What about Building #7 on 9/11?

By Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad                                 3/11/16

The sight of buildings number 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center falling down into a heap of dust was seen all over the world and traumatized the masses as Min. Farrakhan has stated in his March 8, 2016 interview to the Final Call. He states: “They understood, and the ADL understands, that once the American people know that this country or the government and some members of it are, in fact, a party to the conspiracy to take down the Twin Towers in a false flag operation that was designed to create a situation that would so frighten, alarm, and anger the American people that they could direct that anger against the Muslim World and bring the war effort to take down seven Muslim nations in five years. Facts are now coming to light that show Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. A policy came out of the Pentagon to make war and to pit the Muslims against each other and rip up these ‘cells of terror’.”

There are arguments current on the internet as to what brought those buildings down. Some argue the government’s position that the fire from jet fuel caused the buildings to fall. Others point out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough, so there must have been some internal explosives placed within those buildings that brought them down as is done with building demolitions every day. However, another building, a 47 story skyscraper called Building #7 fell on this same day that was not widely broadcast on 9/11 reporting.

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”  And as the character Sherlock Holmes states in The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet: “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Fact: 1. Building #7 in the World Trade Center complex fell at 5:21 PM EST on September 11,        2001 and 2. Building #7 was not struck by an airplane.

Impossibility: Building #7 was taken down by Arabs flying a plane into it.

So since building #7 fell and no plane hit it, then what brought that building down?

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan in 2012 invited members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to present their scientific analysis of what happened on September 11, 2001, in a plenary session titled “9/11: What Really Happened and Why?” As a part of the 2012 Saviours’ Day Celebration, Mr. Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, flatly asserted and then proved that WTC 7 was brought down on the afternoon of 9/11/01 not by a plane or a fire caused by debris coming from the other buildings, but by carefully placed explosives. All three buildings—1, 2 and 7—were wired with explosive charges long before 9/11/2001.

Mr. Gage showed the audience a video of a side by side comparison in real time of building #7 collapse compared to the collapse of another skyscraper that was intentionally demolished using explosive charges placed within the building. Both buildings fell in the same way and the same speed. In fact Mr. Gage showed pictures of the remains of unexploded “thermite” found in the dust of the World Trade Center destroyed buildings. This type of explosive can pulverize steel as was done in the World Trade Center buildings, but this type of explosive is not readily available to the public but is a military explosive compound.

Minister Farrakhan admonished us to study the law of “cause and effect” and not be victims of our ignorance and fear. Put into a Google search the term “WTC 7 collapse” and you will get over 300,000 results.

Here is an example of the type of responses that you will find: At http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

Michael Fullerton wrote on February 14, 2011:

“A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds. A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall.” He further stated that all of the support columns in WTC 7 would have to be rigged with explosives for it to fall in its own footprint thus minimizing damage to other valuable real estate.

And from http://www.infowars.com/engineers-request-permission-to-speak-freely-regarding-world-trade-building-7/ Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition.”

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a master’s degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: “Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire.”

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world.“

Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7, gave a TV interview when he stated what happened on September 11, 2001 where he stated, “We agreed the smartest thing would be to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse.” In the vernacular of demolition experts “pull” means to demolish a building. Mr. Silverstein who also held the lease on buildings 1 and 2 had added “terrorist attacks” to incidents that would be covered for all three buildings, 1, 2 and 7 in his insurance policy. All scientists agree that it would take weeks to set such demolition charges and not the 8 hour window of opportunity that they had on 9/11 after towers 1 and 2 were struck. In weeks prior to 9/11 workers in building #7 had complained about the dust kicked up by “renovation” activities in this building as the explosives were covertly being placed around the supporting columns.

Therefore you must acquit 19 Arab “terrorists” and the Muslim world as perpetrators of “9/11”. No matter how improbable it might seem that Minister Farrakhan is right in labeling “9/11” as an “inside job”, the facts pointed out above “have excluded the impossible”. It was impossible for those 19 Arabs to do what the U.S. government claimed they did. So we must look elsewhere to find who benefited from “9/11”. It sure did not benefit the Muslim world, since it gave an excuse for America and England to invade the Muslim world and promote “regime change.”

