Whose President ???

Noticed a tweet by president Trump:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

“Thank you to Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words. “President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America, he is the best President for Israel in the history of the world...and the Jewish people in Israel love him....


"The greatest President for Jews and for Israel ..." and "the best President for Israel ..." ??????????? And I thought, he was the Presidenz for Americans and the USA ???? How silly of me to think that ....

Is it now sufficiently clear and plain for all here who has been directing this USA president - as well as previous presidents - and whose interests these presidents are promoting over the interests of the citizens of their country ???

«1

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    "The greatest President for Jews and for Israel ..." and "the best President for Israel ..." ??????????? And I thought, he was the Presidenz for Americans and the USA ???? How silly of me to think that ....

    Is it now sufficiently clear and plain for all here who has been directing this USA president - as well as previous presidents - and whose interests these presidents are promoting over the interests of the citizens of their country ???


    You left out the next part of the president's tweet, the part in which he quotes Mr Root as asserting that Israelis believe the president is "like...the second coming of God."



    Israelis don't believe Donald Trump is like the "second coming of God." Goodness, the notion that there's been a first coming of God is a Christian idea, not a Jewish one.

    Not every tweet by every twitterverse resident deserves the same amount of respect and consideration, Wolfgang. Mr Root, an avid conspiracy theorist, is one such resident whose tweets do not deserve high-level respect or consideration. For example, he propagated the "birther" lie that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., at one time asserting that the former president had been a "foreign exchange" student at Columbia University.

    You're welcome to your views of Israel's influence over America's political leaders, but I recommend that you find better sources of support than Wayne Allyn Root.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    Sometimes pictures / photographs speak louder than words ...

    Yair Netanyahu

    @YairNetanyahu

    We love president Trump in Israel! The best friend the Jewish people ever had in the White House! Thank you!


    Why is it seemingly so difficult or impossible for most US folks to see that US Presidents are conducting Zionist Israel politics and pursue Zionist Israel interests with their foreign policy, in particular concerning the Near and Middle East? American lives are being sacrificed for Israel interests first and foremost ...

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    Because we aren't partial against Israel like you clearly are. Israel serves America's interests in the region.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    @reformed

    Because we aren't partial against Israel like you clearly are. Israel serves America's interests in the region.


    One could actually more easilöy get the impression that USA is used by Israel to serve Zionist Israel's interests in the region.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    If you have that predisposition to Israel sure, but that's not reality. I guess Germany still hates Israel 75 years later.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068
    edited September 3

    @reformed

    If you have that predisposition to Israel sure, but that's not reality. I guess Germany still hates Israel 75 years later.


    ever given the USS Liberty incident some more serious consideration?

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-evidence-proves-israel-attacked-uss-liberty-with-orders-to-kill-294-americans/5413807

    A new documentary called ‘The Day Israel Attacked America” airing on Al Jazeera was produced and directed by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield. Thanks to the audio evidence obtained by Belfield, it is finally possible to prove the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty were right all along. The survivors have always been extremely confident that Israel’s intentions were to sink that ship and kill everyone on board so Egypt could be blamed for the tragedy. Why? To convince President Lyndon Johnson (and the American public) that we needed to declare war on Egypt. This is the definition of a ‘false flag‘.

    It appears that once again, a conspiracy theory has turned out to be conspiracy fact


    ever hear of the Zionist Israel lobby inside USA Politics and economics?


    your comment about "Germany hates Israel" only reveals your gross ignorance of Germany politics.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529


    Another conspiracy theory from @Wolfgang imagine that. Al Jazeera hit piece on Israel is not exactly a reliable source.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068
    edited September 4

    @reformed ....ever heard of the old advice: Listen to and consider both or all sides of a story if you are interested in determining the truth about a matter?

    Some, in various cases, many or even most, only consider one side of a story and refuse to consider the other side and dismiss it ... usually because it comes "from the wrong people, the wrong country, the wrong media outlet ...", and thus they have a one-sided, a biased, view which is at best incomplete, in other instances the result of a designed propaganda indoctrination.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    I just find it odd that you seem to subscribe to just about every conspiracy theory there is. From 9/11 to the Moon Landing, to the USS Liberty, you probably believe the earth is flat too.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    I just find it odd that you seem to subscribe to just about every conspiracy theory there is. From 9/11 to the Moon Landing, to the USS Liberty, you probably believe the earth is flat too.


