>>6602643

"Every symbol is satanic!"

No. Evil people have subverted various organizations and symbols. Take, for example, a god of sacrifice. This would be a god recognizing the things people have given up in the pursuit of a goal. People who have suffered injuries on the job or societies where civil servants give their lives to assist others would have a special place for such a god.

Question: how would such a god view the act of taking another person and killing them in that god's name?

A sacrifice is supposed to be a loss to one's self. Sacrificial animals were supposed to be taken from your herd - they were an offering of something from you.

So, if someone took something that wasn't theirs and tried to give it to you as though it was - that would be kind of like stealing, at best.

It's always important to ask why someone reveres a symbol. Simple "this symbol good" or "this symbol bad" way of thinking is exactly the kind of mindset that was fostered to allow them to subvert in the first place.

>6602588

I see the deep state propaganda network is in full swing.

Problem: "It's habbening!"

Solution: displace expectations of habbenings. "There were no planes on 9/11, so unless we get that, Q is lying to us!"

"Chemtrails! Unless we get an end to long-lasting contrails, then the deep state is really still in control!"

Etc

Etc.

If there was a coverup regarding this crash, it would likely be that it was actually shot down, and the crash you see is rather typical of a high velocity impact with the ground.

Aircraft are very thin and made of aluminum and fiberglass - both of which are known to 'explode on impact.' There are other factors to consider. Jet engines are designed to shear away from the wings in a crash so that the engines are away from the fuel. Jet fuel has a low flash point but it will still burn in the open air. A "steep" or "nose-in" crash would defeat this, and the fuel would almost certainly burn. The tail section, having the least fuel, mass loading, and with a lot of structural material in front of it to absorb the impact is exactly what is expected to survive.

The plane put a hole in the ground. It hit pretty fuckin' hard and fast.

If I had to guess, there was a contingency in place such that if any airliner was to be shot down following a hijacking, the public would be given a story about how the passengers fought with hijackers (about the only case where one would need to down a liner) and the plane crashed. I don't think this was a "9/11" conspiracy so much as it was a general policy that was to be enacted, and it was a generally spoopy day.

As for my other example - the issue lay in high bypass engine design. These are very efficient jet engines, but the water vapor from combustion cools into ice crystals that remain in the upper atmosphere like stratus clouds. They will persist so long as that engine design dominates. There is some reason to suspect these 'artificial' clouds may have an undesired impact on weather/climate - so it wouldn't surprise me if efforts to design this out of engines crop up - but the point is that it's a phenomenon that isn't going anywhere, and I've seen the propaganda on it being pushed rather hard lately, as well.

>>6602817

Smart women may not "need" men…

Smart men don't need women, either. We have a long established culture of independence and can provide for ourselves. … And not have to worry about losing our achievements in a lawsuit or divorce court.

Wise men and women realize that their lives can be made better by each other, and choose their partner carefully. They also ensure they have a solid idea of who they are and where they want to go in life so that they do not find themselves in a situation where they need a change of partner, later.