BBC/CNN WTC7 foreknowledge to Fluorescent Lighting - quite the journey

[PopHistorian]

<< imho they also agressively pull investment market severe resession strings. I'm not hooked on ccn / bbc commentaries but from what i grasp they speak of eastern China Tiger the way too much >>

Looks like they've been setting up China to take the fall for an economic downturn. Everything's China's fault. Surprised CNN allowed Rep. Ron Paul to say out loud on TV that every penny we spend on Iraq is borrowed and that every bit of it is borrowed from China. CNN's Lou Dobb's can't even say "China," only "communist China," and he wonders each night what we're gonna do about China's outrageous military spending and posturing. "Threat" is the word he uses.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Interesting that the comment I wrote last night was not published by the BBC. I guess I said something that was so outrageous that they just couldn't publish it.

What was it?

Well, basically, I just included a link to the SOTT piece on the BBC and used the text from the SOTT piece on CNN with a link back to SOTT.

I wasn't really saying anything much more assertive than anything that is already being said there... except that I used the P word: psychopaths.

Now, THAT is a no-no.

A similar thing occurred to me a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember what news site it was (it may have been a conservative British one), but I posted a comment to an article which described the flawed physics in the official story of the WTC collapses etc. The vast majority of the responses to the article at the time of my post were of the "absolute rubbish!" variety -- clearly people who either hadn't even read the article itself or done their own research into the matter. Any normal, open-minded person who actually read the article couldn't possibly dismiss it as "rubbish" so quickly. So evidently the administrators had published only those responses which were conducive to their cause of deceiving the public into thinking that the consensus was that most people don't think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. Anyhow, my reply was something to the effect that it is imperative for everyone to do their own research, and that so far, many intelligent, qualified engineers and physicists have shown that 9/11 was very likely to be an inside job. Needless to say, this comment was not published. I guess the "do your own research" part was far too threatening for them, as not only does it threaten the PTB, but it also undermines the mainstream news paradigm of "get all your news from us".

While all this is going on, the key distraction story that is on everybodys lips is about 'global warming'. I heard the other day an example of this mania in that Australia will ban normal lightbulbs within 3 years in order to cut greenhouse emissions )
The story is here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17233145/

Global warming is real, whether caused by entirely natural causes, entirely man-made causes (highly unlikely), or by both natural and man-made causes. Don't ever forget this reality, as it will affect us all, guaranteed. However, the reality of something does not mean it can't be used for distraction, as undoubtedly global warming has, insofar as distorted debate as to its cause has been used to distract the public over the recent months.

That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with banning the old-fashioned light-bulbs in favour of the far more economical and efficient fluorescent ones. Even if carbon dioxide levels have no effect upon global warming (which is unlikely, as there is at least a small effect), it will at least help to contribute to cleaner air and a lower energy bill for everyone. Not only that, but the fact that these bulbs last so much longer means there will be less land-fill. I see nothing sinister about this ban in and of itself, but if you do, please let me know. (The motivation behind the government doing this could be questionable, as anything a government does en masse is rarely for the exclusive benefit of the public. I just wonder what the government is also getting out of it money-wise?)

That the same Australian government has agreed to more troops in Afghanistan escapes questioning though the amount of greenhouse gases caused by said troops in the process of war likely equals what is saved from a change of lightbulbs.

This does reveal the government's hypocrisy. But we always knew how hypocritical it was and is. It does not alter the sound benefits of banning inefficient lighting, however.

 

[Anders]

I see nothing sinister about this ban in and of itself, but if you do, please let me know. (The motivation behind the government doing this could be questionable, as anything a government does en masse is rarely for the exclusive benefit of the public. I just wonder what the government is also getting out of it money-wise?)

No, in and of itself there is nothing sinister with energy efficient lightbulbs. It is only a sign that green credentials are in vogue when a ban comes from an ultra conservative government that never cared before about the environment, which then can allow them to blow their own trumpet about how much they care for the environment. The same government never signed up for the Kyoto protocol (still hasn't) and are dragging their feet about getting industry to cut emissions.

But we always knew how hypocritical it was and is. It does not alter the sound benefits of banning inefficient lighting, however.

True!

 

[Iconoclast]

I see nothing sinister about this ban in and of itself, but if you do, please let me know. (The motivation behind the government doing this could be questionable, as anything a government does en masse is rarely for the exclusive benefit of the public. I just wonder what the government is also getting out of it money-wise?)

haven't the C's said something about strobe-lighting/neon-lighting that aids the programming by the lizzies?
(AFAIK the energy-saver bulbs have a similar (the same?) flicker-frequency as neon-lights)

 

[Peam]

That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with banning the old-fashioned light-bulbs in favour of the far more economical and efficient fluorescent ones.

Just wondering if there might be another reason behind it and not just economy and environment concerns. Like more efficient mind control for instance.

