You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > August
13, 2015; 21:50 GMT
Why give "we could have stopped 9/11" any mileage? Our own Neocons implemented it!!
With the knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job, the question of stopping it becomes moot, because the very fox from which they are "protecting the
hen house" is in charge of hen house security.
Giving any mileage to "what we could have done to stop it" is a diversion from that key point.
Loyalty oath should be to principles not party. Survey
Jakari Jackson, Sgt. Joe Biggs, and anchor, David
Pure Energy Systems News
Hi David Knight, Jakari Jackson, and Sgt. Joe Biggs,
In watching your August 7 dialogue about the debate
(past 1:33:32), I was very disappointed that when the topic of 9/11 came up, you didn't even touch the "It was an inside job" vantage point, but only talked about what could have been done to stop it.
I've even seen Alex Jones take this stance on several occasions, and that is why I'm taking the time to post this open letter to you all -- not just the Infowars crew, but to all of the alternative media.
Thanks to the great work done by you and others, I would guess that 99.5% of your audience believes 9/11 was an inside job and take that as a given.
With the knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job, the question of stopping it becomes moot, because the very fox from which they are "protecting the hen house" is in charge of hen house security. That's the situation we have in this country, and you (Infowars crew) all know that.
(I should mention, too, from a spiritual point of view, that we as a nation
brought this upon ourselves by our wickedness -- we allowed the secret
combination to get this far above us, because wickedness leads to captivity,
which is where we are headed, if we don't repent.)
Therefore, giving any mileage to "what we could have done to stop it" is a diversion from that key point -- it was an inside job -- which should be front and center on that subject.
I wish candidates like Ron and Rand Pual weren't so timid on this matter but would spine up and state the obvious, giving it the credibility it deserves.
The fact that someone of their knowledge and stature would be so wimpy on this illustrates just how strong the mind control programming has been in this country -- that they worry that if they take that stance publicly, they will loose their credibility.
It could even be that with that political stance, they become afflicted with the same delusion the mind controllers are hoisting on the entire population.
When you know something and you don't act on it, you loose that knowledge. To
grow in knowledge, you must accept what you're given and pass it on.
You at Infowars know better, and you should take the lead in keeping the key point in front of people, not
pandering to the distraction points which ignore the elephant in the middle of the room.
For those of you who might not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, let me state very
concisely a point that will settle the matter for any honest person not afflicted with cognitive dissonance, but who is willing to accept facts for what they are. BUILDINGS (NAMELY BUILDING 7) CANNOT FALL IN FREEFALL SPEED WITHOUT HELP -- ESPECIALLY STEEL AND
CONCRETE BUILDINGS. THAT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THAT WE SAW -- AT LEAST, not to mention
other exotic methods that might have been in play to turn the towers to dust so they didn't even form much of a pile at the bottom.
The photo of an ambulance at the base of one of the towers, completely uncrushed, still standing on the road or sidewalk surface where it had been parked, attests to something exotic going on. Not only was it a controlled demolition, but something was in play to turn the structure to dust before it even hit the ground.
(See our PESN
story about this.) We've all been played for fools, and it's time we stop facilitating the ruse.
Also, while I have your attention, I need to call you out on how you totally misrepresented
what Lindsey Graham said in the
debate. What he said was, "If you want to see a war on women, come with me to Iraq and see what they are doing to women." He wasn't saying, as you depicted it, "let's change the subject and go to Iraq." The point he made in defense of the unborn was a good one, and he was showing, by way of contrast, what real
atrocities against women look like. That is a fair point, regardless of where he really stands, and what other policies he
Also, in your earlier segment with Lee Ann McAdoo, talking about the loyalty oath, you talked as if the loyalty oath is good politics. I totally disagree. People should stand behind the person, not the party. The loyalty oath is one of the things that keeps the Republican and Democratic party so big and strong. No one dare support a third party candidate lest they be portrayed as a party traitor. It shouldn't be the party to which they have loyalty, but the principles they hold dear.
We see the same kind of "loyalty oath" in religion, where people pledge their
fealty first to the church, rather than first to God. It is to God that such loyalty should be pledged, not to those who stand between us and God.
# # #
What You Can Do
- See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Donate to PES Network
to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy