From: Natural News
 Saturday, February 16, 2013by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger |
(NaturalNews) Here's a valuable self-test to find out whether you've
been hypnotized (and controlled) by the mainstream media and its
engineered false reality. After you take this test, watch the stage hypnosis videos I've selected for you, below, and you'll be astonished to learn just how hypnotized most people really are.
Test Question #1) Were the fires that burned up Christopher Dorner set by the LAPD?
Minutes before fires broke out in the cabin where homicide suspect Chris Dorner was holed up, the LAPD ordered all media helicopters and video journalists to clear the area. The following conversation was then heard on police radios:
"We're gonna go forward with the plan with the burner."
"Like we talked about."
"Burners deployed, and we have a fire."
Repeated by dispatcher: "Burners deployed, and we have a fire."
"(unintelligible)...mission success."
"We have fire in the front. He might come out the back."
"Looks like it's starting to collapse."
"We're gonna start bringing fire in, about 200 yards out."
"Break 61 Lincon, 61 Charlie, you ready for fire?"
All this starts around the 1:00 mark in the following video:
Test Question #1) Were the fires that burned up Christopher Dorner set by the LAPD?
Minutes before fires broke out in the cabin where homicide suspect Chris Dorner was holed up, the LAPD ordered all media helicopters and video journalists to clear the area. The following conversation was then heard on police radios:
"We're gonna go forward with the plan with the burner."
"Like we talked about."
"Burners deployed, and we have a fire."
Repeated by dispatcher: "Burners deployed, and we have a fire."
"(unintelligible)...mission success."
"We have fire in the front. He might come out the back."
"Looks like it's starting to collapse."
"We're gonna start bringing fire in, about 200 yards out."
"Break 61 Lincon, 61 Charlie, you ready for fire?"
All this starts around the 1:00 mark in the following video:
Fire then breaks out, burning down the cabin along with Christopher Dorner, the homicide suspect.
The San Bernadino sheriff's department, which had authority on the scene, then declared that nobody set the fires and they have no idea how the fires happened. Those fires were spontaneous fires, they claim, which erupted on their own.
So here's the hypnosis test question: Do you believe the claim that law enforcement did not set the fires?
If so, you are hypnotized by the media into a state of extreme gullibility. Please keep score and continue...
Test Question #2: Why is the U.S. government buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?
When Natural News and InfoWars first reported that the U.S. government was buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to use domestically
-- that's enough to wage at least a 7-year full-scale war with the
American people -- we were first called "conspiracy theorists" and it
was widely claimed that our allegations were false.
But now, since the media has been unable to suppress the truth about these huge ammo purchases by the U.S. government, the script it being flipped: Now we're told these purchases are all about saving taxpayers money by "buying in bulk."
Yep, the government's purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo is all about saving YOU money! Well gee, how nice of them! But don't forget that this is enough ammunition to shoot every person in America five times. If this is "bulk purchasing," it's the equivalent of you and I driving to Costco and buying 50,000 pounds of peanut butter and having it loaded onto railroad cars with the claim that we're "saving money on peanut butter!"
It's no longer a conspiracy theory that the government is buying all these bullets; it's now explained by the media as a "benefit" to the taxpayers.
Question: Do you believe these ammo purchases are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money?
If so, you've been hypnotized yet again by the mainstream media into a state of total stupidity. By this logic, they could buy human incineration ovens in bulk and claim they're saving taxpayers money by purchasing in bulk.
What's clear is that the U.S. government is engaged in an arms race, stockpiling and hoarding masses of ammunition to prepare for war with the American people.
But now, since the media has been unable to suppress the truth about these huge ammo purchases by the U.S. government, the script it being flipped: Now we're told these purchases are all about saving taxpayers money by "buying in bulk."
Yep, the government's purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo is all about saving YOU money! Well gee, how nice of them! But don't forget that this is enough ammunition to shoot every person in America five times. If this is "bulk purchasing," it's the equivalent of you and I driving to Costco and buying 50,000 pounds of peanut butter and having it loaded onto railroad cars with the claim that we're "saving money on peanut butter!"
It's no longer a conspiracy theory that the government is buying all these bullets; it's now explained by the media as a "benefit" to the taxpayers.
Question: Do you believe these ammo purchases are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money?
If so, you've been hypnotized yet again by the mainstream media into a state of total stupidity. By this logic, they could buy human incineration ovens in bulk and claim they're saving taxpayers money by purchasing in bulk.
