Previous Update: June 25 - 30

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
July 1 - 7, 2013

About a year ago, I was lamenting that the take-over of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood greatly reduced the likeliness for an anti-Christ takeover of the country. I was lamenting because it pushed prophetic fulfillment into to future by an unknowable length of time. But suddenly, this past week saw a completely unexpected surprise. The Egyptian president (Morsi), and many of his Brotherhood fellows in power, were arrested (temporarily, anyway) by the Egyptian military, and there has been a coup along those lines. This was a surprise especially due to the fact that Morsi chose his own military leaders...that have just betrayed him.

The assumption is that the military is acting on behalf of the secularist (not-very religious) Egyptians, but perhaps we shall need to wait and see if that's fully true. The military is justifying the coup by claiming that there is not a balance of power between the Brotherhood and the secularists...and that it aims to balance things out. However, there are early signs that this is a full-scale attempt to fatally cripple the Brotherhood's political arms as one means for "balance."

The situation has set up a civil-war potential wherein an invasion of Egypt from outside forces could be expected, seeking to re-install the Brotherhood. We should be keeping watch for the invasion of Egypt by a "cruel master" (Isaiah) to which God will deliver Egypt, the anti-Christ.

"We will bring [Morsi] back bearing him on our necks, sacrifice our souls for him," Mohamed Badie, the [Brotherhood's] spiritual leader, told an enraged crowd at a large demonstration in the Cairo suburb of Nasr City. "We will bring back the rights of the Egyptian people who were wronged by this disgraceful conspiracy."

The Israeli's are of course very happy with this turn of events -- thus far -- in Egypt. Obama, for his part, in a mass of confusion. No one, including his own advisors, understands how he operates, perfectly expected where he's acting secretly toward his own agenda while trying to make appearances of something else. I'm reading that Obama has refused to call this a coup because he wants Egypt to receive the one-billion-plus U.S. funds that have been promised annually. Under a coup situation, the funds cannot be given any longer. It's just another sign of Obama's hypocrisy to deny the truth for the sake of some political maneuver. And why does Obama want Egypt to receive those funds so badly even at this time? What did he negotiate with the Brotherhood that would send some of that money to groups he has designed Egypt for?

It's hard to know whether Zbigniew Brzezinski is still an Obama advisor, because he's not officially so, and because he's never named as such in media reports. He's not happy with Obama's current policy in Syria, according to the article below by an Israeli. It states that Brzezinski wants Assad in power, something I don't recall reading before:

In a recent TV interview on MSNBC, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and the "Father of al Qaeda," stated:
"I think our [foreign policy] posture is baffling, there no strategic design, we're using slogans. It's a tragedy and it's a mess in the making. I do not see what the United States right now is trying to accomplish. It all seems to me rather sporadic, chaotic, unstructured, and undirected. I think we need a serious policy review with the top people involved, not just an announcement from the deputy head of the NSC [= National Security] that an important event has taken place and we will be reacted to it.

"We are running the risk of getting into another war in the region which may last for years and I don't see any real strategic guidance to what we are doing. I see a lot of rhetoric, a lot emotion, a lot of propaganda in fact."

But Brzezinski also stated the same "serious policy" in a Daily Beast (DB) 2009 interview (less than 3 years ago), that if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear weapons' sites, then the US should somehow stop the Israeli planes:

"DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike [on Iran] might be in America's worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."

...First, you have to remember that Brzezinski will strongly push any position that catastrophically harms Israel, even if it also catastrophically harms the United States.

Second, Brzezinski is an Iran-Firster who wants Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. In short, Brzezinski wants nothing less than a nuclear-armed Iran which can annihilate Israel, and murder 6,000,000 Jews.

But how does one get from Brzezinski's protecting Assad to Iran's nuking Israel?? Brzezinski, the chess player, understands that Assad and Hizbullah are effectively Iran's first, and only, line of defense against an Israeli solo-attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Why? Because on Brzezinski's chessboard, if Assad (Iran's rook) is toppled, Hizbullah and its arsenal of missiles become an isolated and useless Iranian pawn against Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear weapons' facilities (Iran's Queen).

...Well, how about Brzezinski's recent "analysis" about the United States arming the anti-Gaddafi rebels, and the US actually attacking Gaddafi? In a March 30, 2011 interview with Amar Bakshi(AB), Brzezinski stated"

"AB: Do you support the intervention in Libya?

Brzezinski: I support the intervention in Libya because I have the strong sense that if we did not [intervene], our credibility in the entire region - which is already very much at stake - would be shattered and Gaddafi would emerge as the leader and symbol of Arab radicalism."

Yikes!! That hurts. Brzezinski, the master geo-strategist, got it 100% wrong. The exact opposite happened. Libya became an absolute safe haven for even more extreme terrorists who then proceeded to murder our Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

But most importantly, according to Brzezinski's "objective" reasoning, Gaddafi who had agreed to disarm himself of nuclear weapons, and had 'only' killed 1,000 Libyans was fair game for total United States destruction, but a Shiite-Iranian Puppet Assad who is on the United States list of terror states, and who has murdered 100,000 people and used chemical weapons on civilians should be completely protected by the United States.

Brzezinski issues such contradictory policies because he is a rabid, pathological Jew-hater. Remember, Brzezinski always opts for what's worst for Israel, and best for Iran, even if it is what's worst for America.

That sounds an awful lot like the Obama I have been describing for years, an anti-American nut bent on secretly using the U.S. military to throw down Israel. Remember, Brzezinski gave birth to the power of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, where Obama was passionate from day one of his presidency. Was Brzezinski behind that passion?

My question is: is Brzezinski really pro-Assad? I've not heard this before until reading the above. Actually, it's not necessary that he be pro-Assad, just willing to see Assad stay in power for the sake of keeping the Iran axis alive against Israel. Brzezinski has said that Western intervention in Syria is not a good policy, which could indeed suggest that he wants Assad to continue. The article below definitely shows him opposed to Obama arming the Syrian rebels, though of course it doesn't say that his motive is for the Iran axis:

Not many weeks ago, I discussed Obama's secret transfer of Libyan weapons to the Syrian rebels, and felt that they were being transferred, not to the Syrian rebels of the Western choice, but to al-Qaeda groups in Syria. Might there be such groups there who are secretly in cahoots with Brzezinski? Has he (and the rest of his circle) maintained alliances (by funding them) with a secret group of al-Qaeda for use as a tool to his ends? Here is one of Brzezinski's statements in the article above: "If we get involved in a protracted war [in Syria], we are again in a war in the region, this hurts us also in Afghanistan. Secondly, if that war produces a collision between America and Iranians supporting Assad, is that better than an outcome in which perhaps Assad stays in power?" He could indeed be viewed there as desirous to keep Assad in power, though he makes it sound as though he's concerned for the well-being of the entire region. Another article, with Brzezinski speaking:

I'm afraid that we're headed toward an ineffective American intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes...I still do not understand why...we concluded somewhere back in 2011 or 2012...that Assad should go.

If we take him at face value, he is arguing on the side of caution: let's not engage more war with very unpredictable results. However, he must ultimately have a desire to see a certain Middle-East outcome. After all, he works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. What outcome does he desire to see? He says he wants peaceful / successful elections in Syria, but doesn't he also wish to see a certain Syrian faction in power? He must. But what part of Syria does he wish to see in power through elections? Does the question even matter to us? Is it relevant to prophecy? Is Obama working out the Brzezinski plan in Syria, or just some of it? Henry Kissinger also works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which sounds to be a cherished organ of U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps the bigger question is how the U.S. policy in Syria will "screw up," allowing the anti-Christ machine to find supremacy there. It's not hard to envision a calculated but phony alliance developing between the anti-Christ and the United States for the superficial purposes of keeping the Middle East from wholesale implosion, but the deeper purposes will involve the gas and oil. The weaker the Middle-East nations, the easier it is to exploit the gas and oil. The policy group above might just be very happy to see civil war in Syria and Iraq for the purposes of exploiting their pipelines. Brzezinski has himself accused the "neoconservatives" of destabilizing the Middle East for to grab power of their own, but why shouldn't this be a principle also of Democrats when they are in the White House?