In future articles we can get into “who probably did it and why” and what are the implications to present and future foreign and domestic policy. However, at this moment we can stand on the reality that airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center buildings did not bring them down. Therefore any arguments about the nature of the planes and their pilots are null and void. Instead, we must ask who had motive, means and opportunity to place and detonate explosives in the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 that fell on “9/11?”

 (Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad, Agricultural Economist, National Student Minister of Agriculture, Manager of Muhammad Farms. He can be reached at drridge@noimoa.com)

Food Wizardry

By Mischa Popoff               September 10, 2019

It will go down in history as the greatest economic scam ever. Bayer paid $66 billion for Monsanto and everyone’s wondering why.

Some 13,400 lawsuits have been filed againt Monsanto after its leading herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) was deemed a probable carcinogen. A jury awarded a plaintiff $289 million in the first case, reduced upon appeal to $78.5 million. But before anyone at Monsanto could celebrate, the next jury ordered them to pay $2 billion (yes, that’s a “b”). With another 13,398 cases to go (and growing), Bayer was nonetheless happy to pay $66 billion for Monsanto, knowing full-well these lawsuits could make the tobacco settlements of the 1990’s look like chump change.

What would you have done if you were the Scottish CEO of Monsanto? That’s easy. You’d have done the EXACT same thing our hapless Scottish president did when things started to unravel for him back in January of ’17. Turn to the Jews for help. Zionist Jews that is.

The other theory, stupidity on the part of Bayer’s Jewish CEO Werner Baumann, does not hold water. This was anything but a mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing, as did Hugh Grant, the CEO of Monsanto, when he took the deal, and just as Trump did when he bombed Syria twice, dropped a $314 million MOAB on a handful of terrorists in the middle of nowhere, scrapped the Iran deal, and moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. And guess who Baumann plans to make pay the entire bill? You and me, that’s who… and then some.

How you ask?

Everyone who eats meat needs to hear the story of Upton Sinclair and his 1906 bestselling book, The Jungle, an exposé on the corrupt American meat industry. Sinclair went undercover and revealed how unsafe industrial meat was, and how deplorable working conditions were contrasted with ma-&-pa butchers who’d been feeding us safely without any exploitation of labor for centuries. When President Teddy “trust buster” Roosevelt picked up a copy of his book, Sinclair thought the worst actors in the industry would be shut down. But before you could say “campaign donation,” the big meat packers had travelled to Washington to “help” the Roosevelt Administration write up new regulations that failed to solve any of the problems, and which drove countless ma-&-pa butchers who were unable to comply with the new regime, onerous and completely useless as it was, right out of business. It’s what’s known as over-regulation, leading Sinclair to lament, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”

With this as our backdrop, here’s what’s really happening today: Roundup has been OFF patent for many years. It is, as such, an afterthought for investors, with many chemical companies making off-brand or generic versions of glyphosate. And with all those lawsuits pending, you might think someone would have to be crazy to even remotely involve himself with anything associated with this probable carcinogen.

Unless…

What happens when something is deemed dangerous? Is it banned? Were cigarettes banned? Nope.

Glyphosate is going to be OVER-REGULATED, just like cigarettes (just like the American meat industry after Sinclair’s book), alongside alcohol, marijuana, opioids, gasoline and uranium, making it valuable once again by chasing away all those off-brand chemical companies who won’t be able to afford complying with the new regulations that are sure to come, effectively returning glyphosate to the full-commercial purview of its new “owner,” the new “boss,” Bayer.

Ta-da!

This will afford Bayer more than enough revenue to cover all the lawsuits, even if they exceed the trillion-dollar mark, a carbon copy of what happened when consumers, not any cigarette company, were forced to pick up the tab from all the cancer lawsuits back in the 1990s, a bill that has yet to be paid off, and perhaps never will… by design.

It was all part of the equation, right from the start. It always is.

