Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
via The Fact Hunter podcast: James Corbett joins George Hobbs on The Fact Hunter podcast to discuss 9/11, OKC, Bill Gates, the biosecurity state and the real purpose behind the dark agenda driving world events.
VIDEO COURTESY THE FACT HUNTER RUMBLE CHANNEL
SHOW NOTES:
The Fact Hunter podcast
Episode 163 – Meet James Corbett
Episode 086 – Medical Martial Law
Interview 550 – Paul Schreyer on the 9/11 Air Defense
Episode 308 – 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
9/11 Suspects (Full Documentary | 2016)
False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda
Episode 383 – COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity
Who Is Bill Gates? (Full Documentary | 2020)
The Media Matrix (Full Documentary | 2022)
Episode 305 – The Secret Life of Timothy McVeigh
Episode 140 – Requiem for the Suicided: Terrance Yeakey
Interview 1441 – Ripple Effect On OKC And Why It Matters
Episode 352 – The TSA (and other experiments in evil)
Episode 411 – States of Emergency
State of Exception by Giorgio Agamben
Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics by Giorgio Agamben
Debunking the overpopulation myth:
Assume Global Population of 10 Billion People.
Texas is about 269,000 square miles, which is 7,499,289,600,000 square feet.
Divide 7,499,289,600,000 square feet by 10 Billion People equals 749.92896 square feet per person.
A population of 10 Billion people could live in an area the size of Texas, and each person would have 750 square feet all to themselves.
I don’t think that’s a very good argument to be honest. I agree that the earth isn’t overpopulated but Texas would not be a good place to house every single human being on the planet.
Some areas of Texas are not inhabitable and really should be left for the other living things there.
Also, the argument that humans can damage natural habitat with destructive activity is also a sound one.
I a person studies animal populations in the wild there is a natural limit that occurs when a habitat cannot support the population. Human beings also likely have similar mechanisms of internal checks.
I think a stronger argument should address valid concerns about environmental destruction and also how some humans treat other natural species they interact with. There are other living things that exist on the planet. I would not want to live without these beautiful living things.
Industrial pollution is a problem. There are places in China where entire villages of people have cancer because of pollution and cities where seeing a blue sky is very rare. I had a roommate from one of the cities in China and she told me that she rarely saw a blue sky there.
If an over crowded city is the vision of a flourishing human population, that’s not a compelling argument. I would hate that.
Our parasitic overlords would love to stick the worlds population in 15 minute smart city while they have the rest of the natural world. That would be hell on earth.
I don’t want to live in Texas with everyone else on the planet.
But I also don’t think that the earth is overpopulated. I think if people were left alone and not exploited a natural balance would/could be achieved between human beings and the environment they live in over time.
But environmental pollution is a valid concern and the Malthusians use this to say the earth is overpopulated.
Also, birth control, as controversial as it is, has existed for centuries or longer. The idea that families will normally have 20 children is absurd.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I’m not a Malthusian but also want to acknowledge the validity of some of the concerns with expanding human populations on the environment if destructive industries go unchecked.
I like that there are spaces that are less populated and untouched by human activity to allow other living things to exist too. It’s cool to see rare animals in their habitat. The natural world enriches human existence.
correction, some areas of Texas are not habitable.
>>I don’t think that’s a very good argument to be honest.>>
To be “honest” or to push your own ideas??
>>I think a stronger argument should address. . .>>
Ah, there we go, your superior cognitive ability hey?
While James does offer free speech here unlike most alternative blogs, there are a few of you who always attack facts with long winded opinions. Just saying. . .
I like to offer FACTS and let others get what they can from them, and of course usually offer a song link.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE (song)
https* * * ://* * * http://www.bitchute.* * * com/video/yapSoqjsyfEW/
“I like to offer FACTS ”
“Ah, there we go, your superior cognitive ability hey?”
Hypocritical and arrogant much?
Sticking your nose into other people’s business much??
I asked you before to not comment to me when you were pushing your god agenda, remember?
I am under no obligation to accede to your wishes.
You want to act like a butthead, I’m going to call you out. And there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.
>>I am under no obligation to accede to your wishes.>>
Thought you were a Christian. But your name calling and tough guy nonsense doesn’t reflect that.
My bad. I’ll just ignore you in the future.
It’s actually not my argument but things others have pointed out with the Texas analogy. I probably have very few innovative ideas unfortunately but I’ve read someone’s rebuttal to this Texas comment and some of what they said made a lot of sense.
Some places aren’t habitable and are dry desert that lack water and are uncomfortable to live, like parts of Texas.
I moved to a desert and some places aren’t good places to settle because they lack ground water.