951118
Q: (L) Okay. You mentioned the strobe lights. Are these strobe lights that are used to
control minds, are these something that we would or might come in contact with on a
daily basis?
A: Do you not already know? We didn't say: some strobe lights, we said: strobe lights,
i.e. all inclusive!
Q: (T) Strobe lights come in many forms and types. TV is a strobe light. Computer
screens are a strobe light. light bulbs strobe. Fluorescents strobe. Streetlights strobe.
A: Police cars, ambulances, fire trucks... How long has this been true? Have you
noticed any changes lately??!!??

 

[Petey of Lone Tree]

Fluorescent vs. Incandescent:
It costs quite a bit MORE to turn ON a fluorescent bulb, as opposed to an incandescent bulb.
But, if you're going to be out of a room that is lit with a fluorescent bulb for longer than about 20-30 minutes, then energy is saved by switching the fluorescent bulb off.

 

[anart]

We seem to have wandered away from the WTC7 foreknowledge conversation - but, to contribute to that thread disintegration, I just had to mention that I despise fluorescent lighting - always have. It actually makes my head hurt (both the old fashioned long tubes and the new little ones you can use everywhere) - so this whole idea stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned ( although I realize that statement is entirely subjective).

 

[Ruth]

Or simply put: Do the ends justify the means?:)

Yes, most certainly.... if you're a psychopath, and don't mind sacrificing peoples free-will (as well as just about everything else) in order to get what you want (the 'ends').

That's pretty much how they work. Not even a care in the world for what's 'right'.

 

[ArdVan]

We seem to have wandered away from the WTC7 foreknowledge conversation - but, to contribute to that thread disintegration, I just had to mention that I despise fluorescent lighting - always have. It actually makes my head hurt (both the old fashioned long tubes and the new little ones you can use everywhere) - so this whole idea stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned ( although I realize that statement is entirely subjective).

I can't blame you for this and in fact there is a reason for you headache. All fluorescent lights a flashing on/off 120 times per second @ 60Hz or 100 times @ 50Hz (light at every half cycle). A common bulb doesn't flash that strongly because it's a heated up glowing wire and this wire is inert to rapid changes so it will continue to glow during the time a fluorescent light goes off.

You may see this flashing sometimes with a cheap digital camera, like a web cam. A part of the picture always seems to be dark.

This problem is know since a long time. I remember having seen a TV-documentary in the 90's where people in a company also complained about the standard fluorescent lights, having headaches. So some scientist exchanged the lamps with specially designed fluorescent lamps. They found out that the sensitive people no longer had headaches and felt at ease with the new lights if the frequency was much higher at about 1-2KHz (1000-2000Hz) instead of the standard 50/60Hz.

As you can imagine this needs rectifiers to convert the 50/60Hz AC into DC who then will be converted again into AC @ 2KHz. This needs electronic devices and special designed lamps and would be really expensive. In addition you will have then new problems with unwanted electrical radiation and noise.

Edit: the newest energy saving LED lamps also flicker.

 

[Anders]

We seem to have wandered away from the WTC7 foreknowledge conversation - but, to contribute to that thread disintegration, I just had to mention that I despise fluorescent lighting - always have. It actually makes my head hurt (both the old fashioned long tubes and the new little ones you can use everywhere) - so this whole idea stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned ( although I realize that statement is entirely subjective).

I can't blame you for this and in fact there is a reason for you headache. All fluorescent lights a flashing on/off 120 times per second @ 60Hz or 100 times @ 50Hz (light at every half cycle). A common bulb doesn't flash that strongly because it's a heated up glowing wire and this wire is inert to rapid changes so it will continue to glow during the time a fluorescent light goes off.

Sorry for a quick remark still off topic. I once taught 'eyesight improvement' and during the seminar the standard thing was to show how fluorescent lightbulbs affect the body negatively. Simple muscle testing was used to show this and it never failed. When people switched to incandescent light their ability to read improved and those annoying headaches disappeared. Might be worth looking into if you are suffering from headaches and eyestrain in connection with fluorescent light.

Anders

 

[thorbiorn]

Well, first of all, create a distraction - give the conspiracy people something to chew on like 9-11 and the almost useless information that the building collapse was announced before it happened. That should spread like wildfire and keep people busy for awhile.

Meanwhile, change the PUBLIC warmongering policy by agreeing to palaver with Iran and Syria.

One reason the information is almost useless is because the power is with people for whom truth is not an important factor for taking decisions. And one reason it is not completely useless is that there may be a few people for whom it provided a help to see through the illusions that we live in, just as the information provides a sign for those who already see something.