    😀 .. maybe I'm a bit ahead of others who only late (or perhaps never) realize - and if they do, don't want to admit - that there indeed was a conspiracy ... and that the propaganda screams of "conspiracy theory! conspiracy theory!" was nothing but the thief screaming "hold the thief!" 😉

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    With due respect, Wolfgang, in my view you would be much more than "a bit ahead of others" were you to show a factual basis for any of your "hold the thief!" incidents. Unfortunately, at least based on your response to my requests for factual evidence to support your claims, you almost never offer evidence of a "thief," a crime scene, or even a crime.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    Unfortunately, at least based on your response to my requests for factual evidence to support your claims, you almost never offer evidence of a "thief," a crime scene, or even a crime.


    Hmn .... have you seen the videos and pics of the collapse of 3 WTC buildings? If you have, then you have seen the evidence of an intentional demolition as is practiced at various times all over the world when such type of buildings need to be taken down or pulled in order to come down in a controlled collapse.

    Of course, the one's responsible for that event won't come out telling the truth -- as they would reveal themselves as mass murderers and traitors, they have propagated their "official report" ("hold the thief!!!) in order to hide their conspiracy to achieve war mongering, cutting down US citizen's rights, establishing essentially a police state in the USA, killing thousands of innocent Americanss in that event... and a majority of folks - being well trained to believe the MSM and show patriotism to their president (instead if to the flag and the constitution) have believed the lie .... even though having see with their own eyes the evidence that the official story could not be true and experienced the restrictions of their liberty.

    What more evidence would you like to see? Admittance by the Zionist controlled war criminals ?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Hmn .... have you seen the videos and pics of the collapse of 3 WTC buildings? If you have, then you have seen the evidence of an intentional demolition as is practiced at various times all over the world when such type of buildings need to be taken down or pulled in order to come down in a controlled collapse.

    This is a good example of the issue I have with your allegations of held thieves, Wolfgang.

    1. You allege, without evidence, let alone proof, that the collapse of the WTC buildings presented "evidence of an intentional demolition."
    2. And you allege, again without evidence or proof, that the WTC buildings were in fact the victims of "intentional demolition."

    Simply asserting that something is true does not make that something true.

    • My alleging that you stole three cars today does not make it true that you stole three cars today.
    • My alleging that if people have read your posts they have read evidence of a conspiracy to overthrow the queen of England does not make it true that your posts are evidence of a conspiracy.


    Of course, the one's responsible for that event won't come out telling the truth -- as they would reveal themselves as mass murderers and traitors, they have propagated their "official report" ("hold the thief!!!) in order to hide their conspiracy to achieve war mongering, cutting down US citizen's rights, establishing essentially a police state in the USA, killing thousands of innocent Americanss in that event... and a majority of folks - being well trained to believe the MSM and show patriotism to their president (instead if to the flag and the constitution) have believed the lie .... even though having see with their own eyes the evidence that the official story could not be true and experienced the restrictions of their liberty.

    And yet more unsubstantiated claims.

    You've mastered the art of allegation, Wolfgang. You're VERY good at asserting truth. What you've not mastered - what your allegation-laden posts almost never practice - is proving truth.



    What more evidence would you like to see? Admittance by the Zionist controlled war criminals ?

    I'd like to see factual evidence that proves your allegations. In this post - in nearly all of your conspiracy posts - you offer no such evidence. In my view, there's a very good reason for that: There is no factual evidence that supports your conspiracy posts, because the central claims you make in those posts are not true.

    For example, in a recent post you claimed that the scientific community is "quite divided" on the issue of climate change. I know your claim to be false, but I invited you to provide evidence to support it. You have yet to do so, and I don't think you will, primarily because such proof doesn't exist. That said, I re-extend my invitation to you to support your claim that the scientific community is "quite divided" on the issue of climate change.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    You allege, , that the collapse of the WTC buildings presented "evidence of an intentional demolition."

    And you allege, , that the WTC buildings were in fact the victims of "intentional demolition."


    No ... I allege that the VIDEO of the collaps is the EVIDENCE .... no matter what is claimed afterwards.