Also, the issue of modern society with all the industrial waste is conflated with an expanding human population and people will throw out some solid facts that show that indeed some of the modern technologies are causing harm to the environment. But does a large human population necessarily mean increasing environmental harm such as pollution?
I think separating issues of pollution and “over population” is necessary and the Texas analogy for people who see how many humans live in their environment is not compelling, or who know some places aren’t habitable or comfortable to live in.
You see my comment as not compelling and that’s totally fine. But I’m offering an opinion that can be backed up with common sense and facts. There are some places on earth that don’t lend themselves to habitation by humans and even if we could live anywhere there are many destructive habits people have that do harm the environment. Our psychopathic tyrants are the worst offenders for sure with the wars and pollution but selfishness and lack of empathy exist in the common man too.
Even the new place I live in, many of the people have a bad attitude towards the wildlife in the area, just kill things if they get in the way. Just shoot the rattlesnakes because they are dangerous. Shoot the coyotes and the mountain lions. I mean why?
Humans are unique and can empathize with other living things but this doesn’t mean that humans are the only important life form on the planet. I like rattlesnakes. They are dangerous and I’d kill one if I had to but just out of convenience? That’s wrong and many Americans are like that.
Having a free speech comment board is great where ideas that people find offensive can be discussed. I never said my ideas (the few of them that I really own) are better but I’ll point out a weak argument when I think it’s weak.
Surely Texas is just a useful example that allows people to visualize a concept? I don’t think it was a recommendation that we live cheek by jowl.
Yeah I think that’s probably true. And I get the point that the planet is very very large and humans don’t occupy an extensive amount of the earth, nor could we occupy every single nook and cranny.
But the arguments I’ve heard against the idea of overpopulation presented by Malthusians has lacked an acknowledgement of environmental pollution and also lacked acknowledgment of sound arguments about destruction of natural habitats influenced by human activity. I have not heard anyone acknowledge this basic common sense observation that anyone can see.
Modern living is wasteful, unhealthy and destructive even in the absence of war.
But other species also destroy and change the environment too, so this also needs to be considered. Humans aren’t the only destroyers but because of our ability to manipulate the environment we can do far more damage that can cause profound damage to other living things that may actually harm us long term.
Forget about size, look at waste and pollution and what companies do most of this. These nasty parasitic companies are the biggest wasters and destroyers and they encourage the worst in humanity.
Bill
The problem with your point (Not that I’m all that worried about excessive population) is that you dont “just” live in your house….it takes an amount of actual land to feed each human…..I think that it used to be several square miles per hunter gatherer but you can squeeze way more food per square mile these days with farming, and useless grasslands turn into cow and sheep meat with minimal work.
My two points are
a)At some point even if you could easy physically fit every person on the planet there is SOME limit on how many you can feed, clothe, make power for,ect…..some folks would have to take a massive cut in standard of living were the population to even double (It wont)
b)The whole civilized world is heading into demographic collapse, and the lack of good workers is going to roll up the standard of living real fast very soon. Not even third worlds are wanting to do hard physical work in bad weather – even assuming they have a the skills and IQ to do so.
The only places with population excesses are dumps like Africa, the people in them WILL exceed carrying capacity and then start flooding into and ruining other places.
As people have “argumented” elsewhere: what about golf courses and shopping malls?
Yes, we can fit less people because golf courses and shopping malls. What a delightfully twisted point of view.
With all due respect, but this is illusory purely theoretical accounting.
As other commenters have pointed out, it is of course a question of resources that the land, fauna and flora in question per person can sustain and the climate and water resources.
In northern climates like here in Sweden to even be remotely self-sustaining with a varied diet, building/heating material, clothing and energy you need ballpark around 2 hectares of land, i.e. 215 000 square feet per person.
Though southern climates with no real winters require significantly less (ca. 0.5-1 hectare/person), there are other problems, like droughts, limited ground-water, floods, arability and pests etc. limiting the yields.
It is just that modern society with large-scale farming/forestry, urbanization and constant centralizing transport (at average around 1000 km per US/EU grocery-store foodstuff) treacherously hides the fact that absolutely everything bought and sold anywhere requires enormeous amounts of land and resources some very concrete place on the planet.
And as sidenote, the irony is that more than half of the worlds population is still today fed NOT by modern high tech large scale mechanized agriculture, but by small/minute-scale of medieval- tech, meaning manual and animal powered (in 2-and 3rd world countries) and it is the latter tech that actually has a higher yield per square foot/meter, i.e. is more cost/energy (EROI) effective. The former is only superior in regard to yield per man-hour invested.