The two-page article above once again suggests that Obama and Brzezinski have not been seeing eye-to-eye on Syria. Brzezinski speaking:

[Obama] obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go -- without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people?

From that statement, it's not easy to argue that he and Obama were seeking to install the same Syrian groups in power. However, the Brzezinski circle may have succeeded in convincing Obama to come around to their way of thinking. Obama would have wanted us to believe that he opposed Assad (a Shi'ite) for to remove yet another dictator in his dictator-hunting season, but I say he wanted to install Brotherhood elements there as he did in Egypt. The Brotherhood and their Sunni rebels oppose Iran (= Shi'ites), however, and for the moment we may assume that Brzezinski instead wanted the Iranian axis to advance forward, you see. We could conclude that both Brzezinski and Obama want Israel overthrown, but that they disagree on whether the Sunni or Shi'ites should accomplish that task.

For the record, Obama's latest move in Syria -- the accusation that Assad crossed the red line -- is something Brzezinski opposes:"Obama's setting of a 'red line' if Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons was made 'without too much thought,' Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's 'Political Capital with Al Hunt,' airing this weekend."

One might now blame Obama's in-action in Syria on the Brzezinski circle. Even though they don't agree on procedure, yet Obama may be attentive to that circle's warnings. The U.S. military is pulling Obama the other way, urging him to arm the rebels and get the thing over with. Get what over with? Would it really be over with, when Assad goes? Ask Egypt. Or, ask the Sunni poised to topple Maliki.

If the Israeli's are unafraid at this time, they must be in denial, or, in the case of religious Israeli's, they are depending on a false trust in their God, Who, rather than saving Israel from enemies all around, will allow it to go down as one wishes the destruction of his own son. I picture the Sunni fighters at this time as a cloud spreading from Iraq toward Israel via the Fertile Crescent. It's coming. Damascus will fall to the hands of an "Assyrian" without making a peep. He will be the "king of Babylon," and will enter Jerusalem successfully, trampling it down unlike any other Assyrian king before him.

It is important to us that Isaiah 10, where we read of his overthrow of Damascus and northern Israel, identifies him as an Assyrian. Then, in Isaiah 14, he is not just Satan, the "king of Babylon," but he's also said to be "an Assyrian." What does this mean? Are we to expect a true-blooded Assyrian, an Iraqi citizen from the Mosul region??? Am I wrong to expect a Russian-Gog who merely comes to rule at Mosul? I'm open to being wrong. I'm looking for any shoe that fits. We should all be looking for it. We've got to warn our friends and family. Will they listen?

Or is the Syria struggle just another small bump on the long road to fulfilled prophecy, to be followed by a smooth section before yet another bump, and on and on, one generation following another until the Church has fallen into deep sleep waiting for what "never" arrives?

The Sunni cloud overtaking the Fertile Crescent is an anti-Christian one. Before the world arrives to the great tribulation of Israel, it must become massively anti-Christian. Have we arrived there yet? When Revelation and other prophecies speak on end-time Christian persecution, is it referring to Christians in the Israeli theater only, or across the entire planet? When in Revelation 13 we read of an anti-Christ making war against the Christian "saints," might it not be the Christians of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and the rest of the Arab world? The Sunni are even now promising a bloodbath of Syrian and Assyrian Christians (many of them Catholics). It just so happens that Obama is supporting this kind of Muslim world. Chances are, Brzezinski and his ilk are themselves anti-Christian.

Russia has a history of anti-Christian policies from the government down. Modern Russia is tolerant, but this may be a facade for use in its world-stage ambitions. In like manner, Putin could be using an Israeli-friendly facade for global-alliance purposes. Should we await a time when the rest of the world is so anti-Israeli that Russia can come out of the closet with an identical sentiment? Are we waiting for Mainline USA to be openly anti-Israeli? Or is it sufficient for the world to have a slight anti-Christian / anti-Israeli appetite...that the anti-Christ will exploit suddenly with a New World Principle of his own, based on Soviet-era anti-Christianity?

