Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to print speculation, but if true, this is too good not to announce.
Here's the report that includes tweets that Roseann Barr posted concerning Donald Trump and a sweep of child trafficking. Liz Crokin does point out that the POTUS will be meeting wth Duerte of The Philippines. A previous meeting preceded another HUGE trafficking sweep!!! I'm crossing my fingers on this one. And the allegation does coincide with what others are saying about sealed indictments, etc. It also coincides with a massive fire at Pizza Hut in VIRGINIA!!! Is that connected? I don't know! Remember that a Pizza Hut commercial featuring George Takei, ping pong, and .... and PIZZA! He also gives the delivery man his picture, money and exclaims, "Oh my!!!" Very squirrelly stuff. What makes this commercial and the selection of Takei is that Takei has come under scrutiny since a model accused him of drugging/fondling him. Takei indignantly denied the accusation, but in a radio interview with Howard Stern, he didn't rule out the idea of using persuasion to "convince" someone they really wanted it.
Here's the article:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/conservative-sitcom-star-hints-child-sex-trafficking-bombshell-trump-knows-lots-people-will-become-woke-fck-week/
Conservative Sitcom Star Hints At Child Sex Trafficking Bombshell: ‘Trump Knows…Lots of People Will Become Woke As F*ck This Week’
Here's the meeting with Duerte tweet:
https://twitter.com/LizCrokin/status/929563871211343872
As Trump heads to Philippines, remember, there was a child sex trafficking bust there after he spoke with Duterte!
Here's the story on the Pizza Hut fire that destroyed EVERYTHING:
http://m.nbc12.com/story/36820066/massive-fire-causes-serious-damage-to-businesses-overnight
Massive fire destroys several businesses overnight
Saturday, November 11th 2017
And Jack Posobiec's tweet with the Howard Stern interview of George Takei!!!
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/929478975654649856
view the rest of the comments →
carmencita ago
This is very telling, from the article: " The only sign of a food establishment is the few charred aluminum cans shining in the rubble". WHAT? Again, we have proof of metal burning? Refrigeration and metal in the pizza place were all destroyed? Pretty fish, imo. Also there was a thread about Takai a few months ago about him being interviewed on TV and saying something very controversial about pedophilia. I will try to look it up.
Are_we__sure ago
No.
You should actually try to find out the facts before you leap to your speculation. You understand a local news article is not the same as a fire investigation report, don't you?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/36820066/massive-fire-causes-serious-damage-to-businesses-overnight
If you look at the video, you see that there is a pile of metal debris on site. The shining cans were sodas in a refridgerator and chairs are also still visible.
carmencita ago
You don't have to be a scientist or or a fire investigator to see proof that everything is gone. It clearly states there are a few charred cans in the rubble. As far as finding out the facts, I stated exactly what was in the article, not some made up fabrication. "The only sign of a food establishment is the few charred aluminum cans shining in the rubble." Your way of thinking is par with that of MSM. When given a news report they make up their own facts.
Are_we__sure ago
You claimed the article was "very telling" and that it was "fishy" WITHOUT FINDING OUT ALL the facts. You immediately jumped to speculation of proof of metal burning and you based this on a single description.
If you wanted to gather all the facts, before spouting off, you could have watched the video where the very first shot of the debris is of metal framing of the building. You would also see the metal frames of the front doors still standing, metal chairs still sitting upright.
Do you not understand that your comment is based on a MSM news report?
And this all based on what? A big fire occurred at shopping center therefore it must be tied into your conspiracy somehow?
carmencita ago
It is a well known fact that in order to get rid of evidence in crimes or soon to come investigations that fires are used as an erasure of that evidence. Is this for sure always. Probably not. But being that this is a Pizza Joint and given it's location in VA. where the FARM is located I think it has a strong possibility of being exactly that. Erasure of Evidence.
Are_we__sure ago
This is exactly what I was pointing out. Based on nothing other than your own suspicious imagination and prior belief in a massive conspiracy, you are trying to jam new facts into your jerry-rigged conspiracy.
And since you have zero sense of proportionality, this somehow seems reasonable to you.
For your theory to work you basically ignore all other possibilities
What do I mean by proportonality?
Virginia is 43,000 square miles. It has 8.5 million people. And because something else is located in Virginia, there's a strong possibility this fire has to do with erasure of evidence? The news reports did not mention that this fire is suspicious.
You believe that fires are used to erase evidence. OK. Does that mean every fire is someone trying to erase evidence? Of course not. You know what else you can do to erase evidence. Clean your building. This has the benefit of being cheaper since you are not burning your stuff, less noticeable and will not bring investigators come to your site. Burning a building to the ground is sure to bring investigators to your site.
So already your theory is very far from a strong possibility.
If you want to try critically thinking, here's few questions you might want to ask.
How many fires end up being arson? 1 in 100? 1 in a thousand? Even less?
How many arson fires are set to destroy evidence? 1 in 100? 1 in a thousand? Even less?
Do you see how far we are walking away from a strong possibility? If 1 in 100 fires are arson and 1 in 100 of those arson fires are caused to destroy evidence that's 1/100th of 1 percent.
So instead of your scenario being a strong possibility, your theory wind up being incorrect in 99.99% of all fires
Let's look up the actual stats.
The National Fire Prevention association said there were 1.35 million reported fires last year There were 260,000 intentional fires of which about 50,000 structural fires.
So about 3.7% of fires were intentional structural fires.
Intentional fires that were set to destroy evidence account for about 2% of intentional fires.
I believe this gives up about 1000 structural fires intended to conceal evidence. 1000 divided by 1.35 million means that 99.99% is too high
Your scenario is wrong in 99.93% of all fires and in 98% of intentional fires.
So I don't think you have a good grasp on what a strong possiblity means.