Regarding Texas specifically in addition comes that half of the land is desert, useless for foodproduction and that the average american lifestyle requires 5 times (= ca 10 hectares) the abovementioned acreage per person:
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/thoc/land.html
Globally 57% of the planets area is unusable desert and mountain terrain, leaving around 7 Billion hectares totally available for our around 7 Billion inhabitants, i.e. 1 hectare/person, which only somehow works because the majority of those 7 billions live as mentioned in southern climates and far poorer life-styles/diets than we.
I think the issue of waste should be considered, not merely numbers though. In the US there is massive waste of food that goes straight into the trash and also people who go hungry. Also large corporations, big agriculture and Walmart and the like are polluters of the environment. The CEOs and other greedy psychopaths at the top are just fine with waste and pollution and exploiting consumers and have no concern about the ramifications.
It is not just numbers or land needed to support people but also misuse of resources and waste.
A lot of the “food” is not healthy and is leading to an obese population that have nutritional deficiencies and multiple diseases.
I think a switch to local farms and community gardens could be an improvement. Also water capture technology and other innovative ways to spare resources could minimize environmental impacts.
I think quality of life would actually improve with local food when possible and ethical practices of food production. Also making products that will last rather than those that break to assure the purchase of a new one.
Are Americans really happy with all the gadgets and fast food? Is this really quality of life? I look around when I’m in cities and see people staring at their phones ignoring the moment at hand and they look unhappy.
I do think the population idea in a way skirts around the other issues so people don’t focus on the psychopaths on top of the pyramid.
What is the source of the mentioned surface per human that is supposedly required?
The current production schemes are all extremely wasteful and inefficient, and this is so by design because people in power put in a lot of resistance all along the way from which they gain even more resistance.
How do we know there are 7 or 8 or however many people in this world of ours? These figures are provided by the same people that usually lie non stop.
We need to stop taking things for granted. It is not sufficient to just divide two numbers that have been provided by our masters and build rock solid conclusions on them.
It is a matter of fact that we, the people, have an effect on our world. But it is also a matter of fact that by far the worst damage, destruction and waste does not come from the people. We play our role in it, yes, but the source of all of that is with various giant corporations. They are the enablers.
THE PLAN HASN’T CHANGED IN MORE THEN A CENTURY
At work today: UN Agenda 21&2030; UN Wildlife Project; The New World Order Agenda, and others.
ALL of them part of the planned reduction of the population under 24/7 track, trace, and data basing living in 5G SMART cities, no private vehicles, no access to the country side, most living on the Government dole and forced to obey any laws or regulations put out by the Government to maintain the dole.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Also…
Zbigniew Brzezinski (Morning Joe’s father in law)
Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (written 50 years ago)
“People, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations.”
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.
The Texas analogy always comes up. 750 square feet all to themselves….no roads or hospitals or farms just people living next to each basically on top of each other. . . Seems like paradise
I agree, the dumbest idea to argue; what is the point any way
I recall the bible command in Genesis “…to go forth and multiply and possess the world”’
No directive what this should look like, but I don’t think overpopulation and exploiting was meant , but Mankind has been given a free choice.
Problems arose as people got ignorant. deceived by unnatural temptations and bad machinations as freedom was eroded away little by little stealthily
Insisting we need not to worry is on the same level
E.F Schumacher a wise philosopher looking at the world situation postulated a simple thought “small is beautiful…” .
On the issue on overpopulation please I like the answer of the questions:
,
What are the positive aspects, benefits and trends impacting of a growing world population?
Why is the discussion and concerns, hinting of just considering a saturation point or limiting number of people on this finite earth a point to heat up tempers?
If 700 sqft (size of an older Mobile-home)for each living wall to wall can cover Texas, whow interesting argument.
Any one envision food production without all those harmful inputs of mass producing aware person like to live without?
Never mind the flood of manufacturing more or less useful consumer goods and expecting a next to zero impact on resources as again a finite system would require.
Collectively burgeoning population show no self control to realize the natural limitation; creating a vacuum to others to step in and assume, implement their ideas.
So far size of populations show a correlation to more degradation on all what makes life enjoyable and stay within the confines of a given pleasant Planet.
I hear the ones whining about those elite Power structures and all their Agendas, some of those definite depopulation plans; but miss the serious effort to come up with a counter system to survive.
To expect that more people on this globe will bring a rethink to tackle problem in win-win-win fashion, good luck…
If this topic is not openly discussed and stifled with categorical Opinions in an echo chamber where is the power to change?
So what is good to virtually grow unchecked; muted and fretting that others will make changes.
Self control is better than the control system which is set up as we look on….
Hopium btw is to exclude issue from being taken serious.
You pose good questions. I’ll have to think about them. A 750 sq. ft living space is very small.
To be completely honest, I like having room and having places that are desolate without light pollution and the sound of cars and stuff like that. It’s like a natural Valium. The stress just melts away.