What's clear is that the U.S. government is engaged in an arms race, stockpiling and hoarding masses of ammunition to prepare for war with the American people.
Test Question #3: Can guns be defensive weapons?
An anti-gun California police boss named Ken James just told reporters, on camera, that "A gun is not a defensive weapon."
He goes on to explain, in his own twisted logic: "A gun is an offensive
weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don't carry a
gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other
officers."
In other words, he's claiming that cops carry guns to intimidate and show power, not to protect themselves defensively. He further implies, ridiculously, that guns are in no way a deterrent against violence -- that a violent assailant is just as likely to attack an unarmed person as an armed person wielding a gun in self defense.
Ken James, of course, just broadcast to the entire world that he has an IQ no higher than room temperature... on the Celsius scale! But the media plays it off as if his arguments somehow make sense: that ALL guns are offensive weapons and have no role in self defense.
So here's the question: Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power?
If so, you've been hypnotized by the media once again into believing something that's off-the-wall stupid.
In other words, he's claiming that cops carry guns to intimidate and show power, not to protect themselves defensively. He further implies, ridiculously, that guns are in no way a deterrent against violence -- that a violent assailant is just as likely to attack an unarmed person as an armed person wielding a gun in self defense.
Ken James, of course, just broadcast to the entire world that he has an IQ no higher than room temperature... on the Celsius scale! But the media plays it off as if his arguments somehow make sense: that ALL guns are offensive weapons and have no role in self defense.
So here's the question: Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power?
If so, you've been hypnotized by the media once again into believing something that's off-the-wall stupid.
Final question: Building 7
Now
here's the really big question on media hypnosis. Nearly everyone in
the mainstream has been hypnotized into thinking that on 9/11/2001,
building 7 of the World Trade Center was brought down after being hit by
an airplane.
Except building 7 wasn't hit by any airplane at all. Only two buildings were hit by airplanes -- the twin towers. Building 7 was hit by nothing except some falling debris.
According to official reports -- which of course require you suspend all belief in the laws of physics -- building 7's internal support structures all snapped at precisely to same moment due to a couple of office fires burning inside the building, causing it to miraculously collapse demolition-style into its own footprint.
Although such a feat normally requires months of planning, engineering calculations and the careful placement of demolition charges on building support structures, we are told that none of this was needed in the case of building 7; that office fires melted concrete-and-steel structural columns simultaneously throughout the building. Never before in the recorded history of architecture has a fire ever brought down a concrete-and-steel building, but we're supposed to believe it somehow happened with building 7 in a perfect pattern of symmetrical collapse.
So here's the question: Do you believe the official story on building 7? If so, you've been wildly hypnotized by the media into believing an obvious fiction that wholly violates the laws of physics and materials science. Concrete doesn't burn, for starters, and getting a building like that to fall into its own footprint requires all the concrete and steel support columns to be severed almost simultaneously.
And yet, amazingly, most Americans believe whatever the media tells them. They are easily hypnotized into imagining they are seeing things that really aren't there. It's no different than a person under the influence of a stage hypnosis expert running around thinking they have a glass of water in their hands because they were told to believe so.
Except building 7 wasn't hit by any airplane at all. Only two buildings were hit by airplanes -- the twin towers. Building 7 was hit by nothing except some falling debris.
According to official reports -- which of course require you suspend all belief in the laws of physics -- building 7's internal support structures all snapped at precisely to same moment due to a couple of office fires burning inside the building, causing it to miraculously collapse demolition-style into its own footprint.
Although such a feat normally requires months of planning, engineering calculations and the careful placement of demolition charges on building support structures, we are told that none of this was needed in the case of building 7; that office fires melted concrete-and-steel structural columns simultaneously throughout the building. Never before in the recorded history of architecture has a fire ever brought down a concrete-and-steel building, but we're supposed to believe it somehow happened with building 7 in a perfect pattern of symmetrical collapse.
So here's the question: Do you believe the official story on building 7? If so, you've been wildly hypnotized by the media into believing an obvious fiction that wholly violates the laws of physics and materials science. Concrete doesn't burn, for starters, and getting a building like that to fall into its own footprint requires all the concrete and steel support columns to be severed almost simultaneously.
And yet, amazingly, most Americans believe whatever the media tells them. They are easily hypnotized into imagining they are seeing things that really aren't there. It's no different than a person under the influence of a stage hypnosis expert running around thinking they have a glass of water in their hands because they were told to believe so.
No comments:
Post a Comment