Disclosure Imminent? Eight + Underground NWO Bases Destroyed?

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:00:41 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 10/8/2011 10:51 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Tom wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:22:08 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Tom wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 13:31:48 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Quaalude wrote:
"...in addition to the first 8, *MANY* additional bases have now
had all personnel and materials mysteriously removed. It happened
within the last week. In this case, the rooms are still there,
but they are now empty -- except for some broken pieces of
furniture."

https://www.divinecosmos.com/start-h...undergroundbas
es

Ah the website of kook central.

Keith

Why do you say that?

Its an amusing mix of ignorance and plain kookiness

Hm.

I especially liked the claim that the Vatican bank had been secretly
controlling the world since the time of Julius Caesar who of course
died in 44 BC.

The Knights Templar (created by the Vatican) were the first bankers.


Well no, there were bankers in ancient Mespotamia, the code of Hammurabi
written around 1760 BC includes laws that regulate banking.

Ancient Egypt had a well established bank system as did China.
The Chinese did introduce paper money and letters of credit
after all.

We know from the bible that Moneylenders were active in
Israel during the Christian era.

During the mediaeval period most bankers were jewish as
the catholic church banned the paying or charging of interest.
The bankers of Lombardy found a loophole in the laws on usury
and founded what is known today as merchant banking.
The Lombard name is still used by banks today.

While the Templars did indeed act as bankers during the crusades
under the authority of the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum they
did so at the behest of King Henry II of England who raised
the money, not the Vatican.

Aside from that, which is OT for the subject of this thread, I didn't
see any displays of ignorance.

You have however just given one.

..whether one agrees or not, David
Wilcock is far from being ignorant. Neither is Fulford.

Because you may disagree with them may mean kooky to you, that is your
choosing but ignorant they are not.

Do I assume correctly that you do not believe the essence of the DUMB
destruction/story?

Thats putting it mildly.

Keith


OK, buddy, where do you get off using facts to prove your point?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Don't confuse facts with opinions of history. I have an opinion, he has
another. Fact probably lies somewhere in between or could be inclusive
of points of both.

Argument is the display of possibilities. Choose which possibilities you
wish.

Ignorance is the assumption of facts without investigation.

.... and you, sir have demonstrated comprehensive ignorance (nay,
stupidity) in multiple fields -- aviation among them!

You came into this NG with your 9/11 kookbabble and were promptly shot
down after you rejected the experience and superior knowledge of others,
whose sum total experience is in the hundreds of years and still cling
to the nonsense that you extracted from the tabloids.

It is time for you to exit this NG and to return to your fantasy land of
Dungeons & Dragons.