The Texas analogy IMO is not a strong argument against overpopulation and over crowding or environmental destruction or the valid points about the fact that ordinary people can be harmful and down right evil. It’s not just the evil tyrants that people have to watch out for unfortunately.
There are some very evil people out there, selfish people who will rob and kill for a small amount of money.
I’ve lived in a big city and there were some serious downsides to living in close quarters with a lot of people. I like to be able to get away from people, solitude if you will.
I’d hate to live in complete solitude though and I do actually like people, more or less. I’ve met some really good people in my lifetime and know that there are some amazing innovative caring people, and brave too. I’d hate to see those kinds of people go away.
Arguments for expanding population, or reproduction at replacement levels are creating new innovative caring and loving people that discover some really cool things. Positive innovation and positive change. Our sun will burn out eventually, maybe we’ll be able to explore space?
Arguments against expanding population, the rat utopia situation? Or a technocracy where everything is tracked, traced and monitored. People live in large high rises and can’t see a blue sky with all the industrial pollution?
It depends a lot on the quality of civilization and society and ethical considerations.
Some people haven’t spent time in a big city and seen the underbelly of ordinary depravity so can’t relate to some of the concerns. Cities do seem overpopulated to be completely honest and they are unhealthy. People think expanding human population means more cities and pollution.
If people can separate these issues, I think would be important.
I also think a look at the field of evolutionary biology would be interesting. The Malthusian argument is not really applicable to humans because we are complex and not insects. This guy studied insects and knew nothing about human biology as far as I know. I mean he had a biology class, but wasn’t a research scientist in evolutionary biology and genetics. So his opinions really should be taken with a large amount of salt.
I know with mammals and other animals and equilibrium is reached between the environment and the fertility rate. Populations don’t just expand indefinitely. I’ll have to look into this more, what actual studies have been done.
I do know that these evil globalists use this overpopulation idea a lot, so that alone gives me concern that there is some bullshit going on with their narrative.
cu.h.j
“…I also think a look at the field of evolutionary biology would be interesting. ….”
You should look at Dr Dutton, “The jolly Heretic” for that kind of thing….he has some pretty good books but I want to get his “past is a future country” and read it soon.
He is predicting a continuation in the drop off in IQ and most of the world sinking into third world status- its like the idea of the city being “an IQ shredder” for civilization because it sucks in the smart folks and lowers their fertility.
Also, the idea of “over population” is at this point in time a myth because there is a dramatic shrink underway in many places, like Japan I think.
People have discussed the demographic crunch and this may have very negative consequences. Small is not always less destructive. Large is not necessarily more destructive than small.
A small global elite has financed killing millions of people.
What I mean to say is that I think this is a very complex issue that has not been discussed with enough well thought out evidence.
The Texas analogy for me is not compelling and in fact may give play right into the hands of the globalists.
I think these parasites want more evil stupid people and less kind, intelligent loving people. I am against their manipulation of humanity. I want them to go away. They are a more dangerous existential threat than a random psychopath at this point.
“So far size of populations show a correlation to more degradation on all what makes life enjoyable and stay within the confines of a given pleasant Planet.”
To be fair, correlation is not causation. Is it size or is it the way people live?
Could a large population live in a way that actually improved the environment?
I do think this is possible and someone will figure it out. That’s one of the cool things about humans is that there are some very wonderful innovations that people share to make the world a better place.
Yes, we can’t expect the rubes to resolve this problem, so lets do it for them. And we can shut down this website while we are at it, why don’t we.
Over and over, in interview after interview, James keeps repeating (as in this interview):
“My point has always been, I think the pyrotechnics of that day are themselves a form of distraction, or are at the very least the honeypot that gets everyone fighting with each other about their specific ideas about this…”
And this is without the host ever bringing up the topic of pyrotechnics!!!
James was asked a simple question about planes, “Were they CGI, do you think it was an Operation Northwoods where maybe the planes were swapped etc.?” He did not ask you about pyrotechnics!
The ‘pyrotechnics’ formed part of the physical evidence. Without the physical evidence we have nothing on the perps, absolutely nothing. The physical evidence happens to be the smoking gun that no one can deny or sweep under the rug. It’s in your face.
I don’t like the way James lumps everyone in the same boat. If you are studying the so-called ‘pyrotechnics’ of 9/11 then by default you are part of the group who is engaged in endless in-fighting and you have absolutely nothing to contribute to 9/11 truth.
If he doesn’t say this outright, he always implies this.
And then in the same breath (in this interview) he goes on to tell us about the possibility of plane swapping having taken place, a la Operation Northwoods and passengers lists being swapped, the radar gaps etc.