If we imagine an Arab anti-Christ, a problem arises: why would Revelation 13 portray him making war against Christians rather than against Israel? Wouldn't an Arab, who heads the invasion of Israel, be primarily concerned with Israeli's...i.e. non-Christians? What sort of Arab leader would expend himself against Israel and meanwhile become pre-occupied with eradicating Jesus? I've pictured a Russian, anti-Jesus Antichrist with Muslims in alliance that do his Israeli work for him.

At this time, Putin is acting as the finger-pointer, pointing at the American screw-up. It should soon be time for Russia to step up to the plate to show another way to "save" the Middle East.

San Francisco Plane Crash

Coming so soon after the spy scandal, this plane crash is suspicious because Facebook's CEO had initially ordered a seat for this very flight. As Fox puts it: "Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said she, her family and several colleagues had been scheduled for the flight but had switched at the last minute." Let's assume, therefore, that the O-government did not know about the switch, and decided to crash-land the plane in order to kill just one "enemy" aboard the plane. Who, then, is the real enemy, the CEO who was able to blow the spy scandal open all the wider, or the O-government willing to kill/harm a load of plane passengers just to silence one person??? You know the answer.

The possibility is that the phone calls and emails of Facebook's CEO were collected by the O-people throughout the Snowden scandal, and that it was deemed necessary to eliminate her. When they learned of her flight on this plane, they ordered an explosion on a certain part of the plane. It is being said that some witnesses heard a "boom" at the crash site. Probably, if there is truth to this theory, the bomb was set off by remote control by someone in the airport / city. "When you heard that explosion, that loud boom and you saw the black just thought, my god, everybody in there is gone," said Ki Siadatan, who lives a few miles away from San Francisco International Airport and watched the plane's 'wobbly' and 'a little bit out of control' approach from his balcony. 'My initial reaction was I don't see how anyone could have made it.'"

Speculation is that the tail hit a concrete/rock seawall at the start of the runway due to the pilot flying in too low (on a clear day?). Loss of the tail and/or the jolt against the seawall then caused the plane to lose control. But what caused the "boom"? I'm not reading that the fuel tanks exploded. The plane's wings were not damaged so far as this photo (and others) of the plane-at-rest can reveal. Looking at that photo, the smoke is seen behind the plane, in my opinion, not coming from the plane itself. Weird. Why is that?

In another photo showing the top-view, much of the plane's ceiling is burned away. Yet in the photo at the link above, the top of the plane is clearly not on fire. The article claims that the photo was tweeted by a passenger, but in my opinion already, this is an insider photo, and it's photo-shopped to give the impression that the top of the plane was burning. Yes, it appears that someone added the smoke to the photo to make it appear that the plane's ceiling is on fire. But why was this photo released? Note how the top of the plane looks dirty.

Perhaps the insiders wanted to give the impression that the plane was burning as soon as possible from the moment of crash. That is, they didn't want to release a photo of the plane not burning. Why would that be? Did they start the fire off themselves when one of their agents boarded the plane, and was this fire intended to have us believe that the cause of the crash -- or the boom -- was something other than a bomb?

Why is it that I am coming across no photos showing the top of the plane burning? For example, why is there not a close-up, overhead view showing smoke billowing out the plane? That smoke must have been billowing for quite some time if the flames melted the plane's metal skin to the degree that the gaping holes suggest. There are several photos online already of the holes, all without billowing smoke. I've seen three photos of the smoke, none of which show it (clearly / definitely / without question) coming from the holes. Why is that? Why are the news people not showing us their overhead photos of the smoke in action? The blog below has this comment: "It was interesting that there was practically a news blackout for hours regarding the fate of the passengers. Most info was getting out on twitter and passengers cell phones. very strange." What, but the government, could cause a media blackout, if indeed there was one?

