I’m sure Simon and Hoi will have much to say about this fairly significant disinfo operation.
PS: I stumbled upon this news on the very poorly presented youtube feed. Oddly, the well done propaganda mantra “this is an orange” was stuck in my head when hearing Frank the Salt guy go on about how Julia Gillard was Jody Foster in the latest KHam radio episode 22.
Here’s a case that seems so ludicrous to the average sheeple, yet, in a politically correct world, they are inclined to believe it.
Are there any common law lawyers out there that confirm that it’s also impossible to overturn a will unless it can be proven to have been made under coercive circumstances?
Even in death, you might not have the last word: especially if you’re a bigot.
When Eric Spence died two years ago, with no family by the curmudgeon’s bedside, the Jamaican-born man left a last will and testament that disinherited the daughter he raised and left all his worldly belongings to the daughter he hadn’t seen in more than 30 years.
Add to the case the Nazi angle
The judge cited last June’s McCorkill decision where a judge voided the will of a New Brunswick man because leaving his possessions to an American neo-Nazi group violated “public policy” and Canadian hate laws.
From the company that most likely brought down your twin towers on 9/11, another perfect demolition. That’s right, no nukes, no particle beams, no space beams, no magic, just good old TNT, allegedly invented by the peaceful Alfred Nobel
I disagree, New York Times. You did your job of selling the lies of 9/11, and asking all the wrong questions to distract the public. Remember, if they ask the wrong questions, the perps don’t have to worry about the answers. That’s where psyOp management comes in: you tell the the questions to ask, and control the conversation.
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, believes his newspaper – in company with the US mainstream media – failed their audiences after 9/11.
He told the German news magazine Der Spiegel that he agreed with the criticism originally made by an NYT reporter, James Risen,
Baquet said: “The mainstream press was not aggressive enough after 9/11, was not aggressive enough in asking questions about a decision to go to war in Iraq, was not aggressive enough in asking the hard questions about the war on terror. I accept that for the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times”.
This is the first post in a comprehensive thread that really summed it up for me. If it’s wrong then it sure fooled me.
Apollo, and more space hoaxes • Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?
by Boethius on Jan 28, 2015 6:58 AM
The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space.
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.
The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.
NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like the do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?
This thread has seen many forum members come and go. It’s been highly divisive, which must be why so many non fakeologists have avoided even discussing it. It’s like trying to reconcile the WTC twin tower imagery with any known method of building destruction. What we are told and what we know are simply irreconcilable, so regular people, from academia to the uneducated, simply don’t even try to explain what contradicts.