Well I’ve got news for you James, ‘plane swapping’ is right in the middle of the things the ‘pyrotechnic-ers’ discuss!
And so is the swapping of the passenger lists. And so is the radar gaps. And so are the war games etc. etc.
The pyrotechnic-ers discuss the whole gamut of 9/11 evidence including the circumstantial evidence that you are most fond of.
Just because the ‘pyrotechnics’ are a part of 9/11 that you are not comfortable with or may not have spent much time researching does not mean they are unimportant or form some sort of sub-standard evidence.
I hope this will be the last interview where you attempt to poo poo the so-called ‘pyrotechnics’ of 9/11.
Would you feel better if he had said “everything that has been shown to the public regarding 9-11 was meant to cause division and infighting?”
The roadrunner plane included.
“Would you feel better if he had said “everything that has been shown to the public regarding 9-11 was meant to cause division and infighting?”
The roadrunner plane included.”
No I wouldn’t feel better if he had said that.
First let me briefly discuss the ‘roadrunner plane’ which you’ve mentioned a few times over the years.
By citing it repeatedly, one would assume you don’t believe planes slammed into the towers?
The roadrunner proponents believe that what we see is CGI for the planes entering the buildings.
The problem with the CGI theory is that there are more than 30 different videos of the plane entering WTC2. Most of the videos were taken by amateurs. In all 30+ videos the plane disappears completely into the tower.
Why would perps go to the trouble of preparing just one special CGI video of the plane entering WTC2, when all of the amateur videos have the plane entering the tower at the exact same time and tower position?
One common assumption made by the CGI theorists is that it had to be CGI because otherwise the plane would have bounced off the tower or broken into pieces and fallen to the ground.
This would have been expected had the face of the tower been constructed of only solid steel, with no windows.
But there were windows and that’s where the planes passed through. The steel columns acted as a grater and sliced and diced the planes into pieces, allowing them to enter the tower.
I wouldn’t say that everything that has been shown to the public regarding 9/11 was meant to cause division and infighting I don’t know how you came up with that idea? And I wouldn’t feel better if James stated that.
James talks specifically about the ‘pyrotechnics’ as having caused division and infighting amongst the 9/11 truthers and (the icing on the cake) that this infighting destroyed the 9/11 truth movement! To me that’s utter nonsense.
If only they would have just followed the money trail or outed the suspects or studied the history of Al Qaeda then surely the 9/11 truth movement would have been a success! There would have been no infighting whatsoever.
A full 9/11 investigation would have taken place. All the criminals would have been tried in court, convicted and put away behind bars or executed.
Damn those dastardly ‘pyrotechnic-ers’. They messed up everything!
> By citing it repeatedly, one would assume you don’t believe planes slammed into the towers?
I am certain that the video showing the plane completely penetrating the building is face.
> In all 30+ videos the plane disappears completely into the tower.
Something that is physically impossible. Therefore these videos have to fake. The number of sources does not matter. People can be bought and payed for, videos can be faked; physics is incorruptible, it’s does not acknowledge existence of paradoxes and does not require suspension of disbelief.
> But there were windows and that’s where the planes passed through.
The outer hull of the building was made of steel. There were some pictures showing construction of the building where this was plainly evident, but I did not save these photos and later was not able to locate the aga.
> The steel columns acted as a grater and sliced and diced the planes into pieces, allowing them to enter the tower.
This is absolutely not supported by the “video evidence”.
> I don’t know how you came up with that idea?
Common sense, I guess.
> To me that’s utter nonsense.
Infighting in general did destroy the “truth movement”. I did not get from James this pyrotechnics related infighting did it specifically.
> truth movement would have been a success!
The only modicum of success a “truth movement” can obtain is for great masses of people to walk away and to internalize the realization that life of slavery is not one that is worth living. And then take the appropriate actions and do whatever it takes to align what we do with what we say and with what we think.
In this regard, most every “truth movement” is an absolute joke, full of people begging for half measures, at best.
mkey: “I am certain that the video showing the plane completely penetrating the building is face. “
mkey we have been through this dance before. It would probably be instructive to re-read our discussion at this link. Also the discussion I had with vadoum and you at this link. In my discussion with vadoum I brought up one of my favourite 9/11 videos.
I went into excruciating detail explaining why it’s such a powerful video. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a plane crashed into WTC2. You left a comment saying you would listen to the video with a good pair of headphones but you never got back to us on what you heard. While good headphones are preferred, they really aren’t necessary.
The video clearly shows the men shooting it were traumatized by the plane debris flying over their heads. The fear in their voices is palpable. They listened to the plane approach the tower. They heard it crash into it. They ducked immediately after as the engine and other plane debris came shooting their way. They heard (as we can) plane debris land on the streets, the landing gear land between two buildings and the engine land at Church and Murray St., (after it ricocheted off a building).
