Saturday, September 18, 2010

9/11, Global Warming and other Crimes

(San Francisco) – It is truly Magic what we can do with a few numbers crunched together, y’know? 9/11, or September the 11th, 2001 is a fairly straightforward search to start with.
Manhattan 9/11 WTC Dust NYTimes Running
Manhattan 9/11 WTC Dust NYTimes Running
What weapon is capable of blowing up a 110 story, half million ton building with one acre concrete and steel floors built around a central core? Not only blow up; but, utterly crush 80 floors into fine dust and surgically slice up the remaining 30 stories of steel I-Beams into 30 ft sections, suitable for trucking outta there. This all has to happen in about 10 seconds, too, in Manhattan, New York. That requires a lot of “Juice,” “Power,” or “Energy,” to say the least.
OK. How much energy is required, what weapon can deliver it on target on time, and what countries have such weapons? Freelancers need not apply, this is a state sponsored job situation. Find the weapon capable of that scale of destruction and you will probably locate the Perps, too.
Any thoughts?

Global Warming.

So-called “Global Warming” is the idea that the temperature of the Earth has increased 0.7 Degrees Centigrade, or 1.3 Degrees Fahrenheit, in the last 130 years, since 1880. That is probably true. The arguments are: “Why has this tiny bit of warming occurred and what does it mean?”
We humans have a normal operating temperature of 37 Deg C, or 98.6 Degrees F. We normally say we have a Fever if our temperature is 37.7 Deg C, or 99.8 F  - almost 100 Deg F. Then, it is just not a good day, is it?
The Earth is the same way. The question is: “What are the facts and do we agree on the facts?”

NASA Earth Photo from Space
NASA Earth Photo from Space
Former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-NY., famously lectured people that we are all entitled to our own opinion; but, we are not entitled to our own facts. Nothing could be more true, especially when we are talking about a gas we cannot see that is required for life on Earth to exist. That is Carbon Dioxide, it makes plants grow and give off oxygen, required by us. Fact is, we gotta have it on Earth, too.
Always overlooked, but, absolutely crucial to this discussion is the question “How long does a CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) molecule last?” Carbon Dioxide is a hybrid molecule exhaled by all of us seventeen times a minute and crucial to our life processes – how long is it in the air or airtime?
Scientific authorities generally agree on a range of five to twelve years for the airtime of a CO2 molecule. This constitutes a Fact we can all agree on. There are few, if any, compelling reasons to think CO2 lasts longer than that. However, as the “need” for a big evil Green House Gas increased in the United States, voila, articles claiming that the airtime of CO2 was as much as “thousands of years” increased.
Reason: If the airtime increases then the amount of invisible, tasteless, odorless CO2 must be increasing, right? Right! On paper, at least, there is magically much, much more CO2 the longer it’s airtime.
A One thousand or two thousand year airtime produces 200 times to 400 times more CO2 instantly. This is fraud and it produces the CO2 number the fraudster wanted to begin with. The Nuclear Weapons Labs get away with this, too.
Bingo! Lying with numbers. The Pentagon and the Nuclear Weapons Labs are past Masters at this. They, in fact, do it all the time. The Livermore Lab published one of their first big public lies about a month after the Atomic Bombing of civilians in Japan as a demonstration project.
“Radiation [atomic bomb] does not exist,” screamed the New York Times. Some of the boys from the Lab, the University of California at Berkeley, the US War Department and the NY Times cooked up this Hitler like Big Lie and ran it not once; but 12 times in the NY Times. The Lie was never retracted.
Explaining away a “Mushroom Cloud,” and hundreds of thousands of dead and radiologically maimed civilians was not a problem for the Big Lie co-conspirators. A simple thing like “Global Warming” proved to be a piece of cake.
All the Perps had to do was lie to their friends, families, professional colleagues, the United States residents and the world in general. The co-conspirators  changed one number in the science; then, the so-called “newspapers,” TV and radio could be depended on to do the rest of the job.
After all, Americans are purposely dumbed down and really Want to Believe. A lie told with a straight face by an authoritative looking person would definitely work. An international effort by future enemy countries to kill the massive US nuclear weapons program provided the start switch. It was all deemed “OK” since Nuclear Weapons are required for world domination.

