those don't correspond to the mass of the towers falling through the ground. They are in odd places, like where half of WTC 6 was for example.
Along with "De-emphasized" there is also "Fringe" which has some diamonds - they keep holocaust revisionist literature, for example, in those sections, among other interesting things. Really good sections for perusing. If only my local library had a collections like those!
Banning is all well and good, but like you said, they have multiple accounts and always make more. We could raise the minimum-required-points-to-be-able-to-down-vote on new accounts, and see if that has any effect. The only reason they are able to down-vote is that they've gotten at least 20 points on their account. So it's thanks to people either up-voting them, or not down-voting their comments, that they are able to down-vote. I'll put the min up to 100 and see if there is any discernible effect.
He can say it, and you can read it, since the post is still up. Perhaps you missed that? It just can't be added to.