As they were walking away from the towers they saw plane debris on the streets and people who were injured by it. “Let’s go, let’s get the fuck out’a here!” They were scared out of their minds!
mkey: “Infighting in general did destroy the “truth movement”. I did not get from James this pyrotechnics related infighting did it specifically.”
If you take the time to go back and re-visit his many 9/11 interviews, James has repeated the same mantra over and over. That the 9/11 truthers were obsessed with fighting about the pyrotechnics and this specifically was the cause of the failure of the 9/11 truth movement.
I stated recently that the 9/11 truth movement was doomed before it even started! Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, was going to stop the plans of the 9/11 perpetrators after they passed the first week hurdle. It was then a fait accompli. Same goes for the scamdemic, same for Oklahoma City, same for RFK, MLK, JFK etc.
Whether 9/11 truthers focused on the ‘pyrotechnics’, or the circumstantial evidence exclusively, it would have made no difference at all. The perps control the media, the government, the military, etc. Controlling a 9/11 truth movement is child’s play for them.
The 9/11 Truth Movement served its purpose as a tool to educate those interested in learning the truth about what happened on 9/11. It was never however going to bring about any justice to those who perpetrated the crimes.
Thank you for reminding me, I indeed had that video on my todo list.
I will reiterate that in my opinion you are handsomely extrapolating and jumping to conclusions. You hear things and match them to what you want them to mean. That does not mean you are wrong, but your interpretation competes with any other number of interpretations out there.
Did anyone in that video actually talk about a plane? Many early reporters reported a missile, not a plane. News people reported into studios about missiles. Talking heads told them they are wrong, they synced’em up to the narrative and everything else is history.
People are scared and they must be scared because of plane debris? Could it be they are scared because of flying debris fullstop? Buildings are burning and blowing up, one would expect all sorts of parts to be flying around.
The sound of something hitting the tower is exactly what one would expect a big ass plane to sound? To me, no. I would expect a louder, deeper, more protracted sound. Especially for a rather large plane flying at high speed on very low altitude. Same goes for the “engine dropping” sound which, according to my impression, has been made by a far lighter object.
I remember James talking about his lack of interest in “how” the buildings were destroyed, but I am really not aware of his insisting that pyrotechnics related discussions were the exact culprit.
But I don’t agree that anything related to planes or even 9/11 itself caused the truth movement to fail.
The problem with this and other truth movements is that they do not go far enough. One has to be an extremist to reach the truth and none of the truther types do it. They will discuss politics, they will discuss the economics, they want the police to protect them and they want the politicians to shower them with funny money.
The will discuss all sorts of garbage, but they won’t touch the topics people hold closest in their blind belief. James at least touches on some of these topics at times. Topics such as “economics is a dogma”, “democracy is a dogma”, “money is a fake god” etc. People blindly believe things that do not exist in the real world, how can we expect to see any improvement?
If you take any average individual from the streets of this wretched world of ours and shower them with some paper they will, regardless of their current situation, feel like they are at the top of the world. Almost everyone just wants to feel like they are set for life. Let me get mine and then I can weep for burning Palestinian babies on twatter for a few minutes every day.
People who have us by the balls have us by the balls exactly because of this sense of not belonging, every man for himself massively omnipresent mentality.
Oh, and btw, bringing these people to “justice” would not serve one goddamn thing. They are not massively creating this reality we live in, we are. You think if these people came forward the masses would believe them?
“I will reiterate that in my opinion you are handsomely extrapolating and jumping to conclusions. You hear things and match them to what you want them to mean. That does not mean you are wrong, but your interpretation competes with any other number of interpretations out there.”
I hear things that most people don’t hear because I am a musician and have extremely sensitive hearing. If you played this video to a hundred people most probably would not even even notice the sounds I am describing. They’ll notice the plane crash sound and the talking going on, but probably not the other ‘extraneous’ sounds that I describe in excruciating detail.
“People are scared and they must be scared because of plane debris? Could it be they are scared because of flying debris fullstop? Buildings are burning and blowing up, one would expect all sorts of parts to be flying around.”
These guys heard the plane crash into WTC2 and saw flying debris coming directly their way. They heard the debris crash onto the streets right near them. They saw plane debris on the streets (1:08) and people injured next to the debris. It’s all there.
Listen to the guy at (2:20) “I was looking up, I was watching it come at us” still with panic in his voice.
Why do you think they wanted to get the hell out of there after the crash? They were scared out of their minds!
CGI doesn’t make people scared. Planes crashing into buildings throwing debris right at you will make anyone run for their lives!
