I see time and time again in the headlines of news stories that Trump was 'shaken' by the recent attack at his rally.  When I look at it, I really don't see much sign of him looking all that 'shaken' per se.  If I were in his situation I would be scared as hell all of the time and the event with the secret service surrounding me and such would have caused me to produce a yellow puddle.  It seems to me that Trump handled things quite well with an appropriate come-back when he got going again (thanking the people in front for the warning and getting back to his spiel more or less on context.)

Am I wearing rose colored glasses?  Second opinion?

I might add that whenever such a thing as this happens I look for signs that it was a staged setup.  I don't think it probably was in this case for a few reasons.  It doesn't look to me like Trump played it up as well as he could have if it were staged, and it seems that he changed from fairly legitimate surprise at the event were it occurred to what looks like genuine anger and the next event (though he is an actor of sorts so he could easily fool me with whatever emotion he chose to display I suspect.)  Secondly, the attacker does legitimately seem to have a history (whether or not the ISIS stuff was a sham) and if he were developing it over the course of time, blowing his cover for this little stunt doesn't seem like it would be worthwhile.  Though in fairness, it also doesn't blow the development of a baclground I suppose.

By 'structures', I meant as an example the compenents of the red/grey particals and the highly energetic materail which releases it's energy readily.

By 'phenomenon', I meant that such structures are commonly formed by standard building materials.



I suspect that a certain amount of the technical expertise was supplied by people of Israeli nationality or dual citizenship, but that's not necessarily the case.  The primary value of the Israeli factor would be make sure that the press shut their pie-holes ASAP and seeked out and stuck to the official narrative.  Some of the early stories involved Israeli's, and I suspect that real or fabricated, the message to the press was 'you don't want to touch this one.'  This and other false flags seem to be characterized by early information which is designed to make sure that people who have a little bit of understanding know for sure that it IS a hoax/false-flag so they don't make a 'career mistake' by fucking things up.

I'm pretty sure that neither Bush nor Bibi knew with any real precision exactly what was going to happen due to the way they acted which is why I do not call it a 'government operation'.

Oh ya, attempting to pass exploration of a 'false conspiracy' off as a 'blame the Jews' nazi exercise which proves antisemitism is also a fairly common strategy.  So common that a lot of people have seen it countless times and see right through it.  Nice try though.  You can give it another shot by attacking my suggestion that the mainstream media here in the U.S. is significantly influenced by people who also care about Israel in a special way.  This again works better on people who have questions about whether they themselves are antisemitic.  I personally do not (and am not.)

Fair enough.  I don't actually know it to be true that there are detriments to mainstream media in Germany (or Sweden) in reporting on crime which reflects badly on the recent immigrants.  I have heard it though.  Not from the source you mention since I don't know of it, but from a variety of youtube channels mostly.  Maybe from bitcointalk.org as well.  The two sources constitute my primary information channels at this point (until an especially interesting item comes up and I'll expand my net.)

I've heard also that there seems to be pressure on local law enforcement to down-play or not report crimes associated with the recent arrivals, and also that the data about it collated by the bureaucrats is not very reliable or transparent.  If you are there, can you speak to any of these assertions?

One was, until recently at least, hard pressed to find any report of an 'immigrant' involved in any crime in Scandinavia or Germany in the 'mainstream news.'  So, I guess we'll have to wait a decent amount of time to get a second opinion in this story.

Just another 'low info' Trump groupie.  I mean, it's not like he has a rocket science degree or anything like that.(*)

 * Astrophysics != 'rocket science'

Is that a Hillary thing he/she uses as an icon?  I'm to lazy to look around and figure it out.

Most of the Hillary 'H' things I've seen have a red penis-symbol-looking arrow pointing in an a direction which is indeterminate.  One could hardly choose a more appropriate symbol to represent the times.

Is this a hoax?  No reports on Google news at all that I can see.

All three remaining Republican candidates seem to be going on-record to blame Trump for the 'security difficulties' at his latest rallies (or aborted rallies.)

This is such an obvious looser of an argument politically (and logically and ethically) that I'm ever more convinced that the only thing the Republican party is shooting for in 2016 is to get Hillary in.

If 'natural', I would have thought that the structures that described in the paper would be reproduced all over the place in a lot of buildings and/or building debris and someone would have popped up demonstrating the phenomenon and discrediting the paper right away.  Never saw that happen.

In fact, and I think that the paper made it quite clear, the material seems to be quite specialized.  Arguments that it is 'natural' seem to be of the same category as arguing against evolution because of a 747, wind storm, junkyard, etc.  To me.

