Tom Usher commented or added the following:
"...that same day the BBC reported that building seven had fallen some 23 minutes before it went down and featured a reporter speaking about the third dose of tragedy even as the tower remained standing behind her. Discovery of the mistaken and ill-timed reportage has since fueled talk of an international conspiracy, but the network insists it was simply mistaken and has adamantly denied allegations that it received advance notice of the collapse."
"...it was simply mistaken...."? It was a "lucky" guess then, is that what they're standing on? Who in his or her right mind accepts such utter garbage. They were told it was down (coming down or already down, and they screwed up and scrambled to hush it up — broke the TV signal instantly and pretended it was an innocent technological error). Who could have known in advance that this utterly new "phenomenon of thermal expansion" (something that never happened before 9/11) would do that? The answer is, only those who had planned to bring down Building 7 long before 9/11 to cover up everything that was in Building 7. Minions, dupes, and sycophants think otherwise.
In addition, Geraldo Rivera needs to stop being such a snob and eat crow rather than attempting to excuse himself for not knowing that at one point there was one, lone, "nutjob" architect, Richard Gage, who started Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911). Richard Gage started looking into it because of the other "nutjobs" who weren't buffaloed the way Geraldo Rivera was completely duped and stayed that way until just recently — mighty slow, Geraldo for someone with your resources. Nevertheless, it's better late than never.
Welcome to the knowledge that the official version of 9/11 is a vast criminal conspiracy headed up by the Bush/Cheney/Ariel Sharon Administrations neocon/Zionists, just as the Gulf of Tonkin was a vast conspiracy as were so many other false-flag operations down through American history (including the USS Liberty, which was the Zionists, with US President Lyndon Johnson's direct help, trying to sink an American ship to blame it on the Egyptians). It's all documented. You just need to spend time reading it rather than watching so much "entertainment." Then, stand up and voice the truth. It really will set you/us free!
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)