For your first clue, ask yourself… why have none of the settlements to-date been for farmers? The first was a groundskeeper, the second was a couple who used Roundup for urban landscaping. What? Wouldn’t farmers be the first to succumb to illness if glyphosate was a carcinogen, and hence be the first to win a settlement? Yes, some farmers are involved, but it’s impossible to say how many because it does not suit EITHER SIDE to reveal this important statistic. Alas, both sides in this battle already agree that farmers will NEVER stop using glyphosate, not here in America, nor over in enviro-conscious Europe. Never. Modern farming is literally addicted to it, and both sides are banking on that fact. Why… it’s enough to make you think both sides in this titanic struggle for justice might even be in cahoots. (Hold that thought.)

Your second clue. While Baumann couldn’t very well have shared this plan with his shareholders and is facing a backlash for buying Monsanto, driving Bayer’s share price down by over 40%, he had a gaggle of lawyers, scientists and investment brokers by his side who understood exactly what he was getting his company into. It wasn’t like the magnitude of the Roundup lawsuits was being withheld. Right? And yet, he paid fair market value for Monsanto. If Monsanto’s brand was already in the proverbial dung heap due to these lawsuits, why didn’t he strike a better deal?

For your third clue, more telling than the first two, ask yourself who lent Bayer this money? International bankers do their due diligence. Right? They were perfectly fine with Bayer taking full ownership of this huge liability, as were Bayer’s and the lenders’ insurers.

You might also ask yourself, in passing… why is Monsanto (now Bayer) being sued over Roundup, and not Agent Orange or Aspartame? The answer is so devilishly simple it need not be overstressed: this whole event has nothing to do with safety, illness or untimely death, and certainly has nothing to do with taking anything off the market that makes money for the globalists, Big Banking and Big Government. You know… the people we don’t get to vote for.

Big Tobacco now acts as the collection agency for Big Government, retaining a healthy commission for its troubles. With the lion’s share of the $246 billion settlement now having been paid into state coffers, they show no signs of reducing the cost of tobacco. Mike Moore, the state attorney general for Mississippi who filed the first lawsuit against “Big Tobacco” and now runs the The American Legacy Foundation that oversees this 25-year payment scheme, did a huge favor for his opponents when he rendered Big Tobacco immune from future lawsuits, while at the same time doing a huge favor for Big Government when he somehow failed to stipulate how the states were to spend their shares from the settlement. With Tobacco and Government henceforth conjoined, business partners in reality, they jacked up the price of smokes, with no money whatsoever going to the actual victims of tobacco for pain and suffering, only their healthcare costs being covered, in part.

The Wall Street Journal reports that it’s “a great time to be a cigarette company again”[i] as tobacco profits soar. And it’s all because tobacco execs finally admitted they were selling a lethal product. Ah yes… the rewards of honesty. And Upton Sinclair is rolling over in his grave.

Besides the stupidity theory mentioned above, there is of course the theory that Baumann is hoping the rest of the Roundup lawsuits will be dismissed. But this would’ve been a huge gamble on his part. Witness what happened to Dow Corning, the makers of silicone breast implants, when they were wrongly accused of causing breast cancer in the 1990s and were driven into bankruptcy. Even a baseless lawsuit can ruin you. And, in any case, he would not have been able to make such a wreckless bet without full buy-in from his board of directors and his company’s and the lenders’ insurance firms.

Even if Bayer had a spare $66 billion lying around, Baumann would never have gambled it on a single deal without borrowing. The first rule of business, as Trump can attest, is to always use other people’s money. And, again, even if Bayer had not borrowed a cent, Baumann’s board and Bayer’s insurance company would have had to approve of the deal. There are just too many variables for this to have been a gamble, like convincing your neighbors to let you put their life savings next to yours on red-23 at the roulette table after the casino gave you free drinks all night. No… Baumann already knows EXACTLY how this is going to play out, as do all his partners in this crime, and he likely already has his people in negotiations with Bayer’s “regulators” on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which brings us to the rest of the explanation, the people on the government-side of that big revolving, public-private door in Washington DC. Instead of obediently parroting the claims of safety from an evil global corporation like Monsanto, federal regulators are going to do a “180,” and deem Roundup UN-safe, without banning it, exactly as they did with tobacco, just as they always do with dangerous, moneymaking substances, pretending to protect us while slowly poisoning us, all while bringing in more money than ever before with which to hire more regulators and pay for a few public-service warning adverts. A match made in hell.