One thought about Iran is if the war on the country did not already begin in an underhand way considering that Iran is geografically located between Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries of which are now very weakened. It will from a military point of view be so much easier to squeeze Iran like a flea between two nails. However considering that Pakistan is also next to Afghanistan and Iran, besides being a muslim country and a nuclear power, some goodwill/influence/stability has to be maintained, also so that China can not come too easily from the East. That would be uncomfortable.

thorbiorn

 

[Anders]

Global warming is real, whether caused by entirely natural causes, entirely man-made causes (highly unlikely), or by both natural and man-made causes. Don't ever forget this reality, as it will affect us all, guaranteed.

The more I read the daily news the more I am reminded of the point that has been made several times here on SOTT, namely that climate change would be a more accurate word to use, as some parts of the planet appears to be cooling while other parts are heating up. And yes, climate change will affect us all.

For more info, see this other thread: Fire and Ice: The Day After Tomorrow

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Anders, you're right. When I said that global warming is real and that it will affect us all, of course I meant global warming and its consequences, whether that be cooling in some parts, warming in most parts, or eventual cooling everywhere, etc.

Now, after reading the information about fluoresent lighting, I have become quite alarmed. I completely forgot about the C's and their comments on strobe lights, but that does seem to be a valid reason to reject fluorescent lights in and of themselves. I will have to do some research into the matter.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Now, after reading the information about fluoresent lighting, I have become quite alarmed. I completely forgot about the C's and their comments on strobe lights, but that does seem to be a valid reason to reject fluorescent lights in and of themselves. I will have to do some research into the matter.

The C's also indicated that not everyone is affected, that "Knowledge protects" in session #961214:

Q: (L) Along the lines of some of the things that I have been working on recently, I'd like to ask if there's any more information you can give to us about the hypnotic-opener- strobe effect, and what it is preventing us from seeing. Is this one of the things that keeps us from expanding into the next density, in terms of awareness?
A: Not related to that. You see, the souls that are affected by all these "cloaking" techniques are vibrating on a low level anyway. The point is to block those who are blockable.
Q: (T) We're not blockable? (L) Is there anything we can do to avoid this blocking? (T) We're not being blocked...
A: You are not blockable.
Q: (T) We are not being blocked. We're beyond the blocking.
A: If you were, would you be doing this?
Q: (T) That type of blocking technique doesn't work on us. There may be other blocking techniques, but that particular stuff doesn't work. We either see or don't see stuff, because we are either meant or not meant to see it. We don't see UFO's anymore, because we don't need to.
A: Not necessarily true.
Q: (L) OK, what is not necessarily true? Why don't we see them any more?
A: Don't does not equal won't. If a Buick does not go by, you don't see that, either! And if you are inside, doing the laundry when Mr. Jones decides to take the old Electra" for a spin, you do not see him, or his precious car, do you?
Q: (L) I don't care, I've seen enough!
A: Oh, yes, you do care!!!
Q: (L) OK, yes, I care, but I've seen enough, I believe, I believe!!!
A: It is not up to you whether you want to see them or not. If they want you to see them, you will!
Q: (T) So, if they want us to see them, we'll see them!
A: Yes, and they will, and you will!
Q: (T) They will and we will... yes, but, there's a blocking technique being used on people to lower the vibrational frequency to prevent them from seeing them, right?
A: The blocking technique is for many things.
Q: (T) So that people do not understand what's going on around them.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What else?
A: That is it, in a nutshell. See and know and think or... See, know and think that which is desired.

And Laura would be the expert to ask, but I've read that nobody can be hypnotized or put into a trance if they are consciously aware of how it can happen and what it means, and consciously refuse to be hypnotized. It's when you let your guard down, or you're not aware of this possibility at all (as many people aren't aware that they can be part of a mass hypnosis, and are), or you simply consciously go along with the process (like in hypnotherapy), then you can be hypnotized - and even then, it's different for everyone and some people are naturally easier to hypnotize than others. Please correct me if I am wrong but this is how I understand it. So if you're consciously choosing not to be "suggestible" - and I don't mean just desiring this but literally choosing, which implies knowledge of how to make that choice (because obviously nobody in the world wants to be suggestible, hypnotized, manipulated etc but most people are anyway since they don't have the knowledge/awareness that lets them choose otherwise), then strobing lights most likely won't be an issue. I have fluorescent lighting in my room, and I use a CRT monitor, have TV's in the house that I watch or walk by (never mind the sirens on the roads, fluorescent signs, etc), and I'm sure most of us are exposed to some form of strobing basically daily - it's difficult to avoid entirely. So unless certain strobing frequencies give you seizures or headaches or other physical reactions, if you stay aware and alert/conscious (aka stay awake), I don't think it will have an effect. As the C's said, it affects those who are blockable and knowledge protects.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Thanks for that clarification, SAO. Even though those who have knowledge and are aware may not be affected by strobing etc., it still looks as if the plan in countries like Australia to phase out old-style bulbs in favour of entirely fluorescent ones is still sinister, given that the vast majority of people are NOT aware. Hence, the plan will accomplish what the PTB want: a less questioning society who just goes along with whatever the government says and does. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for other countries to follow suit.