#it shouldn’t correlate w their allure | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emma-what-son · 4 years

Text

(Echee post) Emma Watson gets drunk and scales a fence naked

Posted on March 20, 2014

In her new interview for Elle Emma admitted something that correlates a tweet from a witness from in July 2011 on location filming Perks of being a Wallflower From snitchseeker.com May 2014, "Among her exploits: She dated a costar Johnny Simmons, and she broke into a swimming pool at 3 A.M. "It was at a hotel," she reports happily. "It had a gate around it. My friends turned around and basically, I was gone. And the next thing they saw was me seven feet up in the air, scaling this fence." This, apparently, is not as out of character as we might suppose. Watson says coyly: "I shouldn’t be able to get away with what I’m getting away with." Here is the tweet from July 2011 and here is a POST I originally posted it in at the time "@_MarieChristine $*MarieChristine; Saw @EmWatson get so drunk that she got naked n climbed the fence to go into the swimming pool at my friend's hotel......http://twitter.com/#!/_MarieChristine." So it was true. I'm not posting the quotes here (I'll link the posts with them below) but to generalize this is a girl that claims to be shy and doesn’t like to party and doesn’t drink to have a good time because it makes her really sleepy and she’s just so boring she says and blah, blah blah. She sucks people in with these statements are herself that makes people like her. It's not just about drinking and getting drunk but everything. Nothing about her is genuine in any shape or form. She is a fraud.

In a recent interview for Wonderland Magazine Emma admitted like she always has which has been one big lie that she's boring and doesn't like being the center of attention.

So in her Wonderland magazine Emma says she shy, socially awkward and a introverted person. For some reason I don't believe her. There are certain things about her that leads me to believe she is not shy or the least bit introverted. The first part of this question asked her straight out as she ever wanted to go off the rails and get drunk and she talked about getting a tattoo but never fully answered that question. The follow up question which is split below in two parts was, "But you’re not as puritanical as that, Emma" So let's look at some thing 1.) From wonderlandmagazine.com Feb 2014, "The truth is that I’m genuinely a shy, socially awkward, introverted person." Posing half naked

For years Emma has said she was shy. From topcelebrityheadlines.com June 2011, "I’m shy." From zimbio.com May 2011, "It's really hard to have a love story for me. I'm a famous actress. And I'm shy." From digitalspy.com October 2010, "Actually, I'm quite shy. I've never liked attention." From iheartwatson.net June 2011 “I still feel shy, but I feel more like I can accept it.” Her come hither looks which I limited for space reasons. There are many and I left out new ones from the Noah premiere. This is not a trait of shy and introverted people.

I doubt a truly shy and introverted people are going to say they'll strip to gain approval for anything. From mtv.com November 2010 (NYC Deathly Hallows) When we caught up with Watson just before she ducked into the theater, we informed her that 90 percent of our viewers had given her wardrobe choice — a specially made Calvin Klein gown — an enthusiastic thumbs-up in an MTV News online poll "Awww, really? Wow, that's such a high percentage!" she exclaimed. "Wow, I aced it, obviously. That's great." While 90 percent is definitely a high number, what might she do in order to get the full 100 percent of viewers' approval? "I don't know, take it off?" she quipped. Then there is her modeling which doesn't strike me as someone that is shy or introverted.

So shy and introverted she can tell a radio host some guy thinks she looks good naked From nudography.com 2008 'Harry Potter' film actress Emma Watson has said she would do a nude scene in a future film or stage role if the script called for it. Watson got on the topic of getting naked on BBC's Live Five radio "I think it's wonderful that Daniel is willing to be so brave for his craft. It's a big risk doing something like this while being so internationally known, but he's a true professional". When asked if she would ever bare all for her art, Watson replied, "Yes, absolutely. I would do it if the script called for it. I guess I would be a little nervous, but I've been told I look good naked, so I guess I've got little to worry about". When Shaffer asked Watson who thinks she looks good naked, she playfully said, "Now, now! I won't say. But I trust his expert opinion." Then there is her attention seeking along with her sultry poses and outfits she sometimes wears. Below is a series of photos from the Cannes for TBR. Everyone is walking up the steps arm and arm but Emma stops to grab the spotlight. Once she takes the arm of a cast mate she can't stop turning around smiling, giggling and waving. Once she gets to the top she hooting and hollering and then blows a series of kisses as her cast mates walk inside. This is not someone that is shy and introverted.