A potential solution as to why the top of the plane is dirty (looks like dry dirt) concerns a woman claiming that the plane ended up on its back. "According to a witness, around 11:30 a.m. the plane was just about to land -- its landing gear had come down -- when the tail of the plane came off. After wobbling for a minute, the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on its back, according to witness Kathy Muhler." I find it strange how someone could wrongly view the plane on its back when obviously it was not, but it's strange things like this, and what appears to be a dirty upper part of the plane, that makes this case suspicious. I cannot imagine a plane flipping upside down on a runway without sustaining extensive wing damage, especially at the wing tips. Nor can I understand that a plane could flip to it's back with only one outspoken witness making such a claim.

Some photos shows one wing tip slightly damaged in what appears to me to be more consistent with a tap of the wing on the ground (as the plane tottered) rather than a plane flipping over. The last time a Boeing 777 crashed was in London (suspicious location) due to coming in too low. Hmm.

Here's one theory: the woman who reported the flipped plane was an insider, and the plotters had decided beforehand to have the plane flip over. As the plane was not flipped when it came to a stop, the plotters added in what looks like dry earth on the top of the plane, allowing the woman's testimony to stand somewhat because the dirt acts as proof of a flipped plane. The importance of faking a flipped plane would be to give false credit for the crash to the missing tail. But then that assumes that the plotters were responsible for the tail coming off, explaining the boom / explosion. "Kevin Darcy, an aviation safety expert and retired chief investigator for Boeing, says it is unusual for the tail of an aircraft to come apart. 'I just haven't seen anything like that for years and years and years,' he says. "There's no way of knowing if this is the same circumstance, but the last time I saw a situation where the tail came off like that on landing was during the flight testing from a DC-9.'"

One passenger (Levi surname) testified that the plane was about ten feet off the ocean waters as it flew in. "'I don't see any runway, I just see water,' Levy recalled...'Honestly, I was waiting for the plane to ... start flipping upside down, in which case I think a lot of people would have not made it,' Levy said. 'If we flipped, none of us would be here to talk about it.'"

It is the belief of many that 9-11 was conducted with the full involvement of airport leadership. In the same way, the San Francisco airport may be in collusion here. Will the airport release its own videos of the crash? If not, it would seem suspicious. Should I take Levi's word for it, that the tail hit the sea wall? Or did the tail come off due to an explosion from the insiders who planned to make it appear as though it hit the seawall? Was Levi really on the plane, or is he a false-witness insider feigning that he was on the plane??? He may very well have purchased a ticket, but was he on the plane? He is said to be a "Silicon Valley businessman." That could make him part of the Internet crowd involved with the Facebook-et-al scandal.

Why has the media not shown overhead pictures of the tail parts in the water, or on the runway, at the seawall??? Is San Francisco short of media helicopters? No. Could it be that the main tail parts did not end up at a location consistent with a tail crashing into the seawall? If the O-people have their way, we won't get an answer for years. Look at how the following report from an eye witness fails to mention the tail striking the seawall even though she apparently saw the plane coming in, as well as hearing the explosion:

'The plane started coming in at an odd angle, there was a huge bang and you could see the cloud of huge black smoke,' observed Kate Belding, who told KCBS she was jogging near the airport at the time of the crash.

The obvious question is why the smoke developed near the front of the plane if it was the tail that struck the seawall. We need to confirm when, in relation to the tail gone missing, the fire and smoke started. A Washington Post article says, "Within a minute or two [of the tail being knocked off], the plane was in flames." There cannot be smoke pouring out the plane's ceiling right away unless the ceiling is off as per a hole through it. How did the hole(s) get there? It would take more than a minute or two for a fire from burning cargo to develop into a "huge black smoke" through the very top of the plane. Look at the enormous smoke clouds offered at the CNN article; what would cause that much smoke if not fuel:

A plane cannot keep a straight line long without a tail. As it turns and slides sideways on its wheels, a plane gets into a position to enter a flip. The insiders expected the plane to flip, right? But as the wheels apparently broke off at this point, the wings were essentially sliding along the ground...which is what probably saved the plane from flipping.

