12 minutes in, Charlie once again took Michael Rivero to task for not only saying Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but also for making fun of those who say it didn't (nearly all alternative researchers).
I heard from an interview with someone else referring to David Ray Griffin's position on Flight 77, that he was around 99% sure it didn't hit the Pentagon. Notice the difference between expressing such a high degree of confidence that it didn't, and Michael Rivero attacking people as being crazy for saying it didn't.
Rivero's actions absolutely come off as highly suspicious, and it is great whenever he is publicly exposed for it.
And speaking of Rivero, he was kept off of Coast to Coast AM all these years by its Jewish Zionist chauvinist controllers, until they needed to regain some credibility and he has been on three times now, and even when he had a full three hours and was asked twice about what the most important things were that were going on, he NEVER even mentioned Israel or Zionist, let alone criticized them. Maybe he was told he couldn't talk about them beforehand, but if that was the offer, I'd say, thanks, but no thanks.
Here's what Erskine had to say about that gatekeeping operation. And if you haven't heard of him, it's because he didn't take the deal like George Noory, John B. Wells, Ian Punnett and several others have over the years.
15 minutes in, Charlie said "all, all, all, all" these big shooting events are fake (specifically Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charlie Hebdo, and others).
A significant change from Charlie before Sandy Hook, but significantly new information demands a significantly new appraisal of the evidence.
And I think that will eventually lead to 9/11, as it is hard for even most alternative researchers to consider the possibility that 9/11 was massively faked (most or all fake victims, lots of actors posing as regular people).
I was reluctant to accept that many of these big events are hoaxes and not just false flags, especially because of hyper fakery operations where some of them seemed designed to discredit the notion of fakery, but specific evidence in all these events and following logic leads me to suspect that nearly all or all of them are hoaxes.
And for 9/11, for those who doubt whether the Towers could've been relatively empty on 9/11, check out this picture of half of the towers being pretty empty during a sunrise or sunset shot:
http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_large.jpg
One thing's for sure, it would explain why almost no office furniture was reportedly found in the rubble. It does, by itself, lend credence to the explanation that thermite and conventional explosives can't explain it, and lead people to Judy Wood's theory (despite her claiming she doesn't have a theory, which leads to even more intrigue and dispute, whether intended or not).
Indeed these various events follow a 9/11 template, mostly because of Israeli involvement (we see that clearly Boston and Charlie Hebdo), but not exclusively, and just as some won't talk about Jewish Zionist interests being the primary factor, there are those who don't see the hyperfakery aspect of the 9/11 template, despite seeing it with the other events.
4 comments:
12 minutes in, Charlie once again took Michael Rivero to task for not only saying Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but also for making fun of those who say it didn't (nearly all alternative researchers).
I heard from an interview with someone else referring to David Ray Griffin's position on Flight 77, that he was around 99% sure it didn't hit the Pentagon. Notice the difference between expressing such a high degree of confidence that it didn't, and Michael Rivero attacking people as being crazy for saying it didn't.
Rivero's actions absolutely come off as highly suspicious, and it is great whenever he is publicly exposed for it.
And speaking of Rivero, he was kept off of Coast to Coast AM all these years by its Jewish Zionist chauvinist controllers, until they needed to regain some credibility and he has been on three times now, and even when he had a full three hours and was asked twice about what the most important things were that were going on, he NEVER even mentioned Israel or Zionist, let alone criticized them. Maybe he was told he couldn't talk about them beforehand, but if that was the offer, I'd say, thanks, but no thanks.
Here's what Erskine had to say about that gatekeeping operation. And if you haven't heard of him, it's because he didn't take the deal like George Noory, John B. Wells, Ian Punnett and several others have over the years.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2012/03/18/erskine-of-erskine-overnight-implies-that-george-noory-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-in-becoming-host-of-coast-to-coast-am/
15 minutes in, Charlie said "all, all, all, all" these big shooting events are fake (specifically Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charlie Hebdo, and others).
A significant change from Charlie before Sandy Hook, but significantly new information demands a significantly new appraisal of the evidence.
And I think that will eventually lead to 9/11, as it is hard for even most alternative researchers to consider the possibility that 9/11 was massively faked (most or all fake victims, lots of actors posing as regular people).
I was reluctant to accept that many of these big events are hoaxes and not just false flags, especially because of hyper fakery operations where some of them seemed designed to discredit the notion of fakery, but specific evidence in all these events and following logic leads me to suspect that nearly all or all of them are hoaxes.
And for 9/11, for those who doubt whether the Towers could've been relatively empty on 9/11, check out this picture of half of the towers being pretty empty during a sunrise or sunset shot:
http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_large.jpg
One thing's for sure, it would explain why almost no office furniture was reportedly found in the rubble. It does, by itself, lend credence to the explanation that thermite and conventional explosives can't explain it, and lead people to Judy Wood's theory (despite her claiming she doesn't have a theory, which leads to even more intrigue and dispute, whether intended or not).
Indeed these various events follow a 9/11 template, mostly because of Israeli involvement (we see that clearly Boston and Charlie Hebdo), but not exclusively, and just as some won't talk about Jewish Zionist interests being the primary factor, there are those who don't see the hyperfakery aspect of the 9/11 template, despite seeing it with the other events.
Curt, was that you who called in?
I notice the criticism of Brian was removed by someone.
Interesting. Whose call was that?
Post a Comment