But you can deny it if you choose.
I am sure you made up your mind about missiles many years ago and I don’t think anything will ever change it. My post is not just for you. It’s for other people here too.
“I remember James talking about his lack of interest in “how” the buildings were destroyed, but I am really not aware of his insisting that pyrotechnics related discussions were the exact culprit.”
“How the buildings were destroyed” and “pyrotechnics” are one and the same for James.
It’s all there on this site. As I said, he has mentioned this countless times. You could find it easily if you really wanted to.
I bought the Documentary “A Noble Lie” DVD many years ago and I think that is where James got the Terrence Teakey Story from. James also did an interview with an Attorney who’s brother was killed by the FBI likely because he was mistaken for the second guy in the Truck, and he exposed a secret Federal Program called “Patcon” (Con Patriots as I read it). Anyway, Patcon was a Program of Lies and Deception (likely put together by some Think Tank) to take the pressure off the Federal Government for it’s immoral actions taken at Rubi Ridge and Waco.
As I see it, these Godless beings who think that the Truth is what ever they can get people to believe, and have no regard for human life other than their own, planned out the Oklahoma City Bombing knowing that they would kill innocent Americans, so as to take control of the narrative. The plan was to condemn these militia by way of the media, and it worked. I spoke with a number of the Michigan Militia (in 2010 after I moved back to Michigan) that had met Mcveigh and said that they knew right off that he was a government informant. They held Meak (a former Marine) in jail for over a year on bogus charges, but he had a good support base. In the end the Judge ruled that if anyone had committed a crime here it was the FBI. Indeed, Corporate media did not report the outcome of that scam.
Anyway, I went to a party after Meak was set free an talked with him myself. He was such a great guy that he got elected as the local Constable. That is what I call Community. When you can chase the criminal FBI out of town, you know you got it.
On the other hand, Terry Nichols is still being silenced because he knows the truth.
This shit has got to stop, eh!
Truthseeker
“… Anyway, Patcon was a Program of Lies and Deception (likely put together by some Think Tank) to take the pressure off the Federal Government for it’s immoral actions taken at Rubi Ridge and Waco….”
Blackpilled, on Odysee did a multi-part stream/talk (hours and hours….) about how the gov and NGOs ….yikes SEVEN PARTS come up when i put patcon in the search bar!!!
NOTE that he normally starts off with some super jank music intros because their streams, which is kinda off putting
https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b?view=content
https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b/patcon1:a
First PatCon stream
Thanks Duck,
These are good links above, and Patcon is a Big subject (seven part series, eh). I say the MO of Patcon which is an FBI undercover Operation, is that of Zionism. They say you can know someone is Christian by their Love and their dedication to exposing real Truths. Anti-Christian would then be, Hate and Division created byway of lies and deceit. I see Zionism is the core of the problem, and it has taken control of the United States Government.
Christian Zionism is thus an Oxymoron, for you cannot be a real Christian and a Zionist (Anti-Christ) at the same time. “Useful idiots” is likely a better term for these so called “Christian Zionists” who have bought into the Zionist Lies and Deceit.
I didn’t have time to watch the 4 hour video, but I did see a lot of it on the Jan 6th Lies and Deceit being pushed, and it does fit into the Zionist MO.
This also ties into what the Zionists are doing to Palestine today.
I love the way George Hobbs starts out his show with introducing James Corbett as a prolific Truth Seeker. Indeed, none of us has all the answers, but James has done a lot of great work based upon extensive research which few of us are willing to do, but he likes do it, eh! I can’t tell you how many people I have recommended his “Who is Bill Gates” series to, however the few that I have been able to persuade to watch it have come away with a changed view of who they thought Bill Gates was.
This was a very interesting interview as it was able to keep my attention for over an hour without any graphics. Perhaps James expressions helped make it more interesting than if it were just an audio, but I liked the subject matter, and here are two Truth Seekers, with online audiences, sharing what they think about so called “Terrorist Events” that changed the world. Indeed, these were Terrorist Events, however the Terrorists are not who we have deliberately been lead to believe they are.
Which brings me to, Zionism; what is it, and where did it come from? What a ballsy Deep Dive Documentary that would make, eh.
From my current prospective, Zionism was founded on the assumed Superiority of the Jews (the chosen Ones). Although Jesus Christ was raised in a Jewish community and was taught the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) we do not know if he was a Jew. The Bible says that he was 12 when he wondered off and was found impressing the Scribes with his knowledge.
