I have an obituary for her saved somewhere locally. Why was that on the internet if she is not dead?
The entire point of Q was to prevent people like us from starting a civil war. They really did not need to tell us any of the stuff they did. They just needed us to "trust the plan". Now I know why they said it so many times.
I think he was something like what you might call controlled opposition. Now he gets interviewed on Tucker. Just like Elon Musk and Bill Maher, Alex Jones was a Cabal asset and now he is a Q asset.
I think in fact he was not technically "controlled opposition". Recall that Q said that the Cabal thinks that they are obligated to tell you what they are going to do before they do it, sort of like a kind of ceremonial "I told you so". Alex Jones fulfilled that obligation on the part of the Cabal: he told us what they were doing.
Why do you think so many movies reveal the Cabal agenda: Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Soylent Green, White Noise, and every zombie movie ever made, just to name a few.
We've been sternly warned around here that Q is not a Christian movement and to limit the posts as such.
How is that relevant? I am not making a post insisting in some particular religion, including Christianity.
Then we get a post that says "don't believe the bible" stickied.
First, there is no one single object called "the bible". It is a collection of the writings of many people over many centuries and was also edited and changed by many people in history. What books it includes really depends on who you ask.
Second, my post is not directly about any particular bible at all. It is a reference to scholarly research on the context of the Eastern Mediterranean / South-West Asian culture in ancient times, and the written and archaeological evidence we have for that culture. This culture pre-dates the Hebrew bible as well as the Christian bible, and was one of the cultures from which they came. We do the same kind of historical research regarding Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Chinese, etc. and other cultures as well. This kind of work helps inform us of how we got to where we are today.
My primary point in making the post is to point out that Q makes a reference to "Them", which we have also come to call "The Cabal". Whatever this group is, like all groups it has a specific purpose and specific practices. Those come from somewhere and have likely been around for a long time. Did they come out of nowhere? History does not seem to work that way. Where do they come from then?
Well, we can look at the historical record for similar cultures. Further, my point about cultures being timeless until the encounter a cultural discontinuity is that it makes sense to consider ancient cultures that have possibly persisted for a long time as possibly being the source of "The Cabal".
I then offer one scholarly work by a professional who actually knows the history and languages of ancient South-West Asia better than likely nearly all of you. Unless you can read your favorite ancient book in the original language that it was written in and know the history of how it was written and put together over time, you might want to at least listen to those who do, such as Stavrakopoulou. You might learn something.
My take is Stavrakopoulou's conclusions are exactly the kind of thing we would expect from an atheist Hebrew Bible scholar, but this does not make them neutral, unbiased, or necessarily the best research.
You seem to have missed the point of empirical research: we let reality do the talking; the researcher just sets it up our view onto reality. Can that view have bias? Yes, but measuring reality is the ultimate source of truth.
Do you have a problem with non-Egyptians studying ancient Egyptian religion? Do you have a problem with non-Mayans studying ancient Mayan religion? How about non-Greeks studying the ancient Greek pantheon? How about non-Scandinavians studying the practices of the Vikings?
We see Americans of every kind making commentary on all of the above without being part of those traditions. No one says they should not. No one says that we cannot have an opinion on the Greek or Scandinavian traditions, even if they are not our traditions.
If someone said on this board that Scientology is abusive or crazy, is that invalid because that person is not a Scientologist? What if they have empirical evidence of their assertions about Scientology?
Why cannot we apply the same historical method to the history of religions of South-West Asia as we would to any other part of the world?
Insisting that one particular book is an infallible source of truth is not scholarship. There is no reason to believe that your favorite book is infallible and it is rather uncivil and disrespectful of the intelligence of others of you to do so.
Stavrakopoulou is an actual historical researcher. The same methods she uses are used to study the history of all other civilizations. The same research standards apply to any civilization, not just the one with which you identify.
How the hell did this get stickied?
Are you saying only posts which agree with your point of view are allowed to be stickied? Even those that have empirical evidence? Reality is the source of truth, not your favorite book.
The current Left insists that their point of view is the only one that is tolerable and that others should not even have the right to be spoken. Are you doing the same? It sounds like it to me. I request that you withdraw your remark.
That's correct. See my argument using conservation of energy elsewhere on this page.
Just south-east of the Pentagon is a big body of water called the Chesapeake Bay. What can you hide in a big body of water? How about a submarine that can launch a cruise missile.
It is really a fantastic piece of evidence that deserves its own sticky post.
There is nothing secret in the area to use as a reason to hide the footage except whatever happened on that day. The Pentagon parking lot is not Area 51. Freeway 395 goes by the Pentagon so close that you could pull over and throw a rock and hit the building. Between the freeway and the building is just this chain link fence. Everyone sees that location as they drive by on their commute every day. They only thing the FBI could be hiding by hiding the footage is whatever happened that day.
Making buildings fall like that is the bread and butter of professional demolition teams. There is no need to conjecture the use of something exotic, like a nuke.
It seems that Elon and Alex Jones and Tucker are all oddly marching to the same beat. They all work for Q now, whether at first they wanted to or not.
WOW! That's an amazing photo. Thank you for posting.
WHERE ARE THE WINGS OF THE PLANE?! Wings do not just disappear when they hit a wall.
Where are the ENGINES that were on the wings? They are huge chunks of steel and titanium. They supposedly hit that wall at 500 miles an hour, and yet they left NO visible evidence of their impact?