    Simply asserting that something is true does not make that something true.


    I agree ...


    My alleging that you stole three cars today does not make it true that you stole three cars today.


    Indeed ... unless of course, you have a video showing stealing the three cars.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    The myth of the intentional demolition has been dubunked MANY MANY times.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    No ... I allege that the VIDEO of the collaps is the EVIDENCE .... no matter what is claimed afterwards.

    My mistake.


    Indeed ... unless of course, you have a video showing stealing the three cars.

    Well, I have video of your stealing three cars, just as you have no video of internal demolition in the WTC buildings. You have video which YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM shows internal demolition in those buildings, but as you agreed in your response to me, claiming something to be true does not make it true.

    I can CLAIM the video shows a guy on the third floor blew up the entire WTC complex by remote control he made out of Legos, but that doesn't make my claim true, or mean that I have a factual basis for it. Neither do you have a factual basis for your claim about the towers' collapse.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    Well, I have video of your stealing three cars, just as you have no video of internal demolition in the WTC buildings. You have video which YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM shows internal demolition in those buildings, but as you agreed in your response to me, claiming something to be true does not make it true.

    I just recently saw a video clip in our TV newss here about some building collapsing in a very particular manner ...the manner in which it collapsed being the manner in which intentional demolition collapses happen as has been demonstrated many times in many instances. I need not to claim anything, I am simply pointing out that what was seen in the collapse of 3 WTC buildings was clear and plain the evidence of a controlled intentional demolition. Any other idea regarding the collapse disregard the clear and plain evidence provided by the manner in which the buildings are seen to have collapsed.

    I can CLAIM the video shows a guy on the third floor blew up the entire WTC complex by remote control he made out of Legos, but that doesn't make my claim true, or mean that I have a factual basis for it. Neither do you have a factual basis for your claim about the towers' collapse.

    You can claim such ... except that you don't have a video showing the guy and his remote control ...thus such would be speculation without evidence. However, the evidence of the videos showing the collapse show that such was not the case, as the manner in which the buildings collapsed proves.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    FWIW, what you "[point] out" here - that in your view, the WTC buildings' collapse is evidence of a "controlled intentional demolition" - is very much a claim - an asserted but unsubstantiated claim.

    You report watching a clip about "some building" that collapsed "in a very particular way," the way of buildings collapse when intentionally demolished. And your point is? Lots of buildings collapse when they're intentionally demolished. That the building in the video you saw collapsed does NOT prove ANYTHING about the collapse of the WTC buildings, unless, of course, both of the following conditions were met by the building in that video:

    • Within the last couple of hours before the video was shot, the building in it had been struck by a fully-fueled jet airliner.
    • The design, structure, and materials of the building in the video were essentially the same as in the WTC buildings.

    IF those two conditions were true about the building in the video you saw, AND said building was in fact the victim of intentional demolition, then it's incumbent on all of us to consider its experience carefully. If that building's history and design were NOT like the WTC buildings' history, however, then there is little cause for discussion.


    Any other idea regarding the collapse disregard the clear and plain evidence provided by the manner in which the buildings are seen to have collapsed.

    The whole world saw on live TV "clear and plain evidence" of the reason for one of those buildings' collapse, Wolfgang, when fully-loaded jet aircraft slammed into it. We know from other video shot that day that the other building was also impacted by an aircraft.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    That the building in the video you saw collapsed does NOT prove ANYTHING about the collapse of the WTC buildings, unless, of course, both of the following conditions were met by the building in that video:


    This is not a compelling argument ... THE MANNER OF COLLAPSE is proof in itself as to what actually caused the collapse.


    Within the last couple of hours before the video was shot, the building in it had been struck by a fully-fueled jet airliner.


    Not so ... since a hit by the aircraft or the burning of aircraft fuel or subsequent furniture and other materials did not cause the buildings to collapse IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY DID.

    There have been much larger fires in similar high building structures burning for much longer (cp one of a tower in Madrid, which burned far worse than the fires at the WTC buildings) and yet the tower structure did not even collapse.

    Do you remember that THREE buildings collapsed in the SAME MANNER at the WTC site, but only TWO buildings had been struck by aircraft?


    The design, structure, and materials of the building in the video were essentially the same as in the WTC buildings.


