🇪🇸 Since 2021, Spain has demolished more than 108‼️ dams to promote river restoration and improve the free circulation of river fauna. This effort is part of a broader initiative supported by the Spanish government and the EU Water Directive to remove obsolete barriers from rivers.
The Big question is
Are the so-called obsolete barriers truly obsolete, or is the demolition of 108 dams in Spain contributing to current catastrophic events? Could this be a strategic move to align public opinion with the climate change agenda?
What's your opinion?
#Spain
#Valencia
#ClimateCatastrophe
#Flooding
There certainly is a more free circulation of .... water. At the expense of the population....
🇪🇸 1957 there was already a big flood catastrophy in Valencia.....
The flood that changed Valencia forever.... carolineangus.com/2013/10/14/la-…
🇪🇸🇪🇺 From the EU website Dam Removal Europe we can read:
The Jucar Basin Authority (CHJ), in the east of Spain (Valencia and Albacete area), has demolished 10 dams over the past two years in the basin.
🇪🇸🧵 Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting that this was done intentionally. However, altering water barriers and flows in areas historically prone to heavy rainfall is a significant risk. The more changes you make, the greater the gamble becomes. It would have been wiser to implement these changes gradually, rather than demolishing 108! dams in just three years!
However, I also can't dismiss the possibility that this was done with the awareness that it could eventually lead to problems, potentially to further a climate agenda.
Please note that the last image is from 1957!
It looks like we had climate change back then??
🇺🇸✈️🧵 Exactly 23 years have passed since the attack on the Twin Towers took place—a truly shocking event that I remember very well. Even today, still many seem to think that a group of Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the towers.
I highly doubt that story (and that's an understatement!), and I will tell you why. I still have many unanswered questions that need satisfying answers.
1. Why were fighter jets not given clearance to take off when they could have intercepted the planes quickly?
2. How were passengers able to call family members on their mobile phones? Even today, I often can't do that shortly after takeoff.
3. How could thin aluminum wings cut through thick steel facade beams? Just look at the damage to an aircraft after a collision with a bird!
4. How is it possible that both towers, despite different heights and angles of impact/damage, collapsed in exactly the same way?
5. How could the steel structures of the towers, the first in the world to collapse due to fire alone, when architects had declared the towers resistant to even multiple aircraft impacts?
6. How is it possible that both towers fell perfectly in "controlled demolition style" without leaning to one side at any point?
7. Where did the enormous debris of 181,000,000 kg of steel and 350,000 cubic meters of concrete end up after the collapse? You would expect a huge, multi-story pile of rubble.
8. How could Flight 93 completely disappear under the grass in Shanksville without visible debris? No wings, no engines. No luggage, nothing. Just a blackened field.
9. Why did WTC 7, which was not hit and had only small fires on the lower floors, also collapse at free-fall speed seven hours later in the same "controlled demolition style"?
Interesting fact: The Salomon Brothers Building housed offices of the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service (which conducts audits, among other things). This may be relevant to the next point.
10. How could the BBC announce during a live broadcast that WTC 7 had collapsed while it was still visible in the background? The BBC later stated that they had received this information from Reuters.
11. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld reported that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion. Was the destruction of the Salomon Brothers building intended to hinder the investigation?
12. Why are there no images of the plane that hit the Pentagon? Or why are they not released? It is the most secure building in the world.
13. How could Hani Hanjour perfectly crash Flight 77 into the ground floor without traces of wreckage or damage to the grass field in front of it? And why was the hole in the facade smaller than the fuselage of the plane, and were there no impact holes where the engines should have been?
14. How did a passport belonging to one of the hijackers end up on a street near the Twin Towers? Did he quickly throw it out of the window before the impact during the flight? Or was it a fire and explosion-resistant passport that flew through the fireball during the impact and landed on the street?
15. Why did President Bush stay in the classroom of the school he was visiting for 10 minutes after hearing the news? One would assume that the security services would immediately secure the president as long as the situation was unclear. Or did they know he was safe?