My Theory is that his mother was so worried that the Zionists (although they were not called that at the time) would kill him if they found out who he was (after all, King Herod had the first born of every family in Bethlehem killed just 12 years earlier) that she sent him off with Wise Men to see the world and learn. So he returns to the land where he was raised after 18 years, at the age of 30 and begins to teach and assemble students that will spread and continue his teachings after he is gone. Given that he was so smart as to impress the Scribes when he was 12, one would assume that he could read and Write, yet we have no evidence of his writings. It was his Apostles that wore about him in about 70 AD, or 40 years after his Crucifixion.
So, based on my Theory, we have it that after 18 years of intensive learning, which could have included every Religion in that part of the world at that time, Jesus returns to where he was raised to teach his people, by word and by example, how to make the world a better place, not just for Jews but for all people. Many former Jews were among the first Christians, however St Paul, who’s writings are said to have been made public about 20 years after the Crucifixion was formally somewhat of a bounty hunter for the Romans. Can you imagine people preaching peace being a threat to the Roman Empire? Perhaps these people of peace were undermining the Roman work force by teaching the servants that they did not have to be slaves.
“Although Jesus Christ was raised in a Jewish community and was taught the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) we do not know if he was a Jew.”
Who is this “we” that you speak of Kemosabe?
Anyone who has read the Bible and doesn’t disregard what it says, knows without doubt that Jesus was a Jew.
Where in the world did you get the idea that Jesus Christ wasn’t a Jew?
Anti-Semitic is not the same as Anti-Zionist, who are in fact, Anti-Christian, or the Anti Christ in the real sense of the word.
As I see it, the Zionists (Anti-Christ) have deliberately and deceitfully taken what they know themselves to be, and used it as a tool to divide Jews and Christians by calling anyone that attempts to expose them as Anti-Semitic.
These Zionists are killing Jews along with Christians everyday, and the Corporate Government residing over the United States supports them at every turn. Not only does this Banker controlled Corporate Government fund the Zionist State of Israel, it has waged war against the American People. Jan 6th 2021 is just one recent example of how the Zionists have played Trump and Corporate media to divide the people. The World Wide COVID Scam is yet another example of how Corporate media was used to divide the people. It is the “Haters” that are accusing us of hate crimes. They are the “Anti Christ”, and Zionism is the term they hide under.
I thus, have no problem proclaiming to be an Anti-Zionist. Jews are fine, but they need to see the light.
Also, the definition of Semitic has changed to only mean Jews when in fact it used to refer to all Semitic people that include Palestinians.
I don’t like when definitions change, like how the term pandemic changed to suit a narrative. That really bothers me.
But there’s no reclaiming the word Semitic now, so now it means anti-Jewish.
Q.F.C
You are almost there Jamiesan, you are becoming a media sensation. What are you going to do with it?.
“Here we go.”
“Where you going?”
” I’m going over the top and out of this trench. You ready for the fight?”
” I’m going over the top but I’m not going to fight.”
” Well you and I will share in death what we can’t share in life.”
“I’m glad we can share in something.”
Back to what is familiar. March on Harvard , March against Zionism. This is how it starts. From bottoms up.
https://www.youtube.com/live/FB216FoziIU?si=_5mwvISZ8IVmjtod
What do you think of this?
How is this going to play out?
What is going to be the outcome?
Well, the leader, the organizer is going to participate, he’s going to show up.
Much Like the brave, admiral people in Dallas HRS has recently told us about. Fighting the poisons being forced on the citizens of Dallas.
Whether you fight or don’t, just show up and be present. It scares the poop out of the PTSB. Force them to make a mistake in how they will deal with your participation.
It’s the marching season.
The comments on APAC are interesting.
Now, Nov.11, 2023 US , the reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/live/d0hVuPrptvw?si=0c7DdlfBCmGdIgD7
Being live, what is the significance of being live?
Well the team should have been ready for such as that, that what we witnessed. A provocateur! A payed, and it could be freelance, military, W.S.bank security, Harvard could have hired those present; disrupting the gathering.
Where the hell was Magnum P.I, where was Rockford? Jeez if you can’t afford it do it yourself.
The point is did the Doc hire someone to follow those provocateurs back to headquarters. Back to their homes. Identifying the agents and calling them out. No, so is he a payed actor!?
None of this was done. Dallas has a butt load of P.I.s and should have followed all those Q.o.Life and Culture hired commissioners around. Was it done.
If not , it’s not a serious attempt. It’s failure is certain. In Boston or Dallas.
Once you go over the top of the trench the bullets are real and to pussyfoot around will be mental masterbation. Nothing will change if you are not willing to fight as you are being fought against. They are dirty and you should be willing to get wet and dirty.
Where the hell was Magnum P.I, where was Rockford? Jeez if you can’t afford it do it yourself.
I liked this conversation quite a bit. Good to know there are such decent hosts out there, taking audiences to various places.