See my conservation of energy argument elsewhere on this page. It's just high school physics to demonstrate that, to quote the head of NIST during the first NIST press conference after 2001/9/11, "a building cannot undergo progressive collapse at free fall".
This argument is bogus completely. It is full of gratuitous complexity so as to hide the simplicity of the conservation of energy argument that I give elsewhere on this page. No amount of complexity can change the fact that, to quote the head of NIST at the first press conference after 9/11 "a structure cannot undergo progressive collapse at free fall".
I heard otherwise, but if I recall correctly, they still fell in a way that looks utterly implausible.
May I suggest watching the video of the Chinese demolishing an entire ghost city of tower buildings. Since there is no one in the city, they did not bother with the "make the building fall into its own footprint" technique. Instead, they just blow up the base of the building.
Do the buildings fall down straight into their own footprint? No, they keel over sideways. That's what you expect frankly. They may fall at free fall, but not while also destroying the building. The rest of the building is fine until it hits the ground.
I analyzed the fall of WTC7 because, again, at free fall, which is the asymptotic limit, the analysis becomes simple. The other buildings do not seem to have fallen at free fall, so it is harder to show they had explosives in them. I still think they did, but the argument is much harder to make.
High school physics says that the government story is wrong.
WTC7 fell at free fall.
Expressing this using vector calculus, it is complex, but expressing this using energy, it is simple, as follows.
Note that this analysis is so simple because (1) energy is conserved and (2) free falling is the asymptotic edge case of ways structures can fall. At the asymptote there is no wiggle room, so additional confounding complexities simply go away.
Doing any work requires energy. (1) Accelerating the building downward is work. (2) Deforming a building is work.
Falling is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. The falling is free falling when the efficiency of this conversion is 100%.
Therefore, if the only energy available is the potential energy of the mass suspended at height in a force field, then when free falling there is NO additional energy to do ANY other work.
That is, when free falling, you spend ALL of the energy accelerating the mass downward; in particular, no energy remains to do the work of deforming the building.
You could say that the building fell, and then stopping falling deformed the building, but then time goes in the wrong order: you have to deform the building so that it will fall.
At the first press conference NIST gave after 9/11, someone yelled out to the head of NIST "WTC7 fell at free fall". The head of NIST responded like he was reciting something he learned long ago: "no, it can't have, because you cannot have a progressive collapse of a structure at free fall". (Above I just gave the conservation of energy proof of this statement.) (Link wanted for this interaction).
I think it was six months later that NIST published that WTC7 fell "at free fall for several seconds". It cannot fall at free fall for any number of seconds. (Link wanted for this document).
What got me into this was seeing a YouTube video of a high-school physics teacher plotting each frame of the building falling and getting -10 m/s^2, which is free fall plus a bit of fudge factor. (Link wanted for this video.)
Well Tucker is too big to not have the backing of Q if the military is really in charge. Interviewing Orban? He may have been farm bread (CIA), but I think, like AJ and Elon, is now working for Q. Whether he wanted to or not, I do not know. But if patriots are in charge, then all 3 of them are now singing the same song and all going in the same direction. Why would Tucker accuse the CIA of the Kennedy assassination or question the mainline 9/11 story if he was not? https://greatawakening.win/p/17rmXbucB1/tucker-on-911-it-is-not-crazy-to/c/
Can you please provide links? I would like to see that.
Mods: if that is true, it would help to have a sticky post explaining all that with sources.
I remember watching him give a speech where
(1) he encouraged people to take the vaccine,
(2) people booed him!
(3) he then acted not surprised at all that people booed him!
So why does he encourage us to take it, knowing that we are going to boo at that!? Why even say it to us?
My point is, it is somehow even more odd than just him promoting the vaccine. He even promoted it to a crowd that he knew would boo him for saying it! What is the point of that?
The only thing I can think of is that maybe most of the batches were ok, but some of the batches killed people, and on balance, having most of the batches out there helping people generally improved the statistics of survival, even if some of the Cabal batches also go through?
He has a team of stat people for sure, and maybe due to multiple converging circumstances, having Trump's vaccine out there minimized total death in the model they used.
I suppose we will find out eventually.
I think this is an interesting point: Tucker says that he grew up in D.C. in the middle of everything, and yet he did not see the big picture. I know that area well and I think what he is saying is in fact plausible.
However, either way, Tucker and Elon are clearly now on the Q team, whether they wanted to be or not.
Even Alex Jones seems to be on the team. I think Tucker had the interview with Jones just to give Jones credibility. Why do that if Jones is not on the team now?
Not sure what you are saying exactly. Are you referring to wars in those countries? Given the history of war in Europe, I don't think we can say that Christian countries are without war.
I am simply pointing out that Christianity is not the only practice that teaches morality towards others. Buddhism does also. Perhaps we could put our attention on teaching the practice of morality: preferring to collaborative work with others rather than preferring to be at war with others.
In saying this, I do not suggest an acceptance of all practices / religions / political movements. I would also suggest that we must also prohibit the practice of teaching immorality: that some group teaches their members that they are inherently at war with others. Certain cultures teach this and it must stop or at least be excluded from where we live.
I do not recall that Q ever told us to use the post numbers assigned after-the-fact by anons for anything at all, so I do not think these post are Q-proofs.
it just so happens that the only ones which work are from the Law of Moses and the New Testiment
Ever heard of Buddhism?
Such assertions as yours are uninformed.
I uploaded a screen shot of an obituary for Gina that I found: https://greatawakening.win/p/17sP1p5WIl/
It says that she died on 2020 November 30.