The same Washington Post article (link below) adds: "'It just pancaked immediately. It collapsed and then it slid,'..." I'm reading this as the plane crashing onto its belly immediately after the initial boom and loss of tail, meaning that the wheels had failed by that early time. The witness above mentions no wheels when he says the plane pancaked. Did he see any wheels? I don't know. Two other witnesses follow the one above, neither of which mention the wheels breaking off even though both say that the plane slid down the runway.

The following webpage has a single photo (not taken from an overhead view) showing both the wheel(s) and part of the tail (actually, the photo doesn't look right to me).

Smoke started during the slide: "Lee said he felt one bump and then a second, more violent smash. He wrapped his arms around his 16-month-old son as smoke began to fill the plane." What would cause a fire during a skid? The plane is skidding along on its belly, which is essentially the floor of the cargo area. Even if sparks did enter the cargo area from the metal scraping along the ground, the smoke could not enter the passenger area that quickly. Could it? I don't think so. The entire slide took but a few seconds long.

The Post article gives us a clue:

The initial cabin smoke [from the ceiling bombs?] was minimal compared to that produced by the fire that was about to ravage the plane from the cockpit area to behind the wings, leaving a sooty gash in the aircraft's roof.

But before those flames broke out, there were seconds for the passengers to flee.

The wings contact the cargo area of the plane, not the passenger area. If fuel from the wings leaked out, it would have started a fire in the cargo area first. How would the smoke in the cargo area get to the passenger area? There is no evidence of cracks / tears along the outer sides of the plane showing that any part of the passenger floor could have been compromised / torn to allow smoke in from the cargo area. It seems a better explanation that the billowing smoke originated in the passenger area.

If the smoke was from a fuel fire, why were the wings not burning / exploded? How much fuel would the plane have left, anyway, after a long flight from South Korea? I have yet to hear any comments on the potential nature of the fire. Was the smoke from some sort of military-grade "smoke bomb" rather than burning airplane parts / fuel?

There are two holes in the ceiling that acted as outlets for the smoke and heat, one of which was not over the wings. Why not? If the holes though the ceiling were not there immediately, the initial stages of the fire would have forced smoke out the doors. If the San Francisco media show no smoke pouring out the doors, then the holes in the ceiling must have been there immediately, meaning to say that the holes were not caused by the fire, but by explosions. If there was no smoke pouring out the doors, can this explain why the media did not offer photos / videos of the smoke billowing from the plane? BIG POINT: in the photos provided, we see no smoke residue above the open doors. BIG PROBLEM for the insiders? Written from San Francisco:

Pictures taken by survivors immediately after the crash showed passengers emerging from the wrecked plane and hurrying away. Thick smoke then billowed from the wreckage, and TV footage later showed the fuselage of the aircraft gutted and blackened by fire.

Why didn't San Francisco TV footage include billowing smoke from all sorts of angles and close-ups???? Who ordered the TV stations not to air any of that?

But wait. How do I explain a tail exploded by insiders? How did they get bombs into the South Korean plane? Or, do they now have invisible missiles (i.e. showing no flash of light) to do the job? After all, in the case of flight TWA 800, the flashes from missiles were seen, threatening to spoil the insider plot. A look at the back end of the Boeing plane (under discussion) shows a clean cut, not expected from a missile. Nor is a clean cut expected with a tail striking a concrete/rock seawall, for we the nose of the plane was pointed upward on some angle when the tail struck, meaning the tail swiped along the wall. "Xu and his wife were among the fortunate. 'We quickly slung on luggage and grabbed our child and walked toward the back,' Xu said on Weibo. 'Saw the kitchen at back mostly disappeared. A huge hole -- very round. We quickly rushed out.'" VERY ROUND is my point. Explosives planted in a circle around the plane's shell could produce such a clean cut.

Explosives on the ceiling (and the holes they caused) could allow the instant billows of smoke that the reports seem to be reporting. It begs the questions of how the insiders could have had prior access to plant these explosives, and how explosives inside the plane didn't cause more deaths. I have no idea how to answer these questions. What's this puff of dirt:

'All of a sudden I saw what looked like a cloud of dirt puffing up and then there was a big bang and it kind of looked like the plane maybe bounced,' Belding said. 'I couldn't really tell what happened, but you saw the wings going up and (at) a weird angle.'