This could never have occurred with Monsanto in the picture; the hypocrisy would have been too much, even for Washington. Monsanto had to be sold for this to work so that when the USDA, EPA and FDA reverse their decades-long assurances that Roundup is perfectly safe, they’ll be able to claim with a straight face that “new information has come to light which forces a reappraisal of the benefit/risk analysis associated with this product,” or something to that effect. Don’t worry, it’ll sound convincing. Bayer’s lawyers will make sure of it.

Of course Bayer will play its role as the innocent new owners of this dangerous chemical cocktail that they had nothing to do with inventing, dutifully adhering to the new thicket of red tape which their own scientists and lawyers will in fact help write, creating a new-and-improved (i.e. absurdly lengthy) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Roundup, warning of it being a possible carcinogen the exact-same way cigarettes came to be labelled, the more frightening the better, advising the use of a breathing apparatus when applying, warning to avoid contact with the skin, and warning against the use of Roundup anywhere near a school, old-folks home or pet shelter, all the while driving up the price… just like what happened with cigarettes, forcing the main users of Roundup, farmers, to pick up the tab for all the lawsuits, a cost that will then be passed on to consumers in the form of higher food prices.

Unless you know how Washingotn works, you might not begin to imagine how much this red tape will cost, and how none of it will impact Bayer’s bottom line. By way of example, it now costs anywhere between $150 and $200 million dollars to bring a new genetically modified organism (GMO) to market, something with which both Monsanto and Bayer are well-familiar. This does not include the astronomical costs of R&D, field trials, dead-ends, seed production or marketing; it’s only the cost of maneuvering the regulatory apparatus in Washington, all without a single safety test.

Contrary to popular belief, this regulatory thicket was NOT foisted upon the makers of GMO crops. Rather, it was devised with their help, and stands as the single most-effective means of keeping upstart competitors out of the GMO biz, while forcing the nation’s brightest biotechnology majors graduating from college to work only for a major GMO corporation, of which there is now one less. So it’s dead easy to see how a new regulatory framework allowing for the continued use, and overuse, of Roundup will play directly into Bayer’s hands, sweeping away all the generic manufacturers of glyphosate, effectively leaving Baumann and co. as the new, sole-proprietors of this horribly-dangerous compound that farmers can’t live without.

It will, as promised, be the greatest economic scam ever, not merely in terms of dollars and cents, but also in terms of impact on every man, woman and child currently living on the planet. In short, no one has to smoke. But as my Baba used to say, “We all have to eat!” a fact Baumann and his backers are quite literally banking on.

This article first appeared in the July/August edition of Dr. E. Michael Jones’ Culture Wars magazine. Go to culturewars.com for a subscription.

---

[i] Jennifer Maloney and Saabira Chaudhuri, “Against All Odds, the U.S. Tobacco Industry Is Rolling in Money; Profits are booming, despite government regulation, huge legal settlements and fewer smokers” WSJ.com, April 23, 2017.