I would also point out that just because something is high tech does not mean it is US Govt.  Just the opposite in our country due to the way we are set up with most technology originating in the 'private sector.'  I don't argue or believe that 'the US government did 9/11', but I do argue that it is a near certainty that the operation included the participation of individuals who had influence at various levels of our government.  'Had influence' because in many cases they were generals, DOD persons, vice presidents, etc.  The same argument applies to various other nations as well.  In particular, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan who all had nationals playing a role in certain aspects of the operation.

The 'cui bono' principle leads me to question whether it is appropriate to consider BLM and MoveOn to be 'Sanders people'.  They are certainly Soros people (else they would not exist as a group) but that they are doing Sanders no favors in the scheme of things.

When I started looking into the European 'immigrant' issue, there seemed to be compelling evidence that Soros funded organizations were producing 'how to' guides showing routes to different European countries and distributing them around N.Africa and the Middle East.  Interesting.  The guy does seem to 'think big.'

As far as I can see, everyone has pretty good 'free speech' at this point in time.  It was not always the case.

The trouble some people have is that nobody will listen to them, and that is an artifact of their message being not particularly interesting for a variety of reason.  The proper thing to do would be to tune the message and the NOT proper thing to do is to use threats and violence to overcome your weakness.

@WhenAllYouHaveIsAHammer...

LULZ at: https://youtu.be/y98wJEJhbpI?t=1m19s

Careful what you wish for   Never mind that the BLM hooligans are probably being funded by Hillary support.  That kind of thing is a 'conspiracy theory' to which your run-of-the-mill Sanders lib is conditioned against considering.

Speaking for myself (but clearly a lot of other people feel the same way) the biggest question in my mind is whether Trump is a fraud.  That was the first focus of my exploration of the guy and it remains the most important thing to me.

When I first started trying to understand the guy, I thought that his positions on various things were a lot worse than I found them to be in reality.  This because the little bits of info that filtered in at random were overly puffed up by his detractors.

From early on I had been exposed to the theory that he was running a choke campaign to eventually install Clinton.  Being drawn to such theories, I gave it weight and put it on my list of things to look for when I got around to paying attention to the candidates.  I continue to hold it open as a theory, but I don't see a lot of evidence for it and see some to the contrary.  A modification of this theory is that he started out to help Hillary then realized he himself could win and is going for it, and he does seems to be as serious as a heart attack about wining now.  Yet another modification is that it's a win/win for him in that it makes his 'Trump brand' more valuable even if he loses.  I think he himself has even admitted to this one.

One metric I use in trying to figure out if someone is for real is to use the 'what would I do' standard.  If I could see myself saying and doing something in certain situations, I don't rule out that someone else might also.  I think that if I were very wealthy and skilled and enjoyed doing 'con-man' stuff, I might run for president and I if I ran, I would run to win.  The reason I would would be exclusively to 'save the country' and I do agree that it is nearing the point of destruction in the way and for the reasons that Trump and Carson try to describe.  Thus, I don't think it is impossible that people with the same basic instincts would crawl out of the woodwork.

All votes for any candidate are to me a 'hail Mary' strategy.  Complicating this, I've thought many candidates I supported were OK all the way through and beyond their tenure only to conclude later in the study of history that I was wrong.  At this point, I'm of the opinion that Trump is the best example of a 'high risk, high reward' candidate.  I'm inclined to take that chance mostly since we as a nation are so close to annihilation anyway and it is a near certainty that almost every other candidate will march us in that direction quick-time.

Put another way, Trump is like Bitcoin to me.  'High risk, high reward', with the odds of successes, while being low, not as low as some people think for some underlying technical reasons.


With some exceptions, WHAT Trump has said has been inflammatory mostly because the political correctness has become so absurd.  HOW he said it is a different matter, but he can change how he says what he says on a dime because he truly is a showman/con-man (among other things.)

I've been listening to what he's said for a week or two.  In almost every speech he expresses great respect for the capabilities of the Chinese and Mexican negotiators and puts down American ones in no uncertain terms.

Here is how the 'rescheduled' Chicago rally would go if I were planning it.

 - Choose a location near Rahm Emmanuel's neighborhood.

 - Play it up as a huge thing to show them that 'they cannot push us around.'

 - Pass out plenty of meth to kill boredom while waiting for the Trump people to arrive and for things to begin.

 - Cancel the rally again, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Looks like Hillary comes out of this one the best since all the reports I've read implicate people supporting Sanders if they claim any sort of support at all.  MoveOn is often mentioned as are Black Lives Matter.  I've heard it said that both of these are Soros operations, or significantly funded by him, but I don't know that with any certainty.