There could not have been a puff of literal dirt if the tail hadn't yet crashed to cause the loud bang/boom. First, the tail must clip the seawall; then the plane must hit the runway (which is not made of dirt); then the plane must spin off the runway into the dirt. Therefore, the witness testimony above is evidence that some granulated material went up from the plane (suggests an explosion), followed by the sound of a bang reaching her ears a split-second later. I cannot make out (from her words alone) whether this bang concerns the tail or the ceiling.

Only two people, both females, were killed. The condition of their bodies seems not yet to have been reported. Both were found outside the plane, which itself seems suspicious. Is it possible that the plotters had agents enter the crashed plane who were commissioned to kill the passenger(s) at such-and-such seat number(s), where the CEO (and her family) was supposed to have taken her seat??? A good explanation for why the two ladies were found outside the plane is that the agents could not risk killing them inside the plane, where others would have noticed it.

However, the ladies are being reported as Chinese, and both in their teens; how could the agents mistaken them for the CEO of Facebook? Perhaps the deaths of these ladies had nothing to do with the plot. OR, perhaps the plot had nothing to do with the CEO of Facebook, but rather she was an insider knowing that the plane was going to be downed.

In other words, the plane was sabotaged as part of the Obama backlash against China for not surrendering Edward Snowden, the one who revealed what Facebook had been doing. Most of the passengers were Chinese, after all. The CEO of Facebook then played her part -- the intended purchase of tickets on this very flight -- to send a message to other would-be whistleblowers: that the government can "get you" using its mighty powers of collusion with legions of dirtball insiders.

If I'm confusing you, let me put it this way, that I at-first thought that the crash was due to the O-government / NSA / FBI seeking to kill the Facebook CEO because she was looking like a potential whistleblower. From that perspective, where the American people are given that impression, it sends the world the message that the O-government is willing to go to such lengths as conducting a plane crash to murder a potential whistleblower. Remember, I came to believe that Obama tried to kill Hillary Clinton in a plane crash on an Iranian runway during the period in which she was to testify to law makers as per the Benghazi scandal. It seems that the method-of-choice for the murder tools now in the employment of the Obama circle is, not mid-air explosions, but runway crashes.

No sooner did this Chinese flight crash that we hear of yet another train derailment in Russia i.e. the country that, along with China, refused to hand Snowden over.

Snowden is concerned about a global spy beast:

...Snowden said in comments made before his exposure of US espionage practices came to light last month and printed in German news weekly Der Spiegel that NSA spies are "in bed together with the Germans and most other Western states".

In remarks published in German, Snowden said an NSA department known as the Foreign Affairs Directorate coordinated work with foreign secret services.

The partnerships are organised so that authorities in other countries can "insulate their political leaders from the backlash" if it becomes public "how grievously they're violating global privacy," he said.

I get it. They work together, then act like they know nothing once one country member gets caught. They draw up plans on how to deal with getting caught, even pointing the evil finger at the member that gets caught. What a sham, the New World Order. It will now need a new face and a new phrase to go by, but Obama is not going to be the one who designs either one.

[Update: "The [teenage] victims were close friends and top students, looking forward to spending a few weeks at a Christian summer camp in California..." The black-box data has been shared with the public, though I don't know that the actual recording has been shared versus what we are merely being told of the recordings. The official line is that the plane was coming in too slow and therefore too low. But until I hear the recording in the black box for myself, this report is so much unreliable information.

Below is an image with smoke billowing from the two gaping holes in the roof, and yet we need to have an answer as to why the smoke is not pouring out the open door. Or, why didn't it pour out the open doors before the heat put holes through the plane? I can't imagine any plausible answer. Is the smoke added into this photo? Is the smoke faked? Why? The image is found at an article telling thjat the recording of the black box has not been shared. Instead, "Releasing data from the flight's black boxes without full investigative information for context 'has fuelled rampant speculation' about the cause of the crash, the Air Line Pilots Association International said."



Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic