Wednesday, October 31, 2018

The Global Warming Fraud: Moving The Goalposts - IPCC Secretly Redefines What Climate Means!

It is indeed Halloween.... And with all of the children in this part of Canada going 'trick or treating' tonight, I see that the crooked and most criminal Justin Trudeau regime in Ottawa has decided to pull a trick on the Canadian people with their "Carbon Tax" scam by still trying to make the sucker..err..Canadian taxpayers believe that they can make out like bandits with this Carbon tax swindle..... And yes, there are some Canadian suckers out there that actually believe that this impending Carbon Tax will not affect anyone!  Basically, good ol' Justin is lying his ass off and the only ones who will make out like bandits with this fleecing of Canadian taxpayers will be himself and his cronies!

Which leads me to this amazing article that I found today courtesy of another Canadian truth seeker, Penny, who of course hails from the nether region of southern Ontario and writes the excellent blog "Penny For Your Thoughts" at www.pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com.... This article is entitled: "Moving The Goalposts: IPCC Secretly Redefines What Climate Means" and comes from the Watts Up With That? website, at www.wattsupwiththat.com, and is a must read by everyone to understand that the criminals and crooks behind the IPCC are trying everything and anything now to get their fraud "Carbon tax" swindle imposed on the entire planet!  Here is that article, and I have my own thoughts and comments to follow:

Moving The Goalposts: IPCC Secretly Redefines what ‘Climate’ means

From the “watch the pea under the thimble” department, the IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data
By Dr. David Whitehouse, The GWPF
The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.
There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.
Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-exiting and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.
However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation. It is one thing to speculate what the future climate might be; but for the IPCC to define climate based on data that doesn’t yet exist and is based on expectations of what might happen in the future is fraught with danger.
This strategy places a double emphasis on the temperature of the past 15 years which was not an extrapolation of the previous 15 years, and was not predicted to happen as it did. Since around the year 2000, nature has taught us a lesson the IPCC has still not learned.
With this new definition of climate all data prior to 15 years ago is irrelevant as they are part of the previous climate. Let’s look at the past 15 years using Hadcrut4. The first figure shows 2003-2017.
It’s a well-known graph that shows no warming trend – except when you add the El Nino at the end, which of course is a weather event and not climate. The effect of the El Nino on the trend is significant. With it the trend for the past 15 years is about 0.15° C per decade, close to the 0.2 per decade usually quoted as the recent decadal trend. Before the El Nino event, however, the warming trend is a negligible 0.02° C per decade and statistically insignificant.

The second graph shows the 15 years before the recent El Nino, i.e. 2000-2014. The trend over this period is influenced by the start point which is a deep La Nina year. Without it the trend is 0.03 °C per decade – statistically insignificant. Note that there are minor El Ninos and La Ninas during this period but they tend to have a small net effect.
So which does one choose? The El Nino version that leads to 0.6° C warming over the 30 years centred on the present, or the non-El Nino version that suggests no significant warming? The latter of course, because the trend should be as free from contamination of short-term weather evens — in the same way as they are free from decreases caused by aerosols from volcanoes blocking out the sun and causing global cooling for a while.
The same problem can be seen in the IPCC’s 1.5C report when it analyses the decade 2006-2015 which it does extensively. In this specific decade 2015 is significantly warmer than the other years, by about 0.2°C. NOAA said, “The global temperatures in 2015 were strongly influenced by strong El Nino conditions that developed during the year.” The temperature trend including the El Nino year of 2015 is 0.2°C, that future again. Without the El Nino the trend is statistically insignificant.
To see the future temperature and climate the IPCC envisage in their report consider their Summary for Policy Makers figure 1, (click on image to enlarge.)

The IPCC’s attempt to move the goalposts is highly questionable. Non-existing data extrapolated for assumed temperature trends over the next 15 years should not be part of a formal definition of what constitutes climate.

UPDATE: From the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report, page 4, there is this footnote that defines the IPCC’s erroneous thinking. – Anthony


NTS Notes: WHY am I absolutely not in the least bit surprised by this sick and twisted effort to "redefine" what climate is?

The facts are that the planet is definitely getting cooler and will get colder for the next decade (at least) as our Sun, "Sol" enters a grand solar minimum with diminished solar radiation output.... This is of course a natural cycle and after over a decade of cold weather across this planet, Sol will naturally start to increase its solar output and this planet will get into a warming trend...

Yes, the facts are that the criminals behind the "IPCC" aka "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" have sold out to the criminal scumbags who have always wanted this fear mongering that the planet is "overheating" to take hold and force nations to be gullible enough to impose carbon taxation stupidity on their people... But as the facts are coming out crystal clear that their "30 year model" for their supposed "facts" that the planet is "overheating" is showing to be false and misleading, they are definitely "moving the goal posts" to try to keep the lies going!

Yes, people, the scam artists behind the man caused "Global Warming" hoax are now being caught up in their own lies, and now they resort to this "redefining" of Climate to cover their lies.... How much more will it take for people to realize that this is and always was a fraud?

More to come

NTS

Why American Leaders Persist In Waging Losing Wars

As a Canadian, I can take a non-partisan look at my neighbours south of here in the United States without having blinders on not having the need to do the usual "I am American, rah rah rah.." propaganda... I therefore have no qualms in putting out a lot of articles here that aim criticism at my southerly neighbors and I will continue to do so when some interesting material that I want to share with readers becomes available....

I have looked at America's actions around the world and I find it so disgusting that the US is behind the fraud war on terror and are the REAL terrorists..... It also troubles me that most Americans turn a blind eye to the insanity of their own leadership as it continues to fight wars globally (for Israel of course) and in doing so has left the nation bankrupt and TRILLIONS of dollars in unpayable "debt".....

The bigger question that everyone should be asking is WHY are America's leaders in Washington DC persisting in fighting wars globally where in most cases today they are losing?  I have already done some articles in the past about this important question, and right now I do want to share the following report that comes from the Southfront website at www.southfront.org, that is authored by retired Airforce lieutenant colonel William J Astore, that puts forward some interesting answers about that very question...Here is that article for everyone to see for themselves, and I do of course have my own thoughts and comments to follow:

WHY AMERICAN LEADERS PERSIST IN WAGING LOSING WARS


Written by William J. Astore; Originally appeared at TomDispatch
As America enters the 18th year of its war in Afghanistan and its 16th in Iraq, the war on terror continues in Yemen, Syria, and parts of Africa, including Libya, Niger, and Somalia. Meanwhile, the Trump administration threatens yet more war, this time with Iran. (And given these last years, just how do you imagine that’s likely to turn out?) Honestly, isn’t it time Americans gave a little more thought to why their leaders persist in waging losing wars across significant parts of the planet? So consider the rest of this piece my attempt to do just that.
Why American Leaders Persist in Waging Losing Wars
A flag bearer holds the American flag as American forces take part in the opening ceremony of Flintlock, anti-terrorism training in Thies, Senegal, Monday, Feb. 8, 2016. Flintlock is annual military exercises that focuses on anti-terrorism and security training by American and European security forces to country’s taking part. (AP Photo/Jane Hahn)
Let’s face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S. leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket, as General Smedley Butler claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming? And let’s add to such profits a few other all-American motivations. Start with the fact that, in some curious sense, war is in the American bloodstream. As former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges once put it, “War is a force that gives us meaning.” Historically, we Americans are a violent people who have invested much in a self-image of toughness now being displayed across the “global battlespace.” (Hence all the talk in this country not about our soldiers but about our “warriors.”) As the bumper stickers I see regularly where I live say: “God, guns, & guts made America free.” To make the world freer, why not export all three?
Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the definition of weakness. No one — certainly not Donald Trump — wants to be known as the president who “lost” Afghanistan or Iraq. As was true of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the Vietnam years, so in this century fear of electoral defeat has helped prolong the country’s hopeless wars. Generals, too, have their own fears of defeat, fears that drive them to escalate conflicts (call it the urge to surge) and even to advocate for the use of nuclear weapons, as General William Westmoreland did in 1968 during the Vietnam War.
Washington’s own deeply embedded illusions and deceptions also serve to generate and perpetuate its wars. Lauding our troops as “freedom fighters” for peace and prosperity, presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars in the name of spreading democracy and a better way of life. The trouble is: incessant war doesn’t spread democracy — though in the twenty-first century we’ve learned that it does spread terror groups — it kills it. At the same time, our leaders, military and civilian, have given us a false picture of the nature of the wars they’re fighting. They continue to present the U.S. military and its vaunted “smart” weaponry as a precision surgical instrument capable of targeting and destroying the cancer of terrorism, especially of the radical Islamic variety. Despite the hoopla about them, however, those precision instruments of war turn out to be blunt indeed, leading to the widespread killingof innocents, the massive displacement of people across America’s war zones, and floods of refugees who have, in turn, helped spark the rise of the populist right in lands otherwise still at peace.
Lurking behind the incessant warfare of this century is another belief, particularly ascendant in the Trump White House: that big militaries and expensive weaponry represent “investments” in a better future — as if the Pentagon were the Bank of America or Wall Street. Steroidal military spending continues to be sold as a key to creating jobs and maintaining America’s competitive edge, as if war were America’s primary business. (And perhaps it is!)
Those who facilitate enormous military budgets and frequent conflicts abroad still earn special praise here. Consider, for example, Senator John McCain’s rapturousfinal sendoff, including the way arms maker Lockheed Martin lauded him as an American hero supposedly tough and demanding when it came to military contractors. (And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.)
Put all of this together and what you’re likely to come up with is the American version of George Orwell’s famed formulation in his novel 1984: “war is peace.”
The War the Pentagon Knew How to Win
Twenty years ago, when I was a major on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, a major concern was the possible corroding of civil-military relations — in particular, a growing gap between the military and the civilians who were supposed to control them. I’m a clipper of newspaper articles and I saved some from that long-gone era. “Sharp divergence found in views of military and civilians,” reported the New York Times in September 1999. “Civilians, military seen growing apart,” noted the Washington Post a month later. Such pieces were picking up on trends already noted by distinguished military commentators like Thomas Ricks and Richard Kohn. In July 1997, for instance, Ricks had written an influential Atlantic article, “The Widening Gap between the Military and Society.” In 1999, Kohn gave a lecture at the Air Force Academy titled “The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today.”
A generation ago, such commentators worried that the all-volunteer military was becoming an increasingly conservative and partisan institution filled with generals and admirals contemptuous of civilians, notably then-President Bill Clinton. At the time, according to one study, 64% of military officers identified as Republicans, only 8% as Democrats and, when it came to the highest levels of command, that figure for Republicans was in the stratosphere, approaching 90%. Kohn quoted a West Point graduate as saying, “We’re in danger of developing our own in-house Soviet-style military, one in which if you’re not in ‘the party,’ you don’t get ahead.” In a similar fashion, 67% of military officers self-identified as politically conservative, only 4% as liberal.
In a 1998 article for the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, Ricks noted that “the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the military” had gone from “about 4 to 1 in 1976, which is about where I would expect a culturally conservative, hierarchical institution like the U.S. military to be, to 23 to 1 in 1996.” This “creeping politicization of the officer corps,” Ricks concluded, was creating a less professional military, one in the process of becoming “its own interest group.” That could lead, he cautioned, to an erosion of military effectiveness if officers were promoted based on their political leanings rather than their combat skills.
How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending on social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles), today’s military is arguably neither more liberal nor less partisan than it was in the Clinton years. It certainly hasn’t returned to its citizen-soldier roots via a draft. Change, if it’s come, has been on the civilian side of the divide as Americans have grown both more militarized and more partisan (without any greater urge to sign up and serve). In this century, the civil-military divide of a generation ago has been bridged by endless celebrations of that military as “the best of us” (as Vice President Mike Pence recently put it).
Such expressions, now commonplace, of boundless faith in and thankfulness for the military are undoubtedly driven in part by guilt over neither serving, nor undoubtedly even truly caring. Typically, Pence didn’t serve and neither did Donald Trump (those pesky “heel spurs”). As retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich put it in 2007: “To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve [in the all-volunteer military] proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted America’s fighting men and women to the top of the nation’s moral hierarchy. The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer — or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement — has now come to rest upon the soldier.” This elevation of “our” troops as America’s moral heroes feeds a Pentagon imperative that seeks to isolate the military from criticism and its commanders from accountability for wars gone horribly wrong.
Paradoxically, Americans have become both too detached from their military and too deferential to it. We now love to applaud that military, which, the pollsters tell us, enjoys a significantly higher degree of trust and approval from the public than the presidency, Congress, the media, the Catholic church, or the Supreme Court. What that military needs, however, in this era of endless war is not loud cheers, but tough love.
As a retired military man, I do think our troops deserve a measure of esteem. There’s a selfless ethic to the military that should seem admirable in this age of selfies and selfishness. That said, the military does not deserve the deference of the present moment, nor the constant adulation it gets in endless ceremonies at any ballpark or sporting arena. Indeed, deference and adulation, the balm of military dictatorships, should be poison to the military of a democracy.
With U.S. forces endlessly fighting ill-begotten wars, whether in Vietnam in the 1960s or in Iraq and Afghanistan four decades later, it’s easy to lose sight of where the Pentagon continues to maintain a truly winning record: right here in the U.S.A. Today, whatever’s happening on the country’s distant battlefields, the idea that ever more inflated military spending is an investment in making America great again reigns supreme — as it has, with little interruption, since the 1980s and the era of President Ronald Reagan.
The military’s purpose should be, as Richard Kohn put it long ago, “to defend society, not to define it. The latter is militarism.” With that in mind, think of the way various retired military men lined up behind Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, including a classically unhinged performance by retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (he of the “lock her up” chants) for Trump at the Republican convention and a shout-out of a speech by retired General John Allen for Clinton at the Democratic one. America’s presidential candidates, it seemed, needed to be anointed by retired generals, setting a dangerous precedent for future civil-military relations.
A Letter From My Senator
A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America’s endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as “tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service.” OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn’t exactly the purpose of my note.
My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, “conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America’s national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists.” My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey “the law of armed conflict” and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an “open-ended mandate” for perpetual war.
Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, “I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox — including defense, diplomacy, and development — to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world.” The conclusion: “robust” diplomacy must be combined with a “strong” military.
Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you’ve probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?
Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed “military action should always be a last resort.” Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe — and this from a senator who’s been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.
I know what you’re thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can’t go on record criticizing the military. (She’s already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn’t support a “strong” U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?
And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn’t that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured — to steal a phrase from another losing war — the “hearts and minds” of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.
So, while it’s true that the military establishment failed to win those “hearts and minds” in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn’t fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets, it couldn’t be more overwhelming.
If you ask — and few Americans do these days — why this country’s losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there’s no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.
In their hearts, America’s self-professed warriors know they’re right. But the wrongs they’ve committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.
A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is a TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is Bracing Views.

NTS Notes: I do agree with many of the aspects that Mr. Astore brings forward... But once again even he misses the key point that the US Pentagon is fully under the control of the Jewish elite that has commanded their American puppets for well over the last 1/2 century to fight wars for the Jews and especially Israel..

And we cannot forget the fact that the entire "war on terror" is a complete and utter fraud... There are NO real terrorists other than the ones that the US and Israel control, and the primary aim of these terrorists is of course for regime change for the imposition of American puppet governments world wide....

I do remember a few years back when I was in the United States and I was talking to a true red blooded America about its involvement in global wars over the last century... He was quick to say that America has never lost a war, and after I pointed out that America lost in Vietnam, and is losing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, he gave me the most wild eyed look imaginable and actually thought I was lying.... Even after I gave him the facts, he still was in disbelief.....Yes the propaganda that most Americans do suffer today that glorifies their military and has brainwashed them into the false belief that they never lose is definitely alive and well...

The bottom line is this... The US is on the road to ruination thanks to continuing to fight endless and unwinnable wars.... It is time for Americans to stop glorifying their military and accept the truth that the present situation is unsustainable, for it can only lead to their destruction..

More to come

NTS

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Pittsburgh Synagogue Of Satan False Flag: Updates On This False Flag, And Department Of Homeland Insecurity Did Run Active Shooter Training Exercises There Back In March!

I am sick of the constant nearly round the clock reports over the Jew spew media about this "shooting" at that Synagogue of Satan in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania from last Saturday morning.... It is so pathetic that these liars in the Jew spew media are screaming to high heaven that so many of the "chosen ones" are now dead (11 at last count apparently) while overlooking the thousands of innocent Palestinians that these same "chosen ones" have been murdering outright in Palestine and especially in the Gaza Strip...To me, this again shows how these ass clowns have such media bias that one group of people matters more than another one!

But from what I have been seeing by sifting through all of the bullshit that is being thrown out there as pure propaganda by the Jew spew media shows that everything about this shooting does not make sense and that something is terribly amiss..... I said before that I smell a rat with this one, and that this "mass shooting" may be as much bullshit as other mass shootings before it across America...

First, I do want to present the following continuously updated report that comes from a fellow truth seeker "Aangirfan" who of course writes his excellent blog over at www.aanirfan.blogspot.com.... It is a great summary of what we have so far with this apparent false flag, and I do want to share that information with my own readers here... Here is his updated article dated from yesterday, and I do have my own thoughts and comments to follow:

Monday, 29 October 2018

PITTSBURGH SYNAGOGUE 'FALSE FLAG'


After the attack, students from Yeshiva Girls High School pray outside of the Tree of Life Congregation Synagogue in Pittsburgh.

"No bodies, 
No injuries, 
No ambulances, 
No stretchers, 
No blood, 

No video of a single victim, 
No interviews with congregants or rabbis present, 
No photos of a single piece of real evidence, 
Nothing whatsoever has been presented that proves the synagogue massacre even happened."

Everything points to a synagogue massacre that DID NOT take place

  ...

There was a drill on the same day. There was 'an actor' in the synagogue.


Bowers

Robert Bowers lived, on his own, in an apartment in Pittsburgh.


Bowers' apartment.

Neighbors say he was a trucker, and, was quiet and unremarkable.

Neighbour Kerri Owens says: 'He said he was a truck driver and would be gone a lot and he was often away for days at a time. 

'We had no idea about all the guns.'

'I didn't see any signs... He seemed so normal.'

Linda Lohr, a retired paralegal, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette she was shocked, saying that although Bowers was quiet, he was also the kind of neighbor who would call to let her know if she left the garage door open.

Terry Choate, a retired government contractor, told the Post-Gazette he knew Bowers for nearly the suspect's entire life. 'I can't believe he did that. '

Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre Suspect Was the Bland Man from Apartment 1 - The New York Times



Above, we see a visit to Jerusalem by Jewish folks from Pittsburgh, aiming to help people with special needs.

Pittsburgh synagogue victims Cecil and David Rosenthal had special needs.


A Zaka team outside the Pittsburgh synagogue, after the attack.

Zaka is an Israeli organisation that gets involved in mass casualty events.

The ZAKA Commander in Pittsburgh Rabbi Elisar Adom was an active ZAKA volunteer in Israel before moving to America.

He gathered ZAKA Search and Rescue USA volunteers at the Tree of Life synagogue 'to recover bodies'.

Israeli experts on scene in wake of Pittsburgh shooting 



Above we see a 'terror' drill at the Jewish Community centre in Pittsburgh in January 2018.

"The shooter moved quickly through the building, using blanks to claim 'victims'.

"The drill was designed to allow 150 police officers, firefighters and paramedics to practice the process for an active shooter situation.

"Firefighters and paramedics assessed the injuries among the 70 volunteers who were playing victims."

Jewish groups participate in active shooter drill.


Robert Bowers.

On 27 October 2018, 'a shooting' occurred at the Tree of Life conservative synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [3][4]

The synagogue's former president Michael Eisenberg said that the Department of Homeland Security has run 'safety' drills at the synagogue.

Robert Bowers: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com



Vigil for the victims of Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, in Pittsburgh, October 27, 2018.

On 27 October 2018, the authorities reported several fatalities along with several other wounded people (including three police officers).

Bill Peduto, mayor of Pittsburgh, told reporters four people were killed at the Tree of Life synagogue. Local media reported the toll at eight.

Dr Karl Williams, chief medical examiner of Allegheny County, listed 'the victims'.

They were:
 Joyce Fienberg, 75; Richard Gottfried, 65, Rose Mallinger, 97; Jerry Rabinowitz, 66; Cecil Rosenthal, 59, and his brother David Rosenthal, 54; married couple Bernice Simon, 84, and Sylvan Simon, 86; Daniel Stein, 71; Melvin Wax, 88; and Irving Younger, 69.


Deputy Judge John Bowers QC is a trustee of the Kessler Foundation, the Jewish Chronicle's majority shareholder and a patron of Neveh Shalom

The Pittsburgh Synagogue suspect, Robert Bowers[2] a white man with a beard, was taken into custody.[4][5]

Bower's social media reportedly has right-wing, anti-Semitic, anti-Trump and white supremacist comments.

...


NTS Notes: As Aangirfan points out, we have the following:

No bodies 

No injuries 

No ambulances

No stretchers

No blood 

No video of a single victim

No interviews with congregants or rabbis present 

No photos of a single piece of real evidence

Nothing whatsoever has been presented that proves the synagogue massacre even happened
 

Does this all sound familiar?  Where have we seen this same scenario before?  Does the term "SANDY HOOK FALSE FLAG" ring a bell?

Ok, once everyone gets over the constant propaganda and "boo hoo" for the Jewish supposed "victims" of this latest false flag, maybe they can start taking a close look at this operation for what it truly is...

And another thing... Yes, apparently there were indeed "active shooting drills" conducted at this very "Tree of Life" Synagogue of Satan establishment conducted earlier this year... Here is the link to a report from the Daily Mail online news service out of the UK covering that fact here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6326037/Homeland-Security-officials-visited-Tree-Life-Congregation-Synagogue-recently-March.html

NTS Notes: Lets face facts here... This "shooting" in Pittsburgh could not have come at a better time for the Jewish pricks... With their failed and laughable "bombings" that they themselves concocted to try to sway public opinion in the US to somehow "vote Democrat" failing so miserably last week, they needed something different to sway public opinion... So voila, here we have this "active shooting" in Pennsylvania and directed against the "chosen ones" take place.. The timing is way too perfect and that is why everyone should smell a rat...

Yes, once people get over the "poor Jews" propaganda and false garnering of sympathy, they should dissect this thing for what it is.... Another ploy to sway public opinion with the usual "Jewish victim" bullshit....

And I can guarantee these "chosen ones" will not let this opportunity go to waste, and we may see over the next few days the criminal Israelis go ahead with their mass slaughter of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and use this "shooting" as their cover...... Watch and see, everyone...

More to come

NTS