    Not so ... you can have structures of different consistencies/material ... if they each are "hit by bomb", the MANNER and KIND of destruction will be the same or very similar. A collapse of a high building into its own footprint is cause by controlled demolition ... not by flying an aircraft into the building or subsequent fire breaking out.


    Here are some interesting statements by two more recent sources which add some thoughts to the matter:

    (1) Note this resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District

    Whereas, the attacks of September 11, 2001, are inextricably and forever tied to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department;

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, while operating at the World Trade Center in New York City, firefighter Thomas J. Hetzel, badge #290 of Hook and Ladder Company #1, Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department of New York, was killed in performance of his duties, along with 2,976 other emergency responders and civilians;

    Whereas, members of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department were called upon to assist in the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and cleanup of the World Trade Center site, afflicting many of them with life-threatening illnesses as a result of breathing the deadly toxins present at the site;

    Whereas, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District recognizes the significant and compelling nature of the petition before the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reporting un-prosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and calling upon the United States Attorney to present that petition to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. SS 3332(A);

    Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries—not just airplanes and the ensuing fires—caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;

    Whereas, the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of New York City, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, be investigated to the fullest and that every person who was responsible face justice;

    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District fully supports a comprehensive federal grand jury investigation and prosecution of every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any and all efforts by other government entities to investigate and uncover the full truth surrounding the events of that horrible day.


    (2) University Study Finds Fire Did Not Bring Down World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11

    http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1403010

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    This is not a compelling argument ... THE MANNER OF COLLAPSE is proof in itself as to what actually caused the collapse.

    Here you use your unsubstantiated conclusion about the meaning of the buildings' manner of collapse to assert the irrelevance of the events and circumstances leading up to that collapse. You're welcome to your views, Wolfgang, but we can't have a meaningful dialogue when you make such a dubious assertion. Were other CD posters in one of the Christology threads to argue that Jesus can't be anyone but God because Jesus is God, I'm confident you would object to the unsubstantiated grounds for that argument's conclusion... and rightly so. I contend you make an analogous error here.


    Not so ... since a hit by the aircraft or the burning of aircraft fuel or subsequent furniture and other materials did not cause the buildings to collapse IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY DID.

    There have been much larger fires in similar high building structures burning for much longer (cp one of a tower in Madrid, which burned far worse than the fires at the WTC buildings) and yet the tower structure did not even collapse.

    Do you remember that THREE buildings collapsed in the SAME MANNER at the WTC site, but only TWO buildings had been struck by aircraft?

    In my view, it's not good stewardship of our time and effort to engage in discussions of the buildings' collapses because we lack the expertise to do so authoritatively. Those with such expertise have studied the matter at great length and have reached the definitive verdicts you and others choose to reject. You're of course entitled to your objections, but they don't change the expertise behind or the widely-accepted accuracy of those definitive verdicts. (And NO, the occasional "study" to which you can point does NOT change the fact that for the vast majority of experts and professionals in the field, those definitive verdicts remain authoritative and accurate.)

    In preparation for my response to your post, I read a bit about the collapse of the third WTC building, "7 World Trade Center." From that reading I learned of the findings of the 2008 report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which were then summarized and peer-reviewed in 2012 by the Journal of Structural Engineering. I encourage you to include those reports in your survey of information about 7 WTC's collapse.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    Here you use your unsubstantiated conclusion about the meaning of the buildings' manner of collapse to assert the irrelevance of the events and circumstances leading up to that collapse. You're welcome to your views, Wolfgang, but we can't have a meaningful dialogue when you make such a dubious assertion.


    Do you know the difference between a bullet hole wound and a knife stab wound? Would you say that the type of wound is no proof for either a shot or a stab being the cause of the wound ? Would you say a bullet hole is evidence for a knife cut stab wound ?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Do you know the difference between a bullet hole wound and a knife stab wound? Would you say that the type of wound is no proof for either a shot or a stab being the cause of the wound ? Would you say a bullet hole is evidence for a knife cut stab wound ?

    To your question, in my view, the type of wound is evidence of the cause of the wound; it is not necessarily proof of that cause.

    My objection to the form of your argument remains in place: You basically argue that the WTC towers' collapses could not have been caused by any other means than intentional demolition because they were caused by intentional demolition. I object to your using your conclusion (cause: intentional demolition) as support for your conclusion, just as you would object, I'm confident, were a CD poster to argue that Jesus can't be anybody but God because Jesus is God.

