Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

Home Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued. Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

Paul Barbara

@ Clark
I can only speak for myself. I use my previous experiences, reading etc. to judge the likelihood of what is true. I may on occasion be wrong, but when (if) later proof comes up, I was generally right. I started campaigning practically 50 years ago, so I can safely say I know how evil our leaders are, and their Puppetmasters (even though I may well not know who precisely these Puppetmasters are).
Re a previous comment:
‘..If a claim contradicts the scientific consensus, be very, very wary about propagating it. Such claims need to be thrashed out in the scientific literature, where the most knowledgable congregate…’
Unfortunately money controls the ‘Scientific Consensus’ these days; scientists, doctors, lecturers, universities overwhelmingly succumb to the lure of the filthy lucre.
Others are murdered. For a long time I had a Red Top, I think the Mirror, where the front page had 50-odd doctors and/or scientists who had died in mysterious circumstances or admittedly been murdered. Not long ago, I threw the lot away, as I had a stack of newspaper cuttings going back decades, which I thought I’m never going to sort out, and use, and if there is something I want to refer to I can always find it on the internet. I reckoned without the increasing logarithms and pruning of contentious articles, and was unable to find the ’50-odd dead doctors’ article, but I did find this:
‘The Mystery Of The Dead Scientists’:
That is another way the PTB adjust the ‘scientific consensus’ in their favour.