Combination thread with the most interesting threads I've done on the Russia - Ukraine conflict. If you want to know all about the conflict, how exactly we came to this point, who's actually to blame and whether this conflict could have been avoided here's your starting point. ⬇️
1) Many don't know what happened before February 2022
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 ⚡ BREAKING⚡
New York Times: The Spy War, How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin.
So now they openly admit that it WASN'T an unprovoked attack!
It's a long read so I decided to pour it into a thread.
#Ukraine
#Russia
#UkraineRussiaWar
#CIA
#Truth
I will include the images in the article with the accompanying captions.
1) Nestled in a dense forest, the Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed, its command center a burned-out husk, a casualty of a Russian missile barrage early in the war.
But that is above ground.
Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders. On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone threading through Russian air defenses from a point in central Ukraine to a target in the Russian city of Rostov.
The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military.
There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the C.I.A.
“One hundred and ten percent,” Gen. Serhii Dvoretskiy, a top intelligence commander, said in an interview at the base.
Now entering the third year of a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the intelligence partnership between Washington and Kyiv is a linchpin of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. The C.I.A. and other American intelligence agencies provide intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements and help support spy networks.
But the partnership is no wartime creation, nor is Ukraine the only beneficiary.
It took root a decade ago, coming together in fits and starts under three very different U.S. presidents, pushed forward by key individuals who often took daring risks. It has transformed Ukraine, whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia, into one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.
🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 In this thread I'm going to take a look at specific events that lead up to the Russian special military operation and we're also going to look at wether this special military operation could have been avoided.
1) 🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 NATO expansion
NATO has undergone nine rounds of enlargement since its establishment in 1949, increasing its membership from 12 to 31 countries. Despite the promise the West gave in 1990 after the Russians voluntarily decided to give back the occupied GDR to Germany so Germany could reunite.
They promised not expand NATO "even one inch" to the East.
I know many argue that this promise was not written on paper and some even claim that it therefore was never agreed. However there is actual footage were German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher back in February 6, 1990 who said: "We agreed that there is no intention to expand the NATO defense area to the east. Incidentally, this applies not only with regard to the GDR, which we do not want to incorporate, but in general."
And whether it was written on paper is not relevant in my opinion. If I ask you to borrow me money and I promise to pay it back but decide not to that's not the way to treat each other. In this case especially since the Russians voluntarily and without any bloodshed returned the GDR.
To Russia this NATO expansion has always been seen as a threat. A threat because Russia knows that once a country has become a NATO member that de facto Nato decides whether there are going to be military bases or missiles, that's no longer for the member to decide. And Russia simply doesn't want missiles near it's border that could hit Moscow within 5 to 10 minutes. The reaction time for Russia would be too short. I think that's a legitimate reason for concern.
And if we image the other way around, if Russia would place missiles in Mexico on the border with the US, the US wouldn't accept it either, so why would Russia?
Just an analogy, a known and convicted pedophile wants to rent a house right beside a kindergarten.
Is it understandable that the kindergarten has "security concerns" and doesn't want that potential danger right on it's doorstep?
I think so, and the same goes for Russia's security concerns.
Many often argue that every country can decide for itself if it wants to become a member of NATO.
In some sense this of course is true. But knowing that you will be seen as the pedophile in the above example, maybe it is better to just to abandon the idea.
Conclusion: a promise is a promise and needs to be kept, or at least discussed when is decided that the promise is going to be broken and why.
If NATO had kept it's promise and had respected Russia's security concerns the special military operation would have not started.
🇷🇺🧵 Did Putin lie in his interview with Tucker Carlson?
Let's find out in this thread.
Source : Anti Spiegel (Thomas Röper) 1/
Links in this thread are links to the German source so they are in German. You can use the translate button that often is available in smartphone browsers or you can use the translated website and navigate from there.
The first reaction from Western media to Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Putin, if they report anything about the content, is that they accuse Putin of, he would lie and criticize Carlson for leaving these „ lies “ unchallenged.
3/