1
Terminator Seeds: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Clarence Fuqua
ENG/147
3/16/2015
Mallory Dunkley
2
Terminator Seeds: Weapons of Mass Destruction
In 1939 a secret meeting was being held on Foreign Relations’ War and Peace Studies the aims and ideals of this meeting motivated the Rockefeller Population Council to create a secret task force to develop a new weapon. “Global depopulation and food control were to become US strategic policy under Kissinger. This was to be the new “solution” to the threats to US global power and to its continued access to cheap raw materials from the developing world” (Engdahl, 2007). Terminator Seeds and Frankenfoods are the new bioweapons of the 21 century; they have been linked to cancer, environmental contamination, and starvation.
The Four Horsemen of Frankenfood Production
Farmers in America and other countries are being forced to buy these weapons of mass destruction (Terminator Seeds) from four major corporations. The Four Horsemen are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow Chemical; they sell these weapons to farmers year after year at increased prices. This arrangement usually creates conditions ripe for starvation because the farmers can’t afford to buy new seeds to replant. “This is not about helping farmers make a living,”, “says Colleen Ross, an Ottawa Valley farmer and women’s president of the National Farmers Union, which actively opposes the technology”. “It’s about corporate control over seeds and ultimately over food.” (Patterson, 2006, para.31).
Frankenfoods can kill large populations of people by producing cancerous effects in people, a 2-year rat study confirms. Séralini et al. (2014) reported “biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis
3
were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher”. Furthermore, “in females, all treated groups showed a two- to- three increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier”. These experiments were carried out with the use of sweet corn.
It was also reported that in female rat studies the Pituitary Gland was the second most effected organ and the negative effects of this organ was 2 times higher compared to other organs and in males. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the functionality of your Pituitary Gland “Hormones secreted from the pituitary gland help control: growth, blood pressure, certain functions of the sex organs, thyroid glands and metabolism as well as some aspects of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, water/salt concentration and the kidneys, temperature regulation and pain relief.” As you can see this is a tool that is meant to reduce the size of the world population and if a person experiences too much pain at one time, that same pain can kill him or her, especially if she does not take any pain medicine to reduce the amount of pain that is being experienced. Let’s use child birth as an example; child birth can be a very painful experience for most women, now add GMO Corn to the equation, this corn will affect the Pituitary Gland natural ability to reduce the amount of pain a woman will experience during child birth, not only will the baby be still born but the mother will also die during child birth from experiencing to much pain.
This same corn is made by Monsanto the manufactures of weapons of mass destruction; the product is sold to farmers as DKC 2678 R-tolerant NK603 & DKC 2675 this corn product is extremely dangerous for your consumption. For example “Concerning the cultivation of the maize used in this study, no specific permits were required. This is because
4
the maize (corn) was grown (MON-00603-6 commonly named NK603) in Canada, where it is authorized for unconfined release into the environment and for use as a livestock feed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Decision Document 2002-35). The GM maize (corn) was authorized for import and consumption into the European Union (CE 258/97 regulation).”
Now think about what happens to the cattle that eat this corn and what problems this product may cause them, now think about what happens to us humans when we eat this beef that was feed GMO Corn. The GMO Protein is consumed by the livestock as well; never forget that you are what you eat. Think about all of the countless corn byproducts that are made from this deadly corn and you thought the cereal you have in your pantry and eat every morning for breakfast was healthy for you.
We are faced with a major problem where our food supply could be wiped out by Terminator Seeds and Frankenfoods; these man-made products are extremely hazardous to the environment. The Centre for Research on Globalization reports “The Ecological Impact of horizontal gene transfer and increase of rampant disease is not completely examined and if so, is kept silent by these Conglomerates. The economic effects of the bee colony collapse would mean inflation, scarcity of agricultural commodities, and ultimately the collapse of North American agriculture”. (Amos, 2011). Over 3 million honey bees vanished in one year alone and about one-third of the nation’s food supply come from flowering plants and trees, which require pollination to produce an adequate crop.
5
Conclusion
“Population reduction and genetically engineered crops were part of the same broad strategy: drastic targeted reduction of the world’s population-genocide-the systematic elimination of entire population groups was the result of a wilful policy, promulgated under the name of “solving the world hunger problem” (Engdahl, 2007). Will you sit to the side and wait for a few rich people decide your fate or will you join the other millions of people across the globe in the fight to stop GMO production?
6
References
Patterson, K. (2006, March 12). The war over ‘suicide seeds. Calgary Herald. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/245387151?accountid=35812
G.E. Séralini, E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin and J.S. de Vendômois (2014, June). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(14), 1-17. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5
Amos, B. (2011). Death of the Bees. Genetically Modified Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950