    The vast majority of professionals and experts in the field have declared definitively that the towers did NOT collapse due to intentional demolition. You're welcome to believe differently, but the evidence and the experts do not support your view.



    BTW, I'm STILL waiting for you to demonstrate the truth of your claim that the scientific community is "quite divided" on the issue of climate change." This is the third time I've requested that you provide supportive evidence. If you're not willing or able to back up your claim, please say so.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068
    edited September 7

    Scienctific evaluation of what happened to WTC7 building on 09/11:

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

    How come this news from Sept 4 is not widely publicized? Is it perhaps because it shows the obvious, but contradicts the official story ?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Scienctific evaluation of what happened to WTC7 building on 09/11:

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

    How come this news from Sept 4 is not widely publicized? Is it perhaps because it shows the obvious, but contradicts the official story ?

    I have neither the knowledge nor experience to judge the findings of the report to which you link.

    I assume, but don't know, that this report has not been widely publicized because the issue of how 7 WTC collapsed has been settled in the minds of those who might give this report more recognition.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    I have neither the knowledge nor experience to judge the findings of the report to which you link.

    I assume, but don't know, that this report has not been widely publicized because the issue of how 7 WTC collapsed has been settled in the minds of those who might give this report more recognition.


    Here's some more on the "9/11 after 18 years" .... excerpt from PC Roberts' website:

    The 9/11 Commission report was not an investigation and ignored all forensic evidence. The NIST simulation of Building 7’s collapse was rigged to get the desired result. The only real investigations have been done by private scientists, engineers, and architects. They have found clear evidence of the use of nano-thermite in the destruction of the twin towers. More than 100 First Responders have testified that they experienced a large number of explosions inside the towers, including a massive explosion in the sub-basement prior to the time the airliners are said to have hit the tower. Numerous military and civilian pilots have said that the flight maneuvers involved in the WTC and Pentagon attacks are beyond their skills and most certainly beyond the skills of the alleged hijackers. Wreckage of the airliners is surprisingly missing from impact sites. And so on and so on. That Building 7 was a controlled demolition is no longer disputable. 

    On the basis of the known evidence, knowledgeable and informed people have concluded that 9/11 was an inside job organized by Vice President Dick Cheney, his stable of neoconservatives, and Israel for the purpose of reconstructing the Middle East in Israel’s interest and enriching the US military/security complex in the process.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    Wreckage is missing? Are you kidding right now? It was all over the place. VERY evident.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    Wreckage@reformed is missing? Are you kidding right now? It was all over the place. VERY evident.


    hmn ... there has been no photograph or other documentation about aircraft wreckage at the site in PA, nor has there been any B757 wreckage

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068
    edited September 11

    For what it's worth ... an eye witness report from the WTC scene on 09/11


    What is really awful is the fact that the media keep the lie alive already for 18 years and they suppress the statements of witnesses and all other evidence that contradict the official story and its lies. Thus the professional journalists and media houses are helpers and joint actors in this crime which cost 3000 Americans their lives and another 2 million people's lives in countries that were attacked in the wake of this crime.

    From an article by P.C. Roberts of today:

    Over the years I have reported the findings of scientists, engineers, and architects that indicate that the official story is false. I had an open mind for two reasons. One is that having been an engineering student, I could tell the difference from a building falling down from asymmetrical structural damage and a building blowing up. The other is that having been involved in policy issues in Washington for a quarter century I knew that such a humiliating defeat suffered by the world’s only superpower at the hands of a few Muslim terrorists would have brought instant demands from the White House, Congress, and media for investigation into how every aspect of the American national security state failed simultaneously on one morning. Instead the White House resisted the 9/11 families demands for an investigation for one year and never delivered a forensic investigation. Instead, the country was given a 9/11 Commission Report that was merely the government’s official story of what happened. No heads rolled. No one was fired or even reprimanded. To hold no one accountable for such a massive failure and humiliating defeat is not a believable response if the official 9/11 story is true.

    It is much easier for government to deceive people in a democracy where people assume everything is above board than in a dictatorship where they know it is not.

Sign In or Register to comment.