The Montreal Protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was initiated on September 16, 1987. It was a dagger held to the throat of the US nuclear Weapons program. The World Wide Treaty was eventually  signed by 196 current and future enemy countries to the US Nuclear Weapons Program. The liberal sounding “Protocol” was accompanied by a massive international liberal publicity campaign about the alleged destruction of the earth’s Ozone layer.
Ozone, they maintained, protects life on Earth from the sterilizing rays of the Sun. They are right, of course, nothing can withstand unshielded radiation from the Sun, which is just a giant H-Bomb. But, that did not count in the fight for world domination and control.
The international Peace-niks said that CFCs were killing the Ozone layer. CFCs are also the Freon in your car air conditioner. They also make the A/C in your house and office buildings work, and Shopping Malls, too.
They are also required by the US nuclear weapons program to cool the heavy centrifuges spinning ‘round in a circle at supersonic speeds. A whopping 55% of all CFCs released into the air in North America are from cooling the US nuclear weapons program. The pro-nukers were absolutely opposed to the Montreal Protocol and knew it had to be killed.
For decades, Sen Gore, Sr., young Al Gore’s Dad and then Al Gore, Jr., as Rep., Senator and Vice President have been the “go to” politicians for political issues related to the US nuclear weapons programs’ nitty gritty problems. The Montreal “Problem”  was no exception and a serious threat to a lot of peoples’ job security. This was really serious.
The rest of the world was conspiring to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That would never do. The “best minds” would solve this problem and that meant the Livermore Nuke Weapons Lab along with the other nuclear weapons labs.
It was from this job threatening situation that the new “problem” invisible, odorless gas, CO2, was called upon to solve. All the “best minds” joined in on the dogpile and in a few years the irksome CFCs and the troublesome Montreal Protocol were forgotten in the “Global Warming – CO2” debate.
The academic science whores got “on board” in no time at all. Not a problem. Any temporary moral discomfort they might have felt was soon taken care of by the most powerful drug on Earth – American hundred dollars bills – their salaries, grants and bonuses. In the end, this was just another lie, ya go along to get along.
After all. The New York Times does it, right?
Look around at the “Global Warming-CO2” mish mash. See what I mean?


Global Warming Cultist's Keep Raising on a Busted Flush: "More Mega-Snowstorms Coming -- Global Warming to Blame?"

Climategate: Science Scandal of the Century

Tracking Down the Climate Scammers

Connecting the Dots: 2009 - The Year in Review

Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government

If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity

Daniel Taylor
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations. Council on Foreign Relations member James Paul Warburg, who was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, a prominent banker, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 that, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it -- by conquest or consent.”

Terrorism, economics, and global warming are all reasons given by proponents of world government as evidence of the necessity for a new world order. If world government is to be achieved by consent, as Mr. Warburg put it, then the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.

In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called "Limits to growth." The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun's activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth's temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.

In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."

Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.



  1. It's truly magic what a couple of red wines will dare you to do. I agree that people must think it through for themselves:

    Chris, Australia

  2. Cui bono? is the Latin phrase meaning "for whose benefit?" If a wife is murdered the cops naturally ask if the husband wants to marry another woman. How much life insurance might he receive? Did he want custody of the children in a pending divorce? Was he violent and abusive? In the case of 9/11 we are told that asking such questions is "outrageous" because...well, just because it is. If pressed, defenders of the official story tell us it is unpatriotic. "What's wrong with you? Do you want the 'terrists' to win? Do you want America to lose the "warn terr"? If the evidence suggests Israeli forces assisted our government, then the evidence is anti-Semitic. At least YOU are anti-Semitic for noticing. You really ought to keep it to yourself; if evidence makes an Israeli secret service look bad that's anti-Semitic, "ipso fatso" as Archie Bunker would say. If one is Jewish, or very good friends with Jews, he will be taken aside and introduced to the concept "anti-Semitic in effect, if not by intent", a literate way of saying what Archie Bunker would have meant by "ipso fatso". If one is friends with construction contractors and engineers, one will be told "yes, the official story is ridiculous, but they must have a good reason for telling it." After all "they have access to information we don't"...OK, I can go along with that last one! An example: "Sure, WTC7 was demolished, but only for safety." OK, but why not say so?
    "Well, that might be 'classified information', dontcha don't need to know that!"
    Maybe that's the heart of the difference between "truthers" and official story defenders: "You don't need to know"..."If the government wants you to know, they will tell you." Sure. If they want me to have an opinion, I am sure they will tell me what it is. Well, for that crap I could go live in China or Saudi Arabia and make a better living!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...