Saudis Exit the Petrodollar. 23 years Later US Blames Saudi Arabia for 9-11
We have the Proof that US, NATO, EU has murdered innocent in provoking another war. Why would US take on Russia and China? Answer: To steal money through war profiteering.
Chain of Events.
On September 11th 2001 American Airlines flight 11: Crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City
United Airlines flight 175: Crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center
American Airlines flight 77: Crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia
The fourth plane, United Airlines flight 93, was originally thought to be headed for the White House or the U.S. Capitol, but passengers and crew fought back against the terrorists and crash-landed it in an empty field in western Pennsylvania
We suggest that the 2003 war in Iraq received high levels of public support because the Bush administration successfully framed the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to the September 11, 2001, attack on the WorldTrade Center and the Pentagon.
The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people, including 343 New York City firefighters, 71 law enforcement officers, 55 military personnel, and the 19 terrorists.
More than 6,000 others were injured, and citizens from at least 102 countries lost loved ones.
US told blamed the attack on Al Qaeda (the marketing arm of the Military Industrial Complex)
But architects and engineers proved that the heat from aircraft explosion would not bring down 3 buildings.
Remember it was two planes so how did Building 7 collapse in its own footprint (see narrative below)
So 9-11 was an inside job, used to justify war on terror including invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
To this date no account on all the Gold stolen from Iraq and Iraq was forced to sell all their oil through the Federal Reserve
Saudi is about to get a “Heavy Dose of Democracy”? Are they next up?
end of that section
Nigel Farage has attributed Russia's invasion of Ukraine to Western actions, stating that the expansion of the European Union and Nato eastwards provoked President Vladimir Putin. Farage acknowledged Putin's responsibility for the war but emphasized that the EU and Nato expansion provided Putin with a pretext to incite fear among Russians. In a BBC interview, Farage defended his past admiration for Putin as a political operator and reiterated his long-held belief that Nato and EU enlargement fueled Putin's narrative of Western aggression.
Critics, including Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly and Labour's John Healey, condemned Farage's remarks, with Healey deeming him unfit for political leadership. Former Nato Secretary General Lord George Robertson accused Farage of echoing Kremlin propaganda and refuted claims that he supported Farage's views on the war's causes. Farage's assertions were also challenged by MEP Guy Verhofstadt, who accused him of promoting Kremlin narratives in the European Parliament.
Farage, in response to backlash, maintained his position, claiming consistency and honesty in his stance on the conflict with Russia. He reposted a 2014 speech urging the West to avoid confrontation with Putin. The interview highlighted Farage's criticism of the Conservatives' handling of Brexit, a key issue he championed as the leader of UKIP. Farage expressed disappointment in the failure to fully deliver on Brexit promises, particularly regarding immigration control.
Farage's party, Reform UK, advocated for a freeze on non-essential immigration to address societal pressures and safeguard cultural values. He criticized the Conservatives for reneging on pledges to repeal EU laws, asserting that they lacked genuine commitment to Brexit.
Farage defended his party's vetting procedures after several potential candidates were dropped for inappropriate comments, attributing the oversight to a third-party vetting company.
During the interview, Farage questioned the severity of climate change concerns, suggesting an overemphasis on fear rather than practical solutions. He labeled mainstream net zero policies as nonsensical and proposed significant cost savings by abandoning stringent climate commitments.
Farage distanced himself from extreme views within his party, asserting minimal involvement in its day-to-day operations and emphasizing a recent return to active leadership during the election campaign.
The BBC's Panorama Interviews with Nick Robinson featured Farage's interview, where he discussed his views on various contentious issues. Farage's leadership of Reform UK, his Brexit stance, and his perspectives on Russia's invasion of Ukraine were central topics in the interview, shedding light on his political positions ahead of the upcoming election.
"NO EXTENSION OF NATO'S JURISDICTION FOR FORCES OF NATO ONE INCH TO THE EAST of a unified Germany" - US Secretary of State Baker to Gorbachev, 1990.
Here is the Proof
3,000 architects, engineers and scientists prove that 9-11 buildings fell from Controlled Demolition not by the heat from the planes proving it was engineered by US agencies such as CIA or some other US military branch.
World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report
A new study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) has challenged the official explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. The study, which took four years to complete, concludes that fire did not cause the 47-story skyscraper to collapse, contradicting the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2008.
The UAF research team, led by civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, conducted a detailed computer modeling analysis of the building's collapse. Their findings suggest that the collapse was due to "near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building" rather than fires weakening the steel structure, as claimed by NIST.
In response to this new evidence, the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T), a group of 3,000 engineers, scientists, and architects, has filed a formal Request for Correction with NIST. The group is demanding that NIST retract and correct its 2008 report on the WTC 7 collapse.
Ted Walter, spokesperson for AE911T, emphasized the importance of understanding the true cause of the building's collapse from an engineering perspective. The group funded the UAF study with $316,000, demonstrating their commitment to uncovering the facts surrounding the event.The study identified several key issues with NIST's original analysis:
Displacement of the building's outer frame: NIST claimed a 6.25-inch displacement, while the UAF study found it would have been only one inch under the described conditions.
Impact of debris: The UAF report states that debris from WTC 1, which fell 943 feet onto WTC 7, did not have sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in the building.
Fire intensity: The researchers argue that the office contents (desks, chairs, computers, and paper) were not combustible enough to generate temperatures above 1,400 degrees Celsius required to melt the steel structure.
Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, peer-reviewed the UAF study. He supports its findings, stating that the NIST report is flawed and offers no value for future engineering or architectural learning.
The UAF report concludes that "fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building."
It also dismisses the possibility that any local failures, even if they had occurred, could have led to the observed total collapse.
This analysis adds momentum to long-standing claims by AE911T that all three World Trade Center buildings should not have collapsed in the manner they did on 9/11.
The group emphasizes that their interest lies solely in ensuring that there's no need to rethink the structural steel design of high-rise buildings, as they believe the design was not at fault.
The implications of this study are significant, as it challenges the official narrative of the events on 9/11 and raises questions about the integrity of the NIST investigation.
As the debate continues, it is clear that further scrutiny and analysis of the WTC 7 collapse are necessary to fully understand the events of that tragic day and their implications for building safety and design.
Sources:
https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report
https://canada.constructconnect.com/canadata/forecaster
https://www.reddit.com/r/civilengineering/comments/gnsrmm/what_is_the_consensus_from_civil_engineering/