One thing I found interesting was that the upcoming Cincinnati rally tomorrow is also canceled for 'security' reasons since the secret service did not have time to 'prepare the area.'  More interesting yet, it seems like Hannity did a phone interview with Trump tonight after the abortive rally rather than a video one for 'security reasons.'  What the hell does that mean?  When you have Romney speaking about Trump from under a big 'Hinkley' sign and Gergen (Bohemian Grove ringleader) mentioning that this looks like the Wallace situation 40 years ago where the candidate ended up getting shot, it seems that perhaps the gaggle of MoveOn folks may not be Trump's biggest security concern.

Given how much Establishment, Inc would like to be rid of the Donald, I'd say he has two best hopes.

 - 1) as I speculated before, he's sitting on very high-quality information which he obtained before starting his bid, and
 - 2) a fair *and dynamic* number of people in all levels of government itself (police, secret service, etc) may very much like to see Trump become president and could thus be untrustworthy in an operation to take him out.

If it (a President Trump) is not avoidable that is good news for Bitcoin.  The USD will be collapsed during a period when the establishment still has control.  It would be much better (for TPTB) if it were a controlled demolition and if the event and the immediate aftermath happen in times when a puppet can make a credible claim to have legitimate legal authority.  If it cannot be assured that a reliable puppet (Clinton, Kasiec, Biden, etc) will win 2016 they will have no choice but to 'pull it' before Obama steps down.

As I've said before, Bitcoin is just in pocket-pool mode until a problem with the debt-based monetary system.  Not that a guy cannot make some decent money off it until then, but at that point it goes to undreamed of levels (if it survives that long.)  But these levels are only a good thing for those who have the skills and balls to touch it since it will become illegal overnight and VERY difficult to use.  Most people would be better off to have most of their emergency nest-egg in silver coins.  These will also be illegal, but much less technically complex to use and much more useful in keeping yourself alive.

I agree.  A lot of assertions about a lot of things are in this category.  Especially about contentious things.  After studying the phenomenon for a while now, I believe that to some degree a lot of this is by design.  It's known as 'cognitive dissonance.'  They say that Cass Sunstein suggests it as a means of disrupting 'false conspiracies.'

Did you read the Harrit et-al paper?  I've not run across any scientifically compelling challenges to the material, though I've not looked for a while.

I've also not run across a good explanation about why so many people would compromise their careers and reputations to perpetuate a challenge to the official narrative of 9/11 just for shits and giggles.  http://www.ae911truth.org/


The Architects and Engineers dudes cover much of this material and rather convincingly as I see it.

Jim Webb

 - Combat vet w/ purple heart.
 - Sec of navy under Reagan.
 - Democrat as senator and presidential bid but has differences with both parties.
 - Said a few days ago that he'd never vote for Hillary but left open the possibility of voting for Trump.

If Trump even needs to bother trying to mop up Dems and Independants, a guy like Webb would do the trick.  One of my biggest concerns about Trump is who is shaping his mindset on critical issues.  Having an experienced person who I respect such as Webb in there will ease my mind on this.

I also believe (or 'feel' somehow) that Condi Rice is the reason we didn't make the mistake of doing something very stupid in Iran in the later part of GW's term.  I would not be saddened if Trump pulled her into the tent.

Obviously if we talking about the twin towers and not building seven given the talk of 'jet fuel'.  In these cases, the 'down' is suspicious but the 'up' is even more so.  That is to say, the shattered i-beams and debris velocities and trajectories as the 'collapse' occurred.

It's OK to go ahead and concede that the whole thing was probably a false flag operation performed in order to achieve a psychological impact on the citizens.  The 'catastrophic and catalyzing new Pearl Harbor' anticipated as necessary in the PNAC document not to long before the event (authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co.)  The feeling of entertaining a hypothesis which nicely matches most or all of the observations is much more comfortable than trying to strain a hypothesis which just doesn't work (like the global climate change scammers are burdened with.)   Lots of nations have done such things over the years.  It's probably more common than not.

In hindsight, I am sort of seeing things as a struggle between the 'one-worlders' and the 'American century' crowd.  The former represented by Obama an the latter latter by Cheney.  As I study things more, I see the 'American century' path to be the lesser of two evils which makes me glad they pulled off 9/11.  I've always been in awe of Cheney for the audacity of the feat.  Even the PNAC document concedes that the 'new American century' would probably be the last time a multi-polar world was practical and we'll end up in a one-world system anyway.  In my mind there is no way that such a thing does NOT turn into a hideous totalitarian dictatorship from which there will be nowhere to run and hide.