Claiming she wished she did more naughty things is yet another example of what a shy and introverted person would not say. From harrypotterfan.net Nov 2010, "I wished I’d done more naughty things. Three months ago I cut my hair and at that moment I felt I became a woman. I’m ready to start taking risks. I feel less girlish than ever." ... cough ... cough... From emma-watson.net September 2013 (GQ awards), “Given the perilousness in the journey from child star to adult, any award with ‘Woman’ in the title is frankly a relief!” <---- thought she, "I’ve never been in a terrible rush to be seen as a woman.” Then there is the choices of some of her outfits. If you're shy and introverted you're not going to show some flesh and you're certainly not going to show some flesh on TV or at a strip club. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to yourself. You'd be more than happy to dress modestly. There are just a few and I limited them for space reason as well. I left out her recent plunging neckline outfit from the Noah premiere in Madrid and many others like her famed 2009 HBP premiere wardrobe malfunction outfit.

From Elle magazine April 2011 iheartwatson.net, "Does having short hair make you dress differently? ’I think it’s made me bolder in my fashion choices. It’s allowed me to dress more sexily.’” cough ... cough... From omg.yahoo.com W magazine May 2013, “I’ve never wanted to grow up too fast: I wanted to wear a sports bra until I was 22! The allure of being sexy never really held any excitement for me. I’ve never been in a terrible rush to be seen as a woman.” Never heard of a shy and introverted person want o dress more sexually because of a haircut. Then there is her constant blowing of kisses which she does a lot of which all the classic pin ups like Marilyn Monroe ands other used to do. I guess it has nothing to do with shyness but introverted people are not going to go around blowing kisses at people or into the camera.

Then there are moments like this. Who does this? Shy and introverted? I think not. This is begging for attention and just plain weird.

Blowing kisses, posing, giving that sultry look and just enjoying all the attention is not the trait of a shy and introverted person.

Now the only thing I believe her on is the socially awkward part.

Now to the second part of that quote 2.) "At a big party, I’m like Bambie in the headlights. It’s too much stimulation for me, which is why I end up going to the bathroom! I need time outs! You’ve seen me at parties, Derek. I get anxious. I’m terrible at small talk and I have a ridiculously short attention span." I doubt this is true. She loves to be the center of attention on red carpets. She loves the attention. So why would parties be any different? At Coachella (bottom left photo) she was moshing at some points on stage.

This video shows her dancing on stage but there is another I lost of a video shooting down from the stage over Emma's head and you can see she's in plain view of the thousands in attendance. When I find it I'll post it. Shy and introverted people that can't take all the stimulation like she says would not put themselves out there amongst strangers and onlookers. If so, what kind of shy and introverted person is that? To see her drunk/leaving clubs and to read her contradicting quotes about drinking click these links below Emma doesn't like to party Emma never goes clubbing Emma can drink like sailor Emma lied about not drinking at Brown So basically like so much I covered on this blog by exposing her BS this is yet another example One more thing and it's a quote I've posted many times but she keeps on changing her tune In this new interview I started this post off with she also said From snitchseeker.com May 2014, "I was being offered roles that I didn’t feel were very complicated," she says. "Women that were a bit one-dimensional. Roles that required me to be one thing. Real women never are." So, rather than embrace mediocre work, she hid out in Providence, Rhode Island, emerging only for projects that would both stretch her muscles and challenge her public persona." But yet she said something different during her time at Brown From aceshowbiz.com November 2010 She tells U.S. magazine Parade, "I get some amazing offers to act, and sometimes it's hard to say, 'No, I'm going to stay here and do my homework.' People are like, 'What do you mean she's not available?' This college experience is really important to me, and I won't give it up." And yet it was not about roles at all two years ago. It was about her studying From nytimes.com September 2012, “Why hasn’t she done more films before now? “I think at first I didn’t because I was always either studying or filming, I didn’t have time to go off and do other films or other things to sort of show people that, Oh, she is not just Hermione, she is an actress and she can go and do these other parts and roles." So which is the truth and which is the lie? So Sam in Perks and Nicki in TBR were complicated roles that she ended up leaving two Universities for? How about her small role in MWWM that took her a little over a week to film?

#echee #echee's posts

7 notes · View notes

wikipress01 · 6 years

Text

Jim Fetzer: America Was Nuked On 9/11

According to former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer, overwhelming proof proves that the Twin Towers had been introduced down by miniature nukes on 9/11.

