the Paris attacks: challenging the narrative of the “new 9/11”

Appeal to authority bullshit.

Who gives a flying f**l what Lagarde says.

At best she’s taking the piss because folk are too dumb to notice what is right under thier noses.

Years of experience tells them so.

It’s me right here thats delivering the message.

Not Lagarde OK ?

So, read it and find out what you’ve all been missing.

MG

“Twaddle.”

Says the poster who thinks that inane comments on t’interwebs hood any value for anyone.

Get your head out of your backside and do some reading.

You also have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Which probably explains why you resort to such tactics.

You will never find the answers you claim to seek by scouring “copy” forim the media.

Deep down you know that though.

So why you kid yourselevs otherwise, only you can answer.

Hey ho.

Good luck eveyrone.

You are all wasting your time.

MG

Hello sum1

Humans, for some unexplained reason are obsessed with the future.

I have asked for explanations for this phenomenon and the only answer that seems to fit is:

“Because we are.”

So what say you ?

Why do you ask ?

I get asked this question, usually derisively, more often than any other.

Usually by smart arses trying to mock.

Which speaks volumes about them, I’m sure you will agreee …

Experience shows that it is usually asked by folk who have not even bothered to read, understand or try to comprehend the information presented.

I spend a great deal of time on this. I rarely have time to look into future dates because of the work load decoding the past.

Secondly, think about what you are asking.

Do you think it would be productive and helpful in trying to get the message across, by making bold assertions about the future ?

What would happen if I did and they proved to be incorrect ?

Would that assist or hinder ?

Would you do it ?

So that’s the sort of very basic consideration you might have exercised before asking such a question.

Where possible I do keep half an eye on future dates when the conjunction of relationships from the “usual suspects” root events result in the patterns often seen.

However, I do not publish them for the very obvious reason of undermining the method which I am trying to persuade folk to learn about.

I have no idea what the evil bastards are going to get up to next.

Even if I did, foolishly make such claims, I have no idea whether it’s going to be another Dunblane, or Soham, or a bombing or a whatever.

If you spend some time going through my work, you will learn that it is never a single relationship that results in an event.

It is always a conjunction from several root events.

So, for example:

Privately, I suspected 14, 15 & 16 November for reasons explained here.

Events for 14, 15 & 16 November 2015 and possible near future dates
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062621241#post1062621241

That contradicts what I said above about not publishing, but note, that post was made on the morning following the Paris events as I felt compelled to point out the conjunction of GHW Bush and Netanyahu.

As I say, privately, I was expecting something, probably “big” to happen starting on the 14th because of this conjunction.

That post is the only time I have publicly stated anything about the future and I only did so in light of Paris, on the next morning because I had no idea how long “Paris” would go on for.

So, the answer is yes, if I spend the time doing it. But no, you are not going to hear about it.

You will note that the above link details the following future possibles:

19, 20 & 21 November 2015

That sequence starts today, so we’ll see.

To be clear:

Public announcements about posisble future dates would be conunter-porductive if they fail and marvellous if they worked.

It’s a risk which is not worth the candle.

Also, there is one very important aspect you have probably overlooked here.

That concerns the nature or type of events that “the audience” would accept as “being dodgy” for want of a better description.

So for example, we can all agree that say, 9/11 or Paris certainly qualify as events of interest.

When I ask folk why, they usually cannot qualify “why” very clearly at all, other than “generalisations” about what “tickles their fancy”.

So, if I were to pronounce forth on say, a child abduction, even in the past, some folk would just respond derisively, with ridicule, because “child abductions and child murders” are not on their radar of the type of events to consider.

They just happen apparently.

So, those who maybe concerned with so-called terrorism, would probably respond like that to the suggestion of a crime involving say, children, whereas, those concerned with the latter might discount the former.

I have had much experience of this.

It is very difficult to find an audience that

(a) has the ability, time & effort required to get into this paradigm

(b) would accept the wide variety of “categories” of all the different events

So, there you see the landscape.

An example for you.

I posted recently about Jesus Christ and 9/11

Stop laughing ! ( only joking there )

OK the reason why is very clear.

Apparently, one of the possible dates for JC’s birth is, get this:

11 September 0003

So, do the maths to 9/11 and you’ll see that there are precisely:

= 666 + 666 + 666 years

between the two.

See here:

Jesus Christ and 9/11

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062601962#post1062601962

I presented this to a Christian chap I know who is very Bible / Scripture aware and all he could do in response was mumble something about “coincidences”.

I haven’t heard from him since.

So, what do you think is going on there ?

My guess is that when it carries very significant meaning, some folk just cannot, really cannot handle it.

So, there’s another parameter that needs to be considered.

Hopefully now you can see that this is not a game.

The rather flippant, ill-considered expectation that “future possibles” should be published, diminishes when you consider the world we have to operate in.

Next:

How would you react if I were to post, details of the roots to say, Soham, Milly Dowler, Sarah Payne, Madeleine McCann et al ?

When you have considered that properly then ask yourself this.

Why is that any different to say, a bomb going off far way in some distants land killing multitudes ?

Answer that and you’ll start to see that there is a huge problem with bringing bad news to folk, especialy when it’s “on their doorstep”, in their “own back yard”, as it were and crucially, when it involves children.

Let alone trying to overcome the very firm mind-control the the TV exerts.

I’m amazed that anyone with half a brain still thinks Muslim terrorists did 9/11.

I regularly meet folk who haven’t even bothered looking into it.

My all time favourtite response to “how come you don’t know about 9/11 ?” was:

“I was on holiday at the time”

And that’s the world we live in.

Then there are the demographics of the folk to whom these results point a finger of accusation.

The right wingers don’t want to hear anything to the contrary about “brown skinned terrorism”.

The liberals don’t want to hear anything about any particular group / tribe.

And each tribe doesn’t want to hear anything about their own.

Are you getting the picture here ?

Good.

Have you figured about what 59 is yet ?

It’s not rocket science.

If you had all paid attention at school you would at least have the nouse to know where to look.

But since you probably didn’t, then you don’t, and that means you are stuck.

It’s a shame and it’s your loss.

But the beauty of being ignorant is – you don’t know it.

And so it goes …

MG