here is an image presenting questions you might want answers to;

 just one more bit of evidence that 911 was an inside job;

A key element of the official 9/11 story is the phone call Todd Beamer made from United Airlines Flight 93 shortly before it supposedly crashed in rural Pennsylvania. It was at the end of this call that Beamer was heard declaring: "Let's roll," before joining a passenger revolt against the terrorists. Without this now-famous call to battle, 9/11 would arguably have been less effective in motivating the public to get behind the war on terror. By May 2002, the Washington Post reported, Beamer's phrase "Let's roll" had been "Embraced and promoted by President Bush as a patriotic battle cry," and was "now emblazoned on Air Force fighter planes, city firetrucks, school athletic jerseys, and countless T-shirts, baseball caps and souvenir buttons. It's also commemorated in popular songs." [1] The London Evening Standard called Beamer's final words "a symbol of America's determination to fight back." [2] Rowland Morgan, author of the book Flight 93 Revealed, concluded: "Truly, the Let's Roll slogan had become a call to arms--just at a time the White House needed it most." [3] Yet, an examination of Todd Beamer's phone call reveals numerous oddities, coincidences, and seeming impossibilities.

THE ODD PHONE CALL
For 13 minutes, Beamer had spoken with Lisa Jefferson, a customer service supervisor at GTE Airfone's Chicago call center. He explained to her that his plane had been hijacked, and, assisted by a flight attendant sitting next to him, provided details about the flight. He also talked about his pregnant wife and two young sons. Being a devout Christian, he asked Jefferson to recite the Lord's Prayer with him, and then recited the 23rd Psalm. Before declaring his famous last words, Beamer said some of the passengers were going to try and seize control of the plane. At around 9:58 a.m., he put the phone down and was heard saying to someone else: "You ready? OK. Let's roll." [4].....read more........

rand paul vs transvestite; 

https://youtu.be/3y4ZhQUre-4

 you are here;

 perhaps there may finally be the freedom to file suit against the ignorance of facebook;

As the social media giant continues to vet content and silence opposing views, roughly two dozen states have introduced bills that would allow for lawsuits against the platform for censoring posts.

Since 2016, social media giants have increasingly engaged in censorship under the guise of preventing the spread of misinformation –– “vetting and stigmatizing the content of reputable publishers” while “increasingly adding phony fact checks and removing articles flagged by left-leaning users without explanation,” according to The Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

Now Big Tech and its self-anointed virus experts are silencing doctors with opposing views in an effort to shut down scientific debate, the WSJ said. The WSJ editorial board specifically called out Facebook for labeling an op-ed the paper ran in February as misleading.

Here’s what happened. On Feb. 19, the WSJ ran an opinion piece by Dr. Martin Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon, professor, published author and chief medical advisor to Sesame Care, a direct-to-patient healthcare company. In “We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April,” Makary wrote that based on studies and scientific evidence, Americans would have enough immunity from vaccination and natural infection by early spring to sharply reduce the spread of COVID.

Facebook added the label “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people” to Makary’s article.

The Facebook label linked to third-party fact-checking website Health Feedback, a member of the World Health Organization’s “Vaccine Safety Net,” a vaccine project dedicated to correcting “misinformation about vaccine safety” on social media platforms...........read more.......

 this presentation aught to provide even ray charles a highly visible example of how ignorant the zionists are becoming;

Israeli soldiers arrested the Palestinian head of a Jerusalem Women’s Center and a clothes designer in a raid on an exhibition of traditional Palestinian clothes and objects made by women.

reposted from the Palestine Chronicle, March 8, 2021

NOTE: Israel Police claim this event, an exhibition of traditional Palestinian clothes and objects made by women, was illegal because –according to the Times of Israel – it was “a Palestinian Authority event…Israel banned the Palestinian Authority from carrying out official business in East Jerusalem in 2001, in accordance with the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that prohibits the PA from operating in Israeli territory.”

Significantly, while Israel claims to have annexed East Jerusalem, Palestinians and most countries of the world do not recognize it as Israeli territory. The US has only recognized it since December 2017.

Israeli occupation forces arrested on Monday, March 8, two Palestinian women who were taking part in an event celebrating International Women’s Day in the town of At-Tur, east of occupied East Jerusalem.

Sabreen al-Syad, one of the event’s organizers, told Falasteen Online that a unit in the Israeli army had arrested the director of At-Tur Women Center, Ikhlas al-Syad, and fashion designer Manal Abu Spaitan while raiding and assaulting participants in a cultural event that celebrates the achievement of women...........read and watch more.......

 mr peters contrasts the collective vs individuals in this essay focused mainly on the face diaper but also on other items that are treated in a similar fashion;

When individuals form groups they do not become a “group.” They remain a number of individuals.

When individuals – most dangerously, politicians and other species of busybodies – speak in the collective, e.g., that “we” ought to be doing (or not doing) this or that “society” needs (or does not need) this or that, the speaker, who is an individual, means he (and the individuals who agree with him) hold that opinion and – usually – that he (and those who support him) intend to force – they never “ask,” despite their dishonest use of this otherwise noble word –  everyone to do or not do whatever it is they are in favor of doing or not doing.

If any individual does not agree with “we,” then it is not “we” or “society” – that is to say, everyone – who is tacking this way or that way but rather some of “we” – i.e., the individuals who presume to speak for everyone – who are attempting to conflate their preferences with everyone’s preferences............read more.....