The use of mini or micro nuclear weapons explains lots of the unanswered questions left by the official 9/11 fee.

James (Jim) Fetzer studies: The Cambridge University Press journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, grew to become an prompt sensation by publishing goal articles on particular, well-defined topics and alluring consultants from all over the world to submit important commentaries about it, which has resulted in important advances in analysis. I recommend this new e-book about 9/11, which has 15 contributors, may serve an identical goal and thereby equally considerably advance 9/11 analysis. That gives a solution to circumvent the 9/11 Truth motion, which, just like the JFK analysis group, seems to have been massively infiltrated by the CIA.

Here are a few of the necessary causes to consider that we must undertake that suggestion. The e-book is split into 28 chapters, the place the core falls into eight sections that, in reverse order, focus upon “9/11 Limited Hangouts”, “The Myth of Nanothermite”, “The 9/11 Crash Sites”, “The Pentagon: What didn’t Happen”, “New York was Nuked on 9/11”, “What happened on 9/11”, and “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, Parts I and II, with three chapters every. It has a Preface and a Prologue in addition to an Epilogue and an Afterword with an Index. Softcover, 458 pages, 338 photographs. $20 B&W; $30 COLOR.

There are three main teams in 9/11 analysis–A&E911, which helps using nanothermite and focuses on Building 7; Judy Wood and DEWs, which promotes Directed Energy Weapons and no planes idea; and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which advances using mini or micro nukes to blow aside the Twin Towers and likewise contends that not one of the official 9/11 plane truly crashed on 9/11. The contributors clarify why A&E911 is true about Building 7 however mistaken about nanothermite and why Judy Wood and DEWs is true about no planes however mistaken about DEWs.

Because the arguments and proof introduced are particular and detailed, the e-book facilitates a degree of mental engagement that’s lacking from most discussions about 9/11. In relation to nanothermite, for instance, three chapters clarify that it’s a regulation of supplies science that, to ensure that an explosive to blow aside a cloth, it should have a detonation velocity equal to or higher than the pace of sound in that materials. The pace of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in metal, it’s 6,100 m/s; however the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite within the scientific literature is simply 895 m/s. And the three chapters within the e-book that make these factors had been initially revealed in 2011–greater than 6 years in the past!

The Latest from A&E911

That makes it apparent that those that need to defend using nanothermite within the destruction of the Twin Towers want to elucidate what else was used to carry that impact about. While it’s definitely true that one thing else might have been added to make it explosive, A&E911 has been reluctant to say what that one thing else might have been. The identical, in fact, could possibly be stated of toothpaste, which can be non-explosive however could possibly be made explosive by including an explosive to it. After all these years, it’s not unreasonable to count on that A&E911 ought to have a solution to that query. But that doesn’t appear to be the case. Here is a report concerning the state of its analysis on 9/11, which has lately appeared.

While the article presents proof that the “official narrative” of 9/11 can’t be sustained, it doesn’t advance something that has not been extensively identified with the 9/11 analysis group up to now. If you examine these propositions with my very own “20 causes the ‘official account’ of 9/11 is mistaken“, for instance, you’ll be able to see that the newest from A&E911 doesn’t considerably advance our information and understanding past what was accessible then, the place “20 causes” was initially revealed on 9/11 of 2011! Surely we must always have the ability to count on extra from a company that has such a excessive profile and tends to devour the eye of the general public and media. Just examine their respective contents:

Judy Wood and DEWs

Indeed, some may be tempted to argue that the sooner article coated extra floor that the newest from A&E911. But Judy Wood and DEWs haven’t been doing any higher. Consider, for instance, {that a} overview of her e-book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I initially revealed on 20 May 2012, was subsequently downgraded from 5-star to 3-star on the premise of analysis introduced throughout The Vancouver Hearings, which had been held in June 2012. It has been topic to assault round 7,500 occasions now. But denouncing proof of using nukes doesn’t clarify it away, the place Judy has displayed the unscientific angle of ignoring it. A scientist would as a substitute bear in mind new proof not beforehand thought of and adapt their idea appropriately by accepting hypotheses that had been beforehand rejected, rejecting hypotheses beforehand accepted, leaving others in suspense:

The level is that the specificity of the arguments introduced on this new e-book make it attainable to make advances by citing particular propositions which are specified by element with the proof supporting them, which permits those that disagree to elucidate what we’ve got mistaken and the way they know. Otherwise, we’re left within the muddle of getting to cope with distorted variations of these arguments, which don’t come to grips with the proof and leaving points hanging. That was exhibited completely in the course of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference on 31 August 2016, when Adam Ruff and Wayne Costa challenged my clarification of how we all know that this was a nuclear occasion, which had been good illustrations of the purpose that I’m making right here.

Objections raised in the course of the name

I noticed that the conversion of fabric into very tremendous mud and the vaporization of 60-80,00Zero tons of metal are indicative of using nukes in addition to the destruction of the buildings to and even under floor degree. Wayne Costa replied that parts “that shouldn’t be there” doesn’t bear in mind that a few of these parts might have been current due to naturally occurring concentrations of these parts or from different sources. That sounded persuasive however, because the e-book explains, they might not have been there within the portions found and the correlations between them had this not been a nuclear occasion. There would have been much less chance of confusion utilizing the e-book as a foundation.

Adam Ruff contended that there would have been no motive to make use of nukes as a result of every part that was accomplished might have been accomplished with nanothermite and explosives. Ruff stated that there was “a giant pile of debris”, however ignored the purpose that there was no large stack of particles within the towers’ footprints! Comparisons with Building 7 are instructive right here, as a result of expertise with managed demolitions have proven that they depart a stack of particles equal to about 12% of their unique heights. At 47 flooring, WTC-7 left simply that residue in a stack of particles 5.5 flooring excessive. But that was not true of the Twin Towers, which, had they been demolished as Ruff suggests, ought to have left particles piles 14-15 flooring excessive however didn’t:

Compare the particles from WTC-7 (left) with that from WTC-1 (proper), which ought to have been greater than twice as excessive.

Indeed, whereas it’s acceptable to explain the destruction of WTC-7 as a “controlled demolition”, it’s not acceptable to make use of the identical phrase for the Twin Towers, which had been “demolitions under control” however lacked the traits of managed demolitions. The motive for having to have used a novel approach for his or her destruction seems to have been to guard the bath, which was an unlimited dike inside which the towers had been constructed to guard them from Hudson River water. Had the bath been breached, it might have flooded beneath decrease Manhattan, essentially the most helpful actual property on this planet, together with the subway and PATH practice tunnels, which they wished in any respect price to keep away from.

The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and will be directed upward, implies that the destruction of the Twin Towers certified as using “Directed Energy Weapons”, which, in line with Judy Wood, are units that present way more vitality than standard and will be directed. Set at 100′ within the core columns, they might have had a diameter of 200′ for buildings that had been 208′ on a facet. Their use enabled the destruction of each buildings from the highest down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they had been being blown aside in each path and transformed into hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of very tremendous mud. And this seems to be the way it was accomplished because the US Geological Survey mud research substantiate.

Other arguments could possibly be made, in fact, together with that the ultimate spire of the North Tower appears to run counter to using nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the large blast had accomplished its injury. And these had been mini or micro nukes, whose use has additionally been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the realm, which embody non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, mind, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at charges far above regular, which Jeff Prager was among the many first to level out and the place current estimates have positioned the quantity affected at near 70,000.

For those that dispute characterizing A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs as “limited hangouts”, the argument is simple. We have three main issues to unravel about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Both of these organizations solely tackle the HOW and refuse to elucidate the WHO or the WHY. That is just absurd for 9/11 Truth organizations. And even their explanations of HOW look like insufficient. Only Scholars for 9/11 Truth addresses all three. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons within the DOD and the Mossad (2016) lays out the proof intimately.

But we make no claims to infallibility–and one of the best take a look at of the validity of our case is important makes an attempt to refute it, which will be achieved if we make this e-book the goal for scrutiny and criticism and thereby advance the reason for exposing 9/11 Truth. If you might have one thing to contribute, then submit it to me and I will probably be very glad to think about it for publication right here and elsewhere. When we’ve got a important mass of debate and debate, I’ll edit one other e-book to carry our information and understanding of 9/11 additional up-to-date.

Latest posts by Sean Adl-Tabatabai (see all)

wpsso_insert_js( "fb-script-header", "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.6&appId=187101705057657" ); Date

from http://www.wikipress.co.uk/conspiracies/jim-fetzer-america-was